關於 global issue examples ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Taiwan Can Achieve More,
But It Takes Bilingualism
台灣可成就更高 但需要「雙語國力」

《作者從事與雙語教育相關的工作已斷斷續續30餘年。雙語已成國策，那就身體力行，開始用雙語發表意見吧。歡迎讀者對此形式提供您的意見及指教》

Among all sustaining forces, what Taiwan lacks most is the force of language. When people talk about a country’s competitiveness, most likely the main benchmarks are the military force, wealth force, technology force or even cultural force. The concept of“Force of Language”rarely came into mind. But in fact, linguistic capability is one of the key factors that can make or break a country in the long run , if not in the short.

在所有的可持續力量中，台灣最缺的就是語言的力量。當人們談論國家的競爭力時，通常主要的標竿都是軍事力量、財富力量、技術力量，甚至文化力量，而想都想不到「語言力量」這回事。但事實上，語言表達的能力，遲早也將是國家成敗的關鍵要素之一。

Examples are plenty. Take the tiny country of Singapore as a sample. Its existence and survival rests upon its capacity in applying and managing multi-lingual resources. Without that force of language, it can’t possibly thrive in a geographical setting as complex as this – with Malaysia on the north, Indonesia on the South-West, India to the West, and, particularly, the landmass of China up north. Geography is both a blessing and a curse to the country of Singapore, but its multi-linguistic capacity is a pure blessing. Without it, Singapore would still have been a trading center in that region and there is no way for it to have become one of the worldwide financial centers as today.

例子不勝枚舉，小小的新加坡就是一個樣本。它的生存，基於它運用、管理多重語言資源的氣度和能力。若缺少了這種「語言國力」，新加坡不可能在如此複雜的地理環境下茁壯 – 北有馬來西亞，西南有印度尼西亞，西有印度，尤其遠遠的北方還有中國這樣一塊大陸。地緣對新加坡這個國家既是祝福也是詛咒，但其多語能量則是百分之百的祝福。若非掌握語言國力，新加坡或許還能成為區域的貿易中心，但沒有可能變成今日的世界金融中心之一。

Hong Kong, in the past tense, also benefited tremendously from its bilingualism. By comparison, the mighty city of Shanghai in China will never replace the economic role Hong Kong used to play for China. I remember a sharp comment made by the past Premier of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. Many years ago when visiting Taiwan, he was asked this question by a reporter : “Can you foresee Shanghai replacing Hong Kong one day“? “Never!”was Lee’s reply. “Why?” Here comes the issue of the force of language, “Because I simply can’t see that the Shanghainese can speak better English than the Hong Kong people”. End of discussion.

香港在過去，也大大得利於它的雙語能力。相較之下，中國上海這個巨型城市，永遠也無法取代過去香港對中國的經濟角色。我猶記得新加坡前總理李光耀的一針見血評論。多年前在造訪台灣時，記者問他：「你能預見上海有一天取代香港嗎」？「絕不可能！」李光耀回答。「為什麼呢」？這裡就看出語言的力量了，「因為我根本看不到上海人的英文能力有超過香港人的一天」。討論就此結束。

Taiwan is good at technology as well as in many other aspects. It produces over 50% of the high-end semiconductor chips for the world’s high-end industrial and military uses, and it also designs at least 25% of the chips for world’s daily electronic devices. Which means, should Taiwan’s economic activities be disrupted by a hostile party , or even worse, should the island country fall under a hostile party’s control, as a consequence, the entire world would be affected severely, even to the point of functionally inoperative.

台灣在科技上很行，其他方面也不錯。在世界的高端工業及軍事應用中，台灣生產的高端半導體晶片佔比超過50%。在日常生活的電子設備上，台灣設計的晶片也至少佔比25%。這意味著，若台灣的經濟活動被某個敵意方擾亂，或在更糟情況下台灣這個島嶼國家落入敵意方的控制，後果將嚴重波及整個世界，甚至導致世界在功能上無法運作。

On top of that, Taiwan is ingenious in meeting unconventional demands for outlandish components. The most apparent case would be that of the birth of Tesla. When Elon Musk couldn’t get designers and factories from other parts of the world to risk making his non-heard-of components, he came to Taiwan and found willing and capable suppliers. Without the ingenuity of Taiwan’s able engineers, Tesla’s EV could have been delayed for many more years and might even have missed its first-to-market timing.

