【法國國慶直播】👁️👁️
即使 covid-19 大為影響了人們的日常,但今年法國的國慶遊行依舊不缺席。現在可以到 TF1 或 LCI 收看直播呦!
👁️ 台灣的朋友也可以透過網路收看:
https://www.lci.fr/direct/
今年 LCI 的報導:
https://reurl.cc/0jQVXK
Le Point 的文章介紹:
https://reurl.cc/3aR87O
🎤 法國在台協會的主任 (Directeur du Bureau Français de Taipei) 今天也錄了一段祝福影片:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=518923556021764
* * * * * *
🙋♀️ 為什麼 7/14 (Le 14 juillet) 是法國國慶日 (Fête nationale)?這一天怎麼選出來的?大家知道從哪一年法國開始慶祝這一個日子的嗎?法國在這一天會做些什麼慶祝活動呢?
Chaque année depuis (???), la République fête la Nation au milieu du mois de juillet. Que célèbre-t-elle exactement ? Comment la journée a-t-elle été choisie ? Quels en sont les enjeux ?
👀 看看法國總統府愛麗舍宮的網站怎麼介紹:
https://www.elysee.fr/la-presidence/la-fete-nationale-du-14-juillet
👀 想直接讀中文介紹的朋友,也可以看看這篇文章:
https://oui-my-france.com/where-to-celebrate-the-bastille-day-14th-july/
除了歷史與現狀的介紹,還內含旅遊資訊。
* * * * * *
關於法國國慶日,網路上早就有不少影片說明和介紹,我就挑了上述介紹文章以及下方三支不同風格、由短到長(動畫、電視、教學)的解說影片來分享,讓想認識、想複習,或是單純想聽法文的朋友來看看囉。
1. C'est quoi le 14 juillet ? - 1 jour, 1 question (EP. 640)
https://youtu.be/5pBg81472XQ
2. L’histoire de la fête Nationale et le défilé du 14 juillet en France
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDOligI_Nic
3. LE 14 JUILLET EN FRANCE | C’est la fête nationale !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIB6b2JbroI
* * * * * *
✍️ 文章同步發於 Medium:
https://irislai-39954.medium.com/le-14-juillet-7-14-%E6%B3%95%E5%9C%8B%E5%9C%8B%E6%85%B6-3dd51a29228c
#fêtenationale
#法國國慶
#plaisirdufrancais
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「direct question 中文」的推薦目錄:
- 關於direct question 中文 在 Le Plaisir du français 法語的歡愉 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於direct question 中文 在 Roger Chung 鍾一諾 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於direct question 中文 在 本土研究社 Liber Research Community Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於direct question 中文 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於direct question 中文 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於direct question 中文 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於direct question 中文 在 direct question中文的評價和優惠,YOUTUBE和商品老實說的 ... 的評價
- 關於direct question 中文 在 英文基礎文法54 - 間接問句(English Basic Grammar - YouTube 的評價
- 關於direct question 中文 在 Direct support form doesn't accept our App ID - 開發人員社群 ... 的評價
direct question 中文 在 Roger Chung 鍾一諾 Facebook 的最讚貼文
今早為Asian Medical Students Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK)的新一屆執行委員會就職典禮作致詞分享嘉賓,題目為「疫情中的健康不公平」。
感謝他們的熱情款待以及為整段致詞拍了影片。以下我附上致詞的英文原稿:
It's been my honor to be invited to give the closing remarks for the Inauguration Ceremony for the incoming executive committee of the Asian Medical Students' Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK) this morning. A video has been taken for the remarks I made regarding health inequalities during the COVID-19 pandemic (big thanks to the student who withstood the soreness of her arm for holding the camera up for 15 minutes straight), and here's the transcript of the main body of the speech that goes with this video:
//The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, continues to be rampant around the world since early 2020, resulting in more than 55 million cases and 1.3 million deaths worldwide as of today. (So no! It’s not a hoax for those conspiracy theorists out there!) A higher rate of incidence and deaths, as well as worse health-related quality of life have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, including people of lower socioeconomic position, older persons, migrants, ethnic minority and communities of color, etc. While epidemiologists and scientists around the world are dedicated in gathering scientific evidence on the specific causes and determinants of the health inequalities observed in different countries and regions, we can apply the Social Determinants of Health Conceptual Framework developed by the World Health Organization team led by the eminent Prof Sir Michael Marmot, world’s leading social epidemiologist, to understand and delineate these social determinants of health inequalities related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to this framework, social determinants of health can be largely categorized into two types – 1) the lower stream, intermediary determinants, and 2) the upper stream, structural and macro-environmental determinants. For the COVID-19 pandemic, we realized that the lower stream factors may include material circumstances, such as people’s living and working conditions. For instance, the nature of the occupations of these people of lower socioeconomic position tends to require them to travel outside to work, i.e., they cannot work from