反正有人转了这各,那我也转各东西过来
谁在“草率”和“震惊”？
先说废话：我不拥马、没研究服贸。
但是否林作者认为台湾人都不懂英文？
最近大红的文章：
“林孟洁：服贸协议的草率令人震惊──刚与马总统会面的伦敦政经学院教授
Christopher Hughes谈话侧记”
第一段开宗明义是这样的：
〉去年夏天我受邀至台湾的政府部门讨论服贸协议，‘为其草率感到相当震惊，因为许多
涉及重要且敏感的部门并没有经过审慎的调查与评估，政府并没有更仔细的检视这个协议
一旦通过所带来经济上隐含的意义和后果。’〈
Hughes 教授的原文是这样的：
〉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，我无法找到任何可以和译文‘’中，相同的字句。译文几乎整段和Hughes 教
授的发言都无关。
我在全文中，也没有找到足以形成标题的“草率”和“震惊”。
作者以别人的名字说自己的话，倒或可符合以上两个形容词。
本文发表在“独立评论”上，也使我们对该刊的编辑素质有所了解。
译文在：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