此外，台灣在非傳統、奇思妙想的零組件領域也很高明。最顯著的例子就是特斯拉的誕生。當伊隆馬斯克在世界其他地方碰壁、沒有工廠和設計師願意為他冒險製造那些聽都沒聽過的零組件的時候，他來到台灣找到了出路和供應商。沒有台灣的這份高明和工程師，特斯拉的電動車可能延誤多年，甚至失去市場首發的時機。

In the political arena, Taiwan has been firmly placed in the first tier among countries of democracy. To be fair, Taiwanese citizens still stand eager for eliminating the residual, inherited authoritarian elements in its political system; however, from a global standpoint, the mere presence of this remaining endeavor, by itself, proves that Taiwan has already passed the point of no return of an evolving democratic country.

在政治競技場，台灣已經被牢牢放在了民主國家的前列。但還是得公平地說，台灣公民還在熱切得期待把自己政治體制中那些殘留的、繼承來的威權成份加以剷除。然而從全球眼光來看，這種熱切現象的本身，就足以證明台灣作為一個民主還在演化的國家，在道路上已經沒有回頭餘地了。

In any aspect, Taiwan should have received a much higher level of acknowledgement from the international community than what it gets now. It makes people wonder why it didn’t.

無論哪個角度，台灣都應該得到比現在更高的國際認可和關注。這讓人感到奇怪，為什麼不是這樣呢？

Sure, one can blame the “Cut-Taiwan-off-the-World” program that the neighboring CCP (Chinese Communist Party) exercised. But blaming is not productive, not in everyday life nor in politics. We need self-assertive solutions much more than airing complaints.

當然，我們可以歸咎於中共的「切斷台灣的世界聯繫」招數。但是，歸咎往往是不起積極作用的，在生活中如此，在政治上也一樣。自我斷然提出解決方案，遠比時時抱怨要重要的多。

Citizens in Taiwan need to be able to speak out for Taiwan, not waiting for others to speak for it. To speak out to the world, you need languages! Presently, over 90% of the citizens on this island write and speak in just one language : the written Mandarin Character and the spoken Mandarin plus dialects.

台灣公民有必要自己為台灣發聲，而不是只等待第三方替台灣發聲。既然要自己對世界發聲，那就需要語言（國力）！當前，90%的台灣公民只會用單一的語種書寫和表達：書面的華文系方塊字，和華語加上數種方言。

This causes consequences in two-folds. On the political side, when Taiwan citizens shout in Mandarin, only people who understand Mandarin in other parts of the world can know what Taiwan is shouting for. Sadly, 96% of those who understand are under the firewall enclosure in China. Furthermore, Taiwanese messages are being censored, twisted and manipulated by the CCP in order to prevent its subjects from hearing it.

這造成了雙重後果。在政治面，當台灣公民用華語呼喊時，世界上只有聽得懂華語的人知道台灣在呼喊什麼。遺憾的是，96%聽得懂華語的人被鎖在中國的防火牆內。更糟的是，中共為了防止其控制的人民聽懂，持續不斷得堵絕、扭曲、操弄來自台灣的訊息。

On the economy side, although the top-layer of the academics, businessmen and technical elites are all quite proficient with a second language, mostly English or Japanese, the majority of the able engineers and middle managers in Taiwan cannot communicate efficiently enough to bring out their personal or organizational potentials.

在經濟面，雖然頂端的學術工作者、企業家、技術精英都有不錯的外語能力，例如英文或日文，但是大多數的能幹工程師和中層管理者，還無法有效的通過外語溝通以展示他們自身或組織的真實潛力。

It’s such an obvious yet ignored national issue : Taiwan needs bilingualism for its political sustainability and economic prosperity. A thriving bilingualism in Taiwan can be achieved by flipping its mentality towards education, or by changing its attitudes towards “outsiders” and installing a more open-minded immigration policy.