home, which is a luxury for people who can afford to do it. This lack of choice in the location of occupation may expose them to greater risk of infection through more transportation and interactions with strangers. We have also seen infection clusters among crowded places like elderly homes, public housing estates, and boarding houses for foreign domestic helpers. Moreover, these socially disadvantaged people tend to have lower financial and social capital – it can be observed that they were more likely to be deprived of personal protective equipment like face masks and hand sanitizers, especially during the earlier days of the pandemic. On the other hand, the upper stream, structural determinants of health may include policies related to public health, education, macroeconomics, social protection and welfare, as well as our governance… and last, but not least, our culture and values. If the socioeconomic and political contexts are not favorable to the socially disadvantaged, their health and well-being will be disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Therefore, if we, as a society, espouse to address and reduce the problem of health inequalities, social determinants of health cannot be overlooked in devising and designing any public health-related strategies, measures and policies.
Although a higher rate of incidence and deaths have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, especially in countries with severe COVID-19 outbreaks, this phenomenon seems to be less discussed and less covered by media in Hong Kong, where the disease incidence is relatively low when compared with other countries around the world. Before the resurgence of local cases in early July, local spread of COVID-19 was sporadic and most cases were imported. In the earlier days of the pandemic, most cases were primarily imported by travelers and return-students studying overseas, leading to a minor surge between mid-March and mid-April of 874 new cases. Most of these cases during Spring were people who could afford to travel and study abroad, and thus tended to be more well-off. Therefore, some would say the expected social gradient in health impact did not seem to exist in Hong Kong, but may I remind you that, it is only the case when we focus on COVID-19-specific incidence and mortality alone. But can we really deduce from this that COVID-19-related health inequality does not exist in Hong Kong? According to the Social Determinants of Health Framework mentioned earlier, the obvious answer is “No, of course not.” And here’s why…
In addition to the direct disease burden, the COVID-19 outbreak and its associated containment measures (such as economic lockdown, mandatory social distancing, and change of work arrangements) could have unequal wider socioeconomic impacts on the general population, especially in regions with pervasive existing social inequalities. Given the limited resources and capacity of the socioeconomically disadvantaged to respond to emergency and adverse events, their general health and well-being are likely to be unduly and inordinately affected by the abrupt changes in their daily economic and social conditions, like job loss and insecurity, brought about by the COVID-19 outbreak and the corresponding containment and mitigation measures of which the main purpose was supposedly disease prevention and health protection at the first place. As such, focusing only on COVID-19 incidence or mortality as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities may leave out important aspects of life that contributes significantly to people’s health. Recently, my research team and I collaborated with Sir Michael Marmot in a Hong Kong study, and found that the poor people in Hong Kong fared worse in every aspects of life than their richer counterparts in terms of economic activity, personal protective equipment, personal hygiene practice, as well as well-being and health after the COVID-19 outbreak. We also found that part of the observed health inequality can be attributed to the pandemic and its related containment measures via people’s concerns over their own and their families’ livelihood and economic activity. In other words, health inequalities were contributed by the pandemic even in a city where incidence is relatively low through other social determinants of health that directly concerned the livelihood and economic activity of the people. So in this study, we confirmed that focusing only on the incident and death cases as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities is like a story half-told, and would severely truncate and distort the reality.
