We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim | Lawrence Lessig

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

譯者: Ingrid Fan 審譯者: James Hung

Once upon a time,

很久很久以前

there was a place called Lesterland.

有個地方叫做萊斯特國(Lesterland)

Now Lesterland looks a lot like the United States.

萊斯特國跟美國很像

Like the United States, it has about 311 million people,

跟美國一樣，人口數大約有3.11億

and of that 311 million people,

而這3.11億人當中

it turns out 144,000 are called Lester.

有14.4萬人叫萊斯特(Lester)

If Matt's in the audience,

若麥特 (辛普森家庭製作人) 在現場

I just borrowed that, I'll return it in a second,

你的卡通人物借我用一下

this character from your series.

馬上就還

So 144,000 are called Lester,

那麼 14.4萬人叫萊斯特

which means about .05 percent is named Lester.

代表 0.05%的人叫萊斯特

Now, Lesters in Lesterland have this extraordinary power.

這些萊斯特在萊斯特國有非凡的力量

There are two elections every election cycle in Lesterland.

每逢選舉會有兩次投票

One is called the general election.

一個叫做大選

The other is called the Lester election.

另一個叫做萊斯特選

And in the general election, it's the citizens who get to vote,

在大選中，是由公民投票

but in the Lester election, it's the Lesters who get to vote.

但在萊斯特選是由萊斯特們投票

And here's the trick.

這其中的竅門是

In order to run in the general election,

為了在大選參選

you must do extremely well

你必須在萊斯特選

in the Lester election.

表現非常出色

You don't necessarily have to win, but you must do extremely well.

你大可不必贏 但絕對需要表現出色

Now, what can we say about democracy in Lesterland?

那麼 我們可以怎麼說萊斯特國的民主?

What we can say, number one,

我們可以說 第一

as the Supreme Court said in Citizens United,

就如同最高法院在聯合公民中所說的

that people have the ultimate influence over elected officials,

人民對當選官員有最終的影響

because, after all, there is a general election,

畢竟是有大選

but only after the Lesters have had their way

但只在萊斯特們依照自己所願

with the candidates who wish to run in the general election.

讓他們想要的候選人參選大選

And number two, obviously, this dependence upon the Lesters

第二呢 很明顯 取決於萊斯特們的選擇

is going to produce a subtle, understated,

會產生一個微妙、低調

we could say camouflaged, bending

甚至是可以說偽裝的讓步

to keep the Lesters happy.

只為滿足讓萊斯特們

Okay, so we have a democracy, no doubt,

毫無疑問的 我們確實有民主

but it's dependent upon the Lesters

但取決於萊斯特們

and dependent upon the people.

再取決於人民

It has competing dependencies,

他們有互相競爭關係

we could say conflicting dependencies,

我們也可以說是相互衝突的關係

depending upon who the Lesters are.

端看萊斯特們是誰

Okay. That's Lesterland.

這就是萊斯特國

Now there are three things I want you to see now that I've described Lesterland.

現在有三件事情我想讓你們看看關於萊斯特國

Number one, the United States is Lesterland.

第一 美國就是萊斯特國

The United States is Lesterland.

美國就是萊斯特國

The United States also looks like this, also has two elections,

美國也是如此，也有兩次投票

one we called the general election,

一個叫做大選

the second we should call the money election.

另一個我們應該叫做錢選

In the general election, it's the citizens who get to vote,

在大選中 是由人民投票

if you're over 18, in some states if you have an ID.

只要你年滿18歲，在一些州你要有身分證 (就可以投票)

In the money election, it's the funders who get to vote,

在前選中是由投資人投票

the funders who get to vote, and just like in Lesterland,

是由投資人投票，也和萊斯特國一樣

the trick is, to run in the general election,

竅門在於 要參選大選

you must do extremely well in the money election.

你必須在錢選中表現得非常出色

You don't necessarily have to win. There is Jerry Brown.

你大可不必贏 傑利布朗是個例外

But you must do extremely well.

但你必須表現得非常出色

And here's the key: There are just as few relevant funders

關鍵在這：美國的投資人數量

in USA-land as there are Lesters in Lesterland.

跟萊斯特國的萊斯特們一樣少

Now you say, really?

