反正有人轉了這各,那我也轉各東西過來
誰在「草率」和「震驚」？
先說廢話：我不擁馬、沒研究服貿。
但是否林作者認為臺灣人都不懂英文？
最近大紅的文章：
“林孟潔：服貿協議的草率令人震驚──剛與馬總統會面的倫敦政經學院教授
Christopher Hughes談話側記”
第一段開宗明義是這樣的：
〉去年夏天我受邀至台灣的政府部門討論服貿協議，『為其草率感到相當震驚，因為許多
涉及重要且敏感的部門並沒有經過審慎的調查與評估，政府並沒有更仔細的檢視這個協議
一旦通過所帶來經濟上隱含的意義和後果。』〈
Hughes 教授的原文是這樣的：
〉I couldn’t recall the detail of the conference I attended in Taiwan last
year, but I remember that there was this big discussion about ECFA. I was
quite skeptical about ECFA. Was it necessary? Why do you even need ECFA,
really? Even if you look at KMT, the impact on GDP is relatively small, much
smaller than predictions. And there are a lot of political arguments made
about it. There are a lot political than economic I think, both sides, for
and against. For the Ma administration, they had to show some progress on the
cross-strait relations to get some support from Beijing. The arguments they
made were that we have to compete with South Korea. This is not really an
argument. If you’re competing with South Korea, it’s hopefully
high-technology. Now that is already covered by WTO.〈
在原文中，我無法找到任何可以和譯文『』中，相同的字句。譯文幾乎整段和Hughes 教
授的發言都無關。
我在全文中，也沒有找到足以形成標題的「草率」和「震驚」。
作者以別人的名字說自己的話，倒或可符合以上兩個形容詞。
本文發表在「獨立評論」上，也使我們對該刊的編輯素質有所了解。
譯文在：http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5056799&page=1
原文在：http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5056799&page=7
唉