Truth be told, health inequality does not only appear after the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19, it is a pre-existing condition in countries and regions around the world, including Hong Kong. My research over the years have consistently shown that people in lower socioeconomic position tend to have worse physical and mental health status. Nevertheless, precisely because health inequality is nothing new, there are always voices in our society trying to dismiss the problem, arguing that it is only natural to have wealth inequality in any capitalistic society. However, in reckoning with health inequalities, we need to go beyond just figuring out the disparities or differences in health status between the poor and the rich, and we need to raise an ethically relevant question: are these inequalities, disparities and differences remediable? Can they be fixed? Can we do something about them? If they are remediable, and we can do something about them but we haven’t, then we’d say these inequalities are ultimately unjust and unfair. In other words, a society that prides itself in pursuing justice must, and I say must, strive to address and reduce these unfair health inequalities. Borrowing the words from famed sociologist Judith Butler, “the virus alone does not discriminate,” but “social and economic inequality will make sure that it does.” With COVID-19, we learn that it is not only the individuals who are sick, but our society. And it’s time we do something about it.
Thank you very much!//
Please join me in congratulating the incoming executive committee of AMSAHK and giving them the best wishes for their future endeavor!
Roger Chung, PhD
Assistant Professor, CUHK JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, @CUHK Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 香港中文大學 - CUHK
Associate Director, CUHK Institute of Health Equity
direct question 中文 在 本土研究社 Liber Research Community Facebook 的最佳解答
想立法局有直選?Sorry, 你的民意已被塗改~
【民意塗改液:從88直選「浩鼎門」到8.31政改諮詢】
1988年2月,港英公佈《代議政制今後的發展白皮書》(《白皮書》),正式對88立法局直選宣判死刑。早前有傳媒報道,英國曾和中國在1987年尾簽訂秘密協議,推翻88直選,以求換取中方同意將直選寫入《基本法》。隨著文件逐漸解封,更多關於88直選夭折一事的細節逐漸曝光,當中原來還包括中方直接修改《白皮書》內容,英方甚至默許中方「建議」篡改公眾諮詢結果,以合理化否決88直選,猶如30年後上演的「浩鼎門」事件:瞞著香港人,將文件交給不應交給的人,越俎代庖,直接修改。
香港立法局在1985年首度引入間選議席,及後港英政府在1987年發表《一九八七年代議政制發展檢討綠皮書》,諮詢市民對於1988年引入直選議席,取代間選議席的意見,目的為探索如何在香港進一步發展民主(the views of the community on whether the system of representative government should be further developed in 1988)。然而,1988年2月公布的《白皮書》以「實行時間上有歧見」(On the question of whether a directly elected element should be introduced in 1988 opinion was, however, sharply divided) 為由,拒絕在當年9月的第二屆立法局選舉中加入直選議席。結果香港人在1991年才能一嚐直選的滋味,拖慢整個香港民主化進程,當時距離主權移交只剩下僅僅六年。