如此明顯的國家級議題卻遭到忽視：台灣的政治可持續及經濟的繁榮，非需要「雙語國力」不可。若想如火如荼的推動雙語國力，有兩條路可走，一是翻轉其對教育之心態，或改變對「外來者」的態度、建立一套更開放的移民政策。

Either way, Taiwan must implement a bold and innovative approach to this “force of language” challenge. And that approach can start today. Are you ready? Yes, I meant YOU！

不論採哪一種方式，台灣對這「語言國力」的挑戰，必須實施一種既大膽又創新的路數。今天就可以開始，你準備好了嗎？沒錯，說的就是你！

* 更多有關台灣之未來，請往 《范疇 前哨預策網》InsightFan.com
* 註冊為免費會員，瀏覽部份熱點議題電子書、觀點及預先的對策
* 註冊為追蹤會員，支持一個永遠獨立、終身不受任何政治體制管
束、推動台灣世界地位、思考人類文明未來的園地

#獨家 世界衛生組織將台灣問題相關聲明稿下架！
　
世界衛生組織(WHO)在台灣時間今(6)日凌晨以 "How the World Health Organization works with all people, everywhere" 為題發了一篇聲明稿，試圖為排除台灣參與 WHO 辯解。不過這篇聲明卻在不到 24 小時內就被 WHO 網站下架，直至晚間6時30分仍呈現「找不到網頁」（This page cannot be found），《沃草》透過世衛網站暫存紀錄，獨家為大家揭露該篇聲明內容。
　
聲明中，WHO仍稱與台灣相關的事務為「中國台灣事務」（ Taiwan, China issues），針對全球的種種批評，WHO 仍稱之為誤解（misunderstandings），並聲稱是有些人將「技術性的維護全球公共健康任務」與「決定 WHO 會員資格的權限」混淆，似乎打算以此來回應國際要求讓台灣加入 WHO 的呼聲。
　
聲明中多處重申 WHO 在 3 月 29 日公布的聲明（https://waa.tw/Qsu21N），認為 WHO 與台灣設有聯絡點、台灣專家曾參與 WHO 會議等，並表示台灣參與世界衛生大會的觀察員資格是在一次次的會員國投票中遭到否決，以及提起讓中華人民共和國取代中華民國聯合國席位的聯合國 2758 決議文，表示世界衛生大會遵循此決議及其中的一中原則。
　
似乎是為回應全球對 WHO 應對流行病能力的質疑，WHO 在聲明中表示「有些人可能認為 WHO 成員組成影響我們維護世界安全的能力，但更重要的是要了解我們的治理方式和實踐方式。」
　　　
暫存檔網址：https://waa.tw/dohkIm
聲明截圖：https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VP-KMgP4wb6Oy8jQkOjoSu-DWGS3Xqkb/view
原新聞稿網址：https://waa.tw/lFKd8M
　
（以下為世界衛生組織聲明原文）
標題：Update: How the World Health Organization works with all people, everywhere
發表時間：5 April 2020 Statement

內文：
In recent months we have seen misunderstandings in social media and the news media about how WHO manages global public health issues. In particular, there are a lot of questions about Taiwan, China issues. Some people are confusing WHO’s technical global public health mandate, with the mandate of countries to determine WHO’s membership. Countries decide this. The WHO Secretariat focuses on keeping the world safe.

WHO works to promote the health of all people, everywhere. Indeed, one of our overarching goals is Universal Health Coverage. #healthforall. We are an organization with a staff of physicians, scientists, researchers and public health experts who are committed to serving all people regardless of nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender.

This includes the people of Taiwan. We serve them through regular interactions with their experts and authorities on vital public health issues. This has been the case over many years, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is understandable that some people might think that the composition of WHO’s membership affects our ability to keep the world safe. But it is important to understand both how we are governed and how we operate in practice.

WHO is part of the United Nations, whose membership is the mandate of countries. In 1971, countries of the world participating in the United Nations General Assembly recognized the People’s Republic of China as “the only legitimate representative of China,” in effect, a one-China policy. That is contained in UNGA Resolution 2758. In 1972, the World Health Assembly decided in WHA Resolution 25.1 to follow that.

Every year, members have a chance to discuss important proposals during the World Health Assembly, where rules and policies governing WHO are decided. For example, at different times, some countries have proposed giving Taiwan’s authorities a special status – that of observing the annual World Health Assembly.

There have been 14 times over the last 22 years (1997-2006; and in 2008, 2017, 2018, 2019) when countries discussed whether a delegation from Taiwan could attend the World Health Assembly as an observer. Each time the countries decided against it by consensus – except in 1997 and 2004 when there were votes: (by 128 votes to 19 in 1997; and by 133 votes to 25 in 2004). In 2007, the issue wasn’t observer status, but membership, and countries decided against considering that by a vote of 148 to 17.