你可能會說 真假的?

Really .05 percent?

真的才 0.05%?

Well, here are the numbers from 2010:

這些是2010年的數據

.26 percent of America

美國 0.26%

gave 200 dollars or more to any federal candidate,

給了200美金或以上給任何一位候選人

.05 percent gave the maximum amount to any federal candidate,

0.05%給了最高上限金額給任何一位候選人

.01 percent -- the one percent of the one percent --

0.01% 也就是百分之一的百分之一

gave 10,000 dollars or more to federal candidates,

給了 1萬美金或以上給候選人

and in this election cycle, my favorite statistic

而在這輪選舉，我最愛的一個數據

is .000042 percent

是 0.000042%

— for those of you doing the numbers, you know that's 132 Americans —

那些正在計算的人，會知道132美國人

gave 60 percent of the Super PAC money spent

提供了超級政治促進會 (Super PAC) 60%的資金

in the cycle we have just seen ending.

就在剛結束的這場選舉

So I'm just a lawyer, I look at this range of numbers,

我只是個律師 我看了這些數字

and I say it's fair for me to say

我想我可以很公正地說

it's .05 percent who are our relevant funders in America.

在美國，0.05% 才是相關投資者

In this sense, the funders are our Lesters.

照這麼說，投資者就是萊斯特們

Now, what can we say about this democracy in USA-land?

那麼 我們可以怎說美國的民主?

Well, as the Supreme Court said in Citizens United,

就如同最高法院在聯合公民中所說的

we could say, of course the people have the ultimate influence

我們可以說，人民當然對當選官員

over the elected officials. We have a general election,

有最終的影響。我們有大選

but only after the funders have had their way

但只能在投資人如他們所願

with the candidates who wish to run in that general election.

讓他們希望的候選人參選大選

And number two, obviously,

第二呢 很明顯

this dependence upon the funders

取決於投資者的選擇

produces a subtle, understated, camouflaged bending

會產生一個微妙、低調、偽裝的讓步

to keep the funders happy.

來滿足投資人

Candidates for Congress and members of Congress

國會候選人和國會議員

spend between 30 and 70 percent of their time

都會花大約30%到70%的時間

raising money to get back to Congress

籌備資金好讓他們回到國會

or to get their party back into power,

或是讓他們的黨派重拾權力

and the question we need to ask is, what does it do to them,

我們需要問是 對於這些人，到底有什麼好處

these humans, as they spend their time

把時間花在

behind the telephone, calling people they've never met,

打電話給那些他素不相識的人

but calling the tiniest slice of the one percent?

而不打給屬於那百分之一的人?

As anyone would, as they do this,

就像每個人都會做的

they develop a sixth sense, a constant awareness

他們會逐漸產生種直覺跟意識針對

about how what they do might affect their ability to raise money.

他們所做的將如何影響籌集資金的能力

They become, in the words of "The X-Files,"

套X檔案的說法，他們會變成

shape-shifters, as they constantly adjust their views

變形人，因為他們會為了籌集更多資金

in light of what they know will help them to raise money,

不斷調整他們的觀點

not on issues one to 10,

不是從1到10 的問題上去調整

but on issues 11 to 1,000.

而是從11到1千

Leslie Byrne, a Democrat from Virginia,

來自維吉尼亞州的民主黨員，萊思麗柏恩

describes that when she went to Congress,

說她剛到國會的時候

she was told by a colleague, "Always lean to the green."

一位同僚對她說：「千萬要向綠色靠攏」

Then to clarify, she went on,

為了澄清一下，她接著說

"He was not an environmentalist." (Laughter)

「他不是個環保主義者」 (笑聲)

So here too we have a democracy,

那麼我們也是有民主的

a democracy dependent upon the funders

一個取決於投資者

and dependent upon the people,

和人民的民主

competing dependencies,

有著相互競爭的關係

possibly conflicting dependencies

也可能相互衝突的關係

depending upon who the funders are.

取決於投資者是誰

Okay, the United States is Lesterland, point number one.

好 美國就是萊斯特國 這是第一點

Here's point number two.