88直選夢告吹,英方內部深知記者必定問到「中方有否干涉」的問題。根據英國解密檔案,在公布《白皮書》前夕,英方內部準備應對傳媒的回應口徑(line to take)中,將「中國有否干涉」視為首要問題,甚至先於「為何沒有88直選」等相關質問,可見英方事實上很擔心被外界得知中方確有干涉。
策略上,英方將與中方關於香港政制改革的互動定性為「恆常交流」,包括強調「中英雙方常就共同關心事務定期交流」、「中方一直被知會(kept informed)香港人有關綠皮書相關事宜的意願」、「禮節上,在白皮書公布前數日,會將預印本交給中方(as a matter of courtesy, advance copies handed over a few days before publication in Hong Kong)」等。表面看來,英方似乎只會「知會」中方,中方沒有參與整個決策過程。
表面上知會 實質上干涉
然而翻看解密檔案,英方與中方的「交流」遠遠大於「禮節性」。首先,英方內部相關重視中方意見,甚至早在《白皮書》公布前一個月,英方駐華大使伊文思已經將《白皮書》草稿最關鍵兩章的預印稿(advance copy)--「直接選舉立法局議員的問題」(Direct Elections to the Legislative Council) 和「今後的發展」(The way forward),轉交給時任中英聯絡小組中方首席代表柯在鑠,好讓中方高層可以就此「給予意見」。
事實上,英方交給中方的並非所謂「預印本」,時間亦不是對外宣稱的「公布前數日」,事實上港督衛奕信採取「等埋中方」態度,將其視之為需要中方事先審閱的草稿。根據英國解密檔案,港督衞奕信甚至表明,英方完成白皮書草稿文件後,須盡快提交文件給中方(as soon as possible),好讓中方有充足的時間讓回應(sufficient time to react),同時要留時間讓自己可以根據中方的意見去修改內容。
當然,為免中方花過長時間修改,衞奕信建議以《白皮書》「需要時間付印」為理由,建議要求中方在1月最後一周前回覆,換言之,英方在公布前一個月已經將草稿交給中方,而且預留近半個月讓中方「審閱」,反映衞奕信期望將中方對《白皮書》內容直接提出的意見,納入最終稿內。
眼見對家如此「鬆章」,中方自然喜出望外。伊文思在1988年1月15日向中方轉交《白皮書》草稿文件後的一星期(1月22日),柯在鑠便與伊文思在電話中表示,中國外交部及「其他有關當局」(other authorities concerned)感謝英方「善意」(gratitude)。重要的是,我們在檔案中看到中方的角色不是單純英方所宣稱的「被知會」,而是有實質角色,參與修改英方的「草稿」,當中柯在鑠強調中方看到有兩個「技術位」(”Technical points”,原文加引號),「希望英方參詳」(for the British side's consideration)。
英方對於中方投桃報李亦深感大悅,甚至直言中方比預期中更加「合作及實際」(helpful and realistic),認為這反映中方相當滿意英方處理有關白皮書的手法。英方內部亦深知一旦此舉曝光,無異是一場「政治關公災難」,故特地叮囑港英政府萬萬不可讓香港人知道中方能有此厚待(privileges):不單可以率先閱讀《白皮書》草稿,甚至可動筆修改港英政府的政策文件,篡改香港民意。
民意不似預期怎麼辦?直接塗改吧!
至於中方兩點修訂是什麼?所有修訂集中《白皮書》第三章「直接選舉立法局議員的問題」,其中一點是「政制如何過渡」相關段落的中文翻譯。相關段落提到,政制發展要有助97年政權交接,故要考慮到基本法起草委員會執行《聯合聲明》規定。中方閱畢,認為原文「將於明年公布的《基本法》諮詢稿」(the text to be published next year for consultation),應改成「《基本法》的最新擬稿」(The latest draft of the Basic Law)。這裡主要是《基本法》草案的中文翻譯問題,衞奕信認為中方所建議字眼較原稿更準確(more accurate),故決定按照中方建議修改。
不過,英方認為中方建議的第二點修訂更加實質(rather more substantial),當中涉及有關香港社會對於引入直選的意見。根據英方原稿,英方談到當時民意匯集處(Survey Office)所收集到的意見時指出,香港民意「稍稍傾向支持」在選舉團(見註一)之上引入直選成分(Slight preference for having direct elections in addition to, rather than instead of, the present system of indirect elections by an electoral college),但英方認為難以在地方選區中容許「直選」與「間選」兩套不同選舉方法並行,故建議1991年才將「10席直選取代10席間選」 (註二),變相否決在88年推行直選。
中方看畢英方原稿後,認為民意結果與已經談好的決定-即否決88直選-有所出入(inconsistency),建議英方將「民意「稍稍傾向支持」在選舉團之上引入直選成分」刪去。
