Letter to Hong Kong
Martin Lee
13 May, 2001
The Fortune Global Forum was officially opened by President Jiang Zemin last Tuesday
and it was officially closed by former President Clinton on Thursday. It was hailed as a
total success by the government here, but was it?
Perhaps we should first ask what did we want the participants to the forum to get out of
this? Of course we wish to see as a result of the conference more and more large foreign
corporations coming to Hong Kong to invest here. So, what impression did we want them
to have on Hong Kong? A city where all dissent is suppressed as in Mainland China? Or
a city where freedom thrives? Of course the latter, everyone will say. Well, then we must
accept that free trade goes hand-in-hand with other freedoms, like the freedom of speech
and the freedom of demonstration. In other words, you cannot separate freedoms into
parts and say, "we'll give you freedom to do business here, but not the freedom to
protest."
This is particularly so when Hong Kong's economy is now based on finance and
technology -- so we require our people to have creativity and free thinking. It is precisely
for this reason that our government has always said that the success of the "one country,
two systems" policy is confirmed by the number of demonstrations staged in Hong Kong
since the hand-over.
But last week was exceptional because the Hong Kong Government was worried that
President Jiang Zemin might see the Falun Gong followers in action. So we were told by
the police that they had deployed three thousand policemen in order to deal with
whatever situation which might arise. So Hong Kong was ready even for foreign
protestors coming to Hong Kong. Of course, they never came, apart from some Falun
Gong followers from other parts of the world.
So was it necessary for the police to use any force at all on what Hong Kong people know
as the usual suspects, people like Long Hair and so on, who are not known to be violent
people? Indeed many of our citizens watched TV news in dismay as members of the
police force encroached upon the rights of not the Falun Gong followers, but the other
well-known protestors.
But the police seem to be happy with what they did and they had the support of senior
government officials. But unfortunately for them, concern was expressed openly by the
US, British and Australian consulates here because many of their citizens were denied
entry into Hong Kong - those who were known to be Falun Gong followers. And perhaps
even more unfortunately, for the Hong Kong government even the organizers appeared
not to have been too happy with the way the government had handled these matters.
So what message did we actually give to the foreign press and the foreign participants to
this forum? I'm afraid it is a pretty negative one, because I suspect that some, if not many
of them, will go back to their respective countries thinking that perhaps the Hong Kong
government had been too hyper-sensitive to dissent. And worse still, they may think
Hong Kong people enjoy freedom with Chinese characteristics.
一個高明的演說家，不單要懂得演說的技巧，還要深知說服的藝術，因為不同的人有不同的政見、觀點和思想，演說家在台上演講，無疑成為眾矢之的，其觀點未必能為所有人接受，所以演說家除了要有無比的膽色外，還要懂得如何用一套得體的言詞，去影響其聽眾。
今次要介紹的是民主黨主席李柱銘，在香港電台英文台發表的一封香港家書。從這篇演說，可看見不少古今演說家所使用的技巧，例如陳方安生曾用自問自答的方式表達其政見，李柱銘的演說也運用了這技巧︰So what message did we actually give to the foreign press and the
foreign participants to this forum? I'm afraid it is a pretty negative one.
這演說是批評特區政府，在2001年5月財富論壇舉行期間動用過分警力，制止法輪功的示威。李柱銘也採用了自問自答的技巧，表達反對警方做法的意見。
不過李柱銘的演說也有值得商榷的地方，如句子太長、及喜歡用But或So等字作句子的開頭
But last week was exceptional
because the Hong Kong Government was worried that President Jiang Zemin might
see the Falun Gong followers in action. So we were told by the police that they
had deployed three thousand policemen in order to deal with whatever situation
which might arise. So Hong Kong was ready even for foreign protestors coming to
Hong Kong. Of course, they never came, apart from some Falun Gong followers
from other parts of the world.
這段文字有其優點，李柱銘用了對比的手法表達不滿︰當局動用龐大警力，設想有很多人攪事，但結果並沒有發生。這說法相當得體，可惜用了太多 But 和 So，似乎美中不足。演說中並非不能用 But 或 So 等字作句子的開頭，但條件是句子必須非常簡短。
演講的秘訣是要用簡短、淺白的句子，加上淺白的包裝，隱藏一些博大精深的哲理和訊息。英國有一位語文大師兼小說家歐威爾（George Orwell），曾提出作文和演講有很多避忌，其中一樣是，在英語語法中可以用主動語時，千萬別用被動語，如說我吃一個麵包I eat the bread已可以，若改為The bread was
eaten by me. 文法上沒有錯，但聽起來有點突兀和刺耳。演講時更應儘量用主動語，否則聽眾可能無法接收其中的訊息。
演說中有一句句子是這樣的︰But unfortunately for them,
concern was expressed openly by the US, British and Australian consulates here
because many of their citizens were denied entry into Hong Kong. 句中用了被動語，問題不大，但如改用主動語，相信會更直接有力︰But unfortunately for them, the US, British and Australian
consulates here expressed concern because many of their citizens were denied
entry into Hong Kong.
李柱銘也是一個相當有優默感的人，就像陳方安生將「擦鞋」直譯成英語shoe-shining一樣，李柱銘亦將鄧小平「建設有中國特色的社會主義」的說話改裝，轉化成自己演說中的詞句︰And worse still, they may think Hong Kong people enjoy freedom with
Chinese characteristics. 自由with Chinese
characteristics，即帶有中國特色的自由，這樣說無疑是暗中優了鄧小平一默，也諷刺了中國政府。
這種說話的藝術在英語世界中非常普遍--含蓄地傳達出一些訊息，這正是政治家演說的技巧和風度。
沒有留言:
張貼留言