There have been occasions when it was clear that there was general support among WHO countries for Taiwan to take an observer seat at the World Health Assembly. Between 2009 and 2016, it did so under the name “Chinese Taipei.”

But having a seat at the WHA, or not having a seat at the WHA, does not affect, in any way, whether an area or population benefits from WHO expertise and guidance. WHO helps all people, everywhere.

WHO and Taiwan’s health experts interact throughout the year on vital public health and scientific issues, according to well-established arrangements.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, interactions have been stepped up, both through existing channels and new ones as well.

Here are examples of WHO-Taiwan interactions around the coronavirus pandemic:

-- There is an established International Health Regulations (IHR) Point of Contact (POC) for Taiwan. Taiwan’s POC receives IHR (2005) communications, provides IHR information updates from Taiwan directly to WHO Headquarters, and has access to the IHR Event Information Site (EIS) system. The EIS system is a password-protected database and information exchange platform supporting the IHR. It is the well-established platform for all IHR communications, back and forth, between WHO and IHR contacts.

-- Health experts from Taiwan participate in two of the key WHO networks set up in January 2020 to support WHO work in the global COVID-19 response. Three experts from Taiwan are part of the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Network: two are part of the WHO Clinical Network. Every week, they join some 60 to 80 other experts from around the globe through a WHO-hosted teleconference, working to advance our knowledge and guidance in this response.

-- Two public health experts from Taiwan participated in the Global Research and Innovation Forum organized by WHO on 11-12 February 2020. They took part, alongside other world scientists, in considering critical research questions and in finding ways to work together to advance the response.

-- Taiwan’s Field Epidemiology Training Program is a member of the Training Programs in Epidemiology and Public Health Interventions Network (also known as “TEPHINET”). WHO shares Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network alerts and requests for assistance with TEPHINET, and those messages are cascaded to the TEPHINET members.

-- WHO, through its technical lead, has directly briefed health authorities from Taiwan and has offered again.

--Taiwan’s health experts and authorities have open access to developments, guidance and other materials through the WHO’s website (www.who.int) and other digital platforms.

--They can access the www.OpenWHO.org platform, which hosts open online courses for decisionmakers and responders around the world. During the COVID-19 pandemic, OpenWHO usage has reached more than 1 million.

--WHO has a designated contact point with their office in Geneva. Through this channel, general questions are handled and when technical concerns arise, WHO technical responses are coordinated.

--WHO also interacts with Taiwan’s health authorities through the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

Importantly, the COVID-19 caseload in Taiwan is low relative to population. We continue to follow developments closely, and WHO is taking lessons learned from all areas.

Interactions with Taiwan during the response to the pandemic is not exceptional. Here are some examples of regular interactions with Taiwan’s health authorities and WHO, over many years, through well-established arrangements, and across many different global health concerns:

Over the course of 2019, Taiwan’s experts were invited to attend 9 WHO technical meetings. They attended 8 of these meetings, contributing to WHO expert processes on issues including immunization, drug-resistant TB, assistive technologies, vaccine safety and SDG targets on NCDs and Mental Health. Prior to the Covid-19 emergency, work was underway for more expert participation from Taiwan in 2020.

On influenza, Taiwan vaccine manufacturer Adimmune contributes to the WHO Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework (PIP Framework) and preparations are underway for concluding an agreement between WHO and Adimmune under the PIP Framework for pandemic influenza vaccine products;
In the fight against cancer, experts from Taiwan have contributed to key publications issued by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer;
In support of the International Health Regulations, an expert from Taiwan has been appointed to the IHR Expert Roster; and
On a range of other issues, from WHO pre-qualification practices for pharmaceutical manufacturers to malaria, there are exchanges with WHO on practical and technical issues.

It is fair to say that the contribution of Taiwan’s health experts to WHO, and their interactions with us, are well-developed and broad-based. And these interactions add value to the work of WHO and to global health.