然而,衞奕信認為,即使民意與最終決定有衝突,但政府有責任記錄相關觀點(recorded trend of public opinion),否則「政治上顯得不合理」(would not make political sense to fail to record views on this point),皆因衞奕信認為,英方就其他議題諮詢社會時,往往都會將主流或非主流觀點臚列出來。換言之,英方的考慮主要是「程序公義」。
不過,衞奕信雖然嘴巴說得漂亮,他最後都建議刪去「稍稍傾向支持」的字眼,改為「總的來說,提交意見人士⋯⋯支持在選舉團之上加入直選」(on balance those who commented were in favour ⋯⋯ of having direct elections in addition to, rather than instead of, indirect elections by an electoral college),以免外界認為民調結果與最後決定的差異太明顯(make the contrast less stark)。
明眼一看,兩個版本對於「香港是否接受直選制度」的陳述其實差異甚大。中方認為,在原來版本當中,支持一方稍稍多過反對,變相反映社會對於「是否保留間選」沒有太明顯取態,不能成為港英「88年不搞直選」的理由,故在新版本中,香港在中方要求、英方配合的情況下,將社會對於「保留間選」一半半的意見刪去,直接篡改民意,「被塑造」成支持保留間選制度。
「全面管治權」早已實踐
「浩鼎門」事件反映港英「前六四」時期對於中方的態度,亦令我們重新認識主宰香港前途的中英聯合聯絡小組在過渡時期的角色。「前六四」時期的中英角力往往由衞奕信等「親華派」所主導,主張與中方和諧溝通,而非對抗,結果英方透過有意無意的積極配合中方,在實質操作上形成「中英共治」的局面,並非中英聯合聯絡小組向外聲稱的「磋商,討論政權交接事宜」。恰恰由於中英雙方共謀,變相將港英政府文件交給別國政府事先審議,容讓中方在主權移交前夕已經在香港伸展其影響力,中央對香港的「全面管治權」其實早已實踐。
換個角度而言,88直選「浩鼎門」事件曝露中方一直對待民意的態度,一旦面對「民意不似預期」情況,往往要求將「唔啱心水」的民意刪去,從而營造「政府獲得社會大多數人支持」的假象。這點相信香港人經歷主權移交20年,一點也不陌生。
主權移交後兩地權力關係轉移,令人不禁擔心過去中英之間的「浩鼎門」事件日益成為「新常態」。在過去,即使是權力相對平衡的中英兩國處理香港政制問題時,英方已經會讓中方修改重要的政策文件,時至今日,一國兩制下的中港關係已貶成「中央-地方」、中環及西環分裂成「兩個權力中心」的從屬關係。
大家可以設想一下,在京官日夜高唱對港「全面管治權」、「三權合作」之際,現今的特區政府會否一如既往,直接將重要的政策文件交予西環過目和修改?2014年的政改三人組所做的公眾諮詢所收集的民意,有沒有交給中方「和諧」掉?若果香港仍然沒有檔案法,當時香港對於普選的民意如何地被處理,恐怕難以重見天日。
註一:1985年首屆立法局選舉有24席非官守議席,分別由「選舉團」及功能組別產生,各選12席,當中「選舉團」由區議會、市政局、臨時區域議局(「區域市政局」前身)的所有議員組成,互選產生12席。
註二:港英政府當年決定在1991年將12席地方選區議席,當中10席改成直選產生,另外兩席(市政局及區域市政局)設成特別組別,撥入功能組別。
參考資料:
相關檔案來自英國國家檔案館 FCO40/2396 Review of Representative Government (Courtesy to The National Archives)
https://goo.gl/qFUBkx (暫只供參加香港前途研究計劃朋友借閱)
FCO40/2397 Review of Representative Government
https://goo.gl/zNUoZj (暫只供參加香港前途研究計劃朋友借閱)
FCO40/2398 Review of Representative Government
https://goo.gl/5Qusdd (暫只供參加香港前途研究計劃朋友借閱)
代議政制今後的發展白皮書
https://goo.gl/MFu1dt
White Paper: The Development of Representative Government: The Way Forward
https://goo.gl/Vn2Tce
direct question 中文 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答
direct question 中文 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
direct question 中文 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
direct question 中文 在 Direct support form doesn't accept our App ID - 開發人員社群 ... 的推薦與評價
We are trying to submit a question via Ask a Direct Support Question, but when we try to submit, App ID shows as invalid and nothing happens. ... <看更多>
direct question 中文 在 英文基礎文法54 - 間接問句(English Basic Grammar - YouTube 的推薦與評價
英文基礎文法54 - 間接問句(English Basic Grammar - Indirect Question ) ... <看更多>