接下來 第二點

The United States is worse than Lesterland,

美國比萊斯特國更糟

worse than Lesterland because you can imagine in Lesterland

比萊斯國更糟因為你可以想像在萊斯特國

if we Lesters got a letter from the government that said,

如果萊斯特們收到一封來自政府的信寫著

"Hey, you get to pick who gets to run in the general election,"

「嘿，你們可以挑參選大選的候選人」

we would think maybe of a kind of aristocracy of Lesters.

我們或許會覺得萊斯特們是有特權階級的貴族

You know, there are Lesters from every part of social society.

你知道 有來自社會各階級的萊斯特

There are rich Lesters, poor Lesters, black Lesters, white Lesters,

有錢萊斯特、窮萊斯特、黑種萊斯特、白種萊斯特

not many women Lesters, but put that to the side for one second.

沒太多女萊斯特，但先把這撇開不談

We have Lesters from everywhere. We could think,

我們有來自各地的萊斯特。我們可以想

"What could we do to make Lesterland better?"

「我們能做什麼讓萊斯特國更好」

It's at least possible the Lesters would act for the good of Lesterland.

至少有個可能萊斯特們是為了萊斯特國的利益著想

But in our land, in this land, in USA-land,

但在我們的國家，這國家，在美國

there are certainly some sweet Lesters out there,

當然的也有些可愛的萊斯特

many of them in this room here today,

今天在場的很多都是

but the vast majority of Lesters act for the Lesters,

但是大部分的萊斯特是為了萊斯特們的利益著想

because the shifting coalitions that are comprising the .05 percent

由聯盟所組成的那0.05%

are not comprising it for the public interest.

並不是為了大眾的利益而組成的

It's for their private interest. In this sense, the USA is worse than Lesterland.

是為了他們各人的利益。也就是說，美國比萊斯特更糟

And finally, point number three:

終於來到第三點：

Whatever one wants to say about Lesterland,

無論誰想評論萊斯特國

against the background of its history, its traditions,

針對它的歷史背景或傳統

in our land, in USA-land, Lesterland is a corruption,

在我們的國家，在美國，萊斯特國是個腐敗貪污的國家

a corruption.

腐敗貪污

Now, by corruption I don't mean brown paper bag cash

但是，當我說腐敗貪汙，不是說指國會議員之間

secreted among members of Congress.

的秘密現金紙袋

I don't mean Rod Blagojevich sense of corruption.

我也不是指羅德布拉戈耶維奇的那類的腐敗貪污

I don't mean any criminal act.

我不是指任何犯罪行為

The corruption I'm talking about is perfectly legal.

我所說的腐敗貪污是完全合法

It's a corruption relative to the framers' baseline for this republic.

是針對這個共和國制定者的底線的腐敗貪污

The framers gave us what they called a republic,

制定者給我們他們所謂的共和國

but by a republic they meant a representative democracy,

但共和國他們真正指的是一個代表性民主

and by a representative democracy, they meant a government,

而代表性民主他們指的是政府

as Madison put it in Federalist 52, that would have a branch

如同麥迪遜在聯邦黨人文集52篇中提到，會有一派

that would be dependent upon the people alone.

只取決於人民

So here's the model of government.

這就是政府的模式

They have the people and the government

有人民和政府

with this exclusive dependency,

相互依賴

but the problem here is that Congress has evolved a different dependence,

但問題在於國會改變了這依賴關係

no longer a dependence upon the people alone,

不再是取決於人民

increasingly a dependence upon the funders.

逐漸提升了投資者的決定權

Now this is a dependence too,

這也是一種依賴關係

but it's different and conflicting from a dependence upon the people alone

但是跟單純取決於人民的那種依賴性不同且相衝突

so long as the funders are not the people.

因為投資者並非那些人民

This is a corruption.

這就是貪污腐敗

Now, there's good news and bad news about this corruption.

然而，貪污腐敗有好有壞兩面

One bit of good news is that it's bipartisan,

好的一部分是兩黨合作

equal-opportunity corruption.

同等機會的貪污腐敗

It blocks the left on a whole range of issues that we on the left really care about.

阻擋了左派真正關心的一系列的問題

It blocks the right too, as it makes

同時也阻擋右派 因為它讓

principled arguments of the right increasingly impossible.

右派的主要論點越來越不可能

So the right wants smaller government.

因此右派想要較小的政府

When Al Gore was Vice President, his team had an idea

艾爾高爾任職副總統的時候 他的幕僚有個想法

for deregulating a significant portion of the telecommunications industry.

對大量的電信公司解除管制

The chief policy man took this idea to Capitol Hill,

政策首長把這個想法帶到國會山莊

and as he reported back to me,

他回報給我的時候

the response was, "Hell no!

答覆是：「死都不行！

If we deregulate these guys,

如果我們對這些人解除管制

how are we going to raise money from them?"

我們怎跟他們募資？」

This is a system that's designed to save the status quo,

這是一個為了維持現狀而設計的系統

including the status quo of big and invasive government.

包含維持大且有侵略性的政府現狀

It works against the left and the right,

他可以壓制左右兩派

and that, you might say, is good news.

因此你可以說是好的一面

But here's the bad news.

但也有壞的一面

It's a pathological, democracy-destroying corruption,

這是個病態、毀滅民主的貪污腐敗

because in any system

因為在任何系統中

where the members are dependent upon

會員在競選中依賴

the tiniest fraction of us for their election,

極少部分的人

that means the tiniest number of us,

代表我們之中的極少數

the tiniest, tiniest number of us,

極少、極少數的我們

can block reform.

可以阻止改革

I know that should have been, like, a rock or something.

我知道我本來應該放顆石頭或其他東西

I can only find cheese. I'm sorry. So there it is.

但我只找到起司，不好意思 將就一下

Block reform.

阻止改革

Because there is an economy here, an economy of influence,

因為存在經濟，一個受影響的經濟

an economy with lobbyists at the center

一個以說客為中心的經濟

which feeds on polarization.

靠對立而活

It feeds on dysfunction.

靠失序而活

The worse that it is for us,

情況對我們來說越糟

the better that it is for this fundraising.

就對募資越有利

Henry David Thoreau: "There are a thousand hacking

亨利·戴維·梭羅說過：「有一千人在砍罪惡的樹枝

at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

但只有一個人在砍罪惡的根」

This is the root.

這就是根

Okay, now, every single one of you knows this.

那麼現在我們每個人都知道這問題

You couldn't be here if you didn't know this, yet you ignore it.

若你不知道你就不可能在這裡，但你視而不見

You ignore it. This is an impossible problem.

你視而不見 這是個不可能的問題

You focus on the possible problems,

你集中在可能的問題

like eradicating polio from the world,

如同從地球上根絕小兒麻痺

or taking an image of every single street across the globe,

或是拍攝世界上的每一條街

or building the first real universal translator,

或是建造第一個萬能翻譯機

or building a fusion factory in your garage.

或是在你的車庫建核融合廠

These are the manageable problems, so you ignore —

這些都是可以處理的問題，所以

(Laughter) (Applause) —

(笑聲)(掌聲)

so you ignore this corruption.

對貪污腐敗視而不見

But we cannot ignore this corruption anymore.

但我們不能繼續對貪污腐敗視而不見

(Applause)

(掌聲)

We need a government that works.

我們需要一個有在做事的政府

And not works for the left or the right,

不是為左派或右派做事的政府

but works for the left and the right,

為左派和右派做事的政府

the citizens of the left and right,

為左派和右派的公民

because there is no sensible reform possible

因為在我們終結貪污腐敗前

until we end this corruption.

不可能會有合理的改革

So I want you to take hold, to grab the issue you care the most about.

因此我希望你們抓住你們最關心的問題

Climate change is mine, but it might be financial reform

氣候變遷是我最關心的，但我也可能是經濟改革

or a simpler tax system or inequality.

或是一個簡單點的稅制或不平等問題

Grab that issue, sit it down in front of you,

抓住那個問題，和它一起坐下來

look straight in its eyes, and tell it there is no Christmas this year.

直視它雙眼，跟它說你今年不會過聖誕節

There will never be a Christmas.

永遠不會有聖誕節

We will never get your issue solved

在我們解決這問題前

until we fix this issue first.

我們永遠不會解決你的問題

So it's not that mine is the most important issue. It's not.

不是說我的問題最重要，因為真的不是

Yours is the most important issue, but mine is the first issue,

你們的問題最重要，但我的是首要問題

the issue we have to solve before we get to fix

是解決我們所關心的問題前

the issues you care about.

首先應該解決的問題

No sensible reform, and we cannot afford

不透合理的改革，我們不能承擔不起

a world, a future, with no sensible reform.

一個沒有合理改革的世界和未來

Okay. So how do we do it?

好 那我們怎麼做

Turns out, the analytics here are easy, simple.

事實證明，分析出來的很簡單明瞭

If the problem is members spending an extraordinary

如果問題是出在國會議員花超多時間

amount of time fundraising from the tiniest slice of America,

向極小部分的美國募資

the solution is to have them spend less time fundraising

解決辦法就是讓他們花少點時間募資

but fundraise from a wider slice of Americans,

但讓他們向

to spread it out,

讓他往外擴展

to spread the funder influence so that we restore the idea

讓投資者的影響力擴展好讓我們恢復

of dependence upon the people alone.

取決於人民力量

And to do this does not require a constitutional amendment,

這不需要修憲

changing the First Amendment.

或修改憲法第一修正案

To do this would require a single statute,

我們需要一個單一法令

a statute establishing what we think of

一項奠定我們對於

as small dollar funded elections,

小金額資助選舉想法的法令

a statute of citizen-funded campaigns,

一項人民資助競選的法令

and there's any number of these proposals out there:

外界已經有很多的提議：

Fair Elections Now Act,

立即公平競選法案、

the American Anti-Corruption Act,

美國反貪污法案、

an idea in my book that I call the Grant and Franklin Project

我書裡面的"格蘭特和富蘭克林計畫"

to give vouchers to people to fund elections,

提倡給人民票券讓他們資助競選

an idea of John Sarbanes called the Grassroots Democracy Act.

還有約翰薩博尼的基層民主法案

Each of these would fix this corruption

以上每個一的都可以解決貪汙

by spreading out the influence of funders to all of us.

讓投資者的影響力擴展到我們每個人身上

The analytics are easy here.

分析很簡單明瞭

It's the politics that's hard, indeed impossibly hard,

難在政治，確實很困難

because this reform would shrink K Street,

因為這樣的改革會削減華盛頓K街

and Capitol Hill, as Congressman Jim Cooper,

國會山莊，這麼說吧 國會議員吉米庫柏

a Democrat from Tennessee, put it,

田納西州民主黨員

has become a farm league for K Street, a farm league for K Street.

成為華盛頓K街的一個聯盟，一個K街聯盟

Members and staffers and bureaucrats have

會員、工作人員和官僚腦海裡有

an increasingly common business model in their head,

逐漸相同的商業模式

a business model focused on their life after government,

這商業模式專注在他們執政後的生活

their life as lobbyists.

也就是說客生活

Fifty percent of the Senate between 1998 and 2004

1998年到2004年之間，參議院有50%的人

left to become lobbyists, 42 percent of the House.

出走當說客，白宮的42%

Those numbers have only gone up,

這些數字持續上升

and as United Republic calculated last April,

去年4月聯合共和國(United Republic)計算

the average increase in salary for those who they tracked

他們有在追蹤的人，薪水平均增幅了

was 1,452 percent.

1,452%

So it's fair to ask, how is it possible for them to change this?

我們可以問，他們怎麼可能改變這情況?

Now I get this skepticism.

我感到懷疑

I get this cynicism. I get this sense of impossibility.

我感到憤世嫉俗，我感到這種不可能性

But I don't buy it.

但我不同意

This is a solvable issue.

這是個可以解決的問題

If you think about the issues our parents tried to solve

若你想想我們父母在20世紀

in the 20th century,

試著解決的問題

issues like racism, or sexism,

像是種族歧視或兩性不平等

or the issue that we've been fighting in this century, homophobia,

或是我們這世紀奮戰的問題: 同性戀恐懼症

those are hard issues.

那些都是很困難的問題

You don't wake up one day no longer a racist.

你不會睡一覺起來就不再是種族主義者

It takes generations to tear that intuition, that DNA,

得花上好幾個世代從一個人的靈魂

out of the soul of a people.

去破除那種觀念，那種基因

But this is a problem of just incentives, just incentives.