我今天早上在香港電台英文台的《給香港的信》，向香港人警告政府和保皇黨企圖以「假新聞」作藉口而引入對互聯網內容審查！

Beware: Hong Kong government and pro-establishment politicians are drumming up against "fake news" to justify introducing Internet censorship

-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\

You may have recently seen a series of so-called government announcements in the public interest, or API, on TV, cautioning the public to be careful about the information they receive on the internet. The API tells the public to verify and fact-check before believing these information, and not to spread misinformation, or the consequences can be devastating.

The advice is reasonable. But the intention may be dubious. Why? It is because the government and especially the police force but have been one of the biggest sources of misinformation in Hong Kong, during the last six months of pro-democracy protests which followed the government’s attempt to ram through the extradition bill. Needless to say, government claims about the extradition bill must have been some of the best examples of spreading misinformation, or simply lies. Likewise, many of the recent claims made by the police about their actions in their almost daily press conferences since this summer must be also justifiably classified as misinformation.

So, it is quite clear to many that what the government is trying to do is to monopolise what is true and what is not. In recent weeks, more and more government officials and senior police officers, running out of arguments to justify their own versions as their truths, simply resort to attacking the other sides’ views as “fake news.”

Some may remember about two month ago, a letter from the police to Facebook was leaked on social media. In the letter, the Police requested the global social media company to remove a number of posts made by different users, based on the allegation that these posts were critical of the police and would potentially harm their reputation. Fortunately, the social media company did not comply with these requests.

The issue at hand is not fake news. The issue at hand is freedom of expression, disguised by the authority in the name of countering misinformation.
This week in the Legislative Council, in a written question put up by the Honourable Ted Hui, the police admitted to 621 removal requests made this year up to the end of November to local and international Internet and social media platforms, a whopping 18 times more than in 2018. The government response puts the blame on “a vast amount of fake news and baseless accusations that targeted the Police.” It is simply ludicrous for a government with the lowest approval and credibility ratings in history to say that. To many, this government which refuses to even allow an independent commission to investigate the police is itself the biggest source of fake news, and not to be trusted.

The government seems to be saying that truth must be approved by authority, and its version of facts cannot be disputed by anyone, especially those who hold a different political view.
So really, where do fake news come from? In August, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube removed over 200,000 accounts which were tied to the China government or state media, that were used purposely to smear the Hong Kong anti-extradition protests, and to spread misinformation about the protests.

Yet, it is now the Hong Kong government and pro-establishment political figures that are making noises about fake news, saying that in order to counter these so-called misinformation, legislation should be passed to ban fake news. They would point to such legislation in other countries such as Germany and France, or Singapore.

When I was in Berlin, Germany, two weeks ago, for the Internet Governance Forum, in a summit with legislators around the world, we compared notes about censorship attempts by different governments in the name of protecting the people, but in fact at the expense of curtailing freedom of expression. A German member of parliament told me in no uncertain term that, quote, misinformation is legal is Germany, end of quote. She said that freedom of expression is enshrined in the German Basic Law and not to be compromised by any other legislation. The new law was just an attempt to regulate contents that are narrowly defined such as relating to criminal defamation, hate crimes, or Holocaust denial. But, criticising the government is certainly a right that is legally protected at the highest level of their constitution. Even so, the legislations of such laws in Germany or France were still very controversial.

When I told this German legislator that pro-government politicians in Hong Kong are justifying removal of content on social media by quoting the German example, her response was — this must be an example of using misinformation to justify laws against misinformation, that is, plain censorship. Her conclusion, laws in one land cannot be copied to another, or there will be abuse.

Hong Kong, by comparison with Germany or France, does not have the democracy and the power vested in the people to protect our people’s own rights. One can reference the recent case of Singapore, where it also passed an anti-fake news law, and in recent weeks have started to enforce it against people posting messages on Facebook. When a member of the opposition party posted an opinion opposing certain government investment decisions, the Singaporean government decided that was fake news.

So beware of the government’s evolving attempts to censor the Internet and social media, by drumming up the negative side. The Big Brother wants to stifle opinions against it, because that is the rule number one of hanging on to the authority they wish to continue to dominate. We must continue to guard against Internet censorship because no one else will save us. It is our — the people’s own — free opinion vs the government’s version of the only truth — that is what it is all about. And it’s worth the fight.

-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\

https://www.rthk.hk/…/progr…/lettertohongkong/episode/612602

#RTHK #LTHK #censorship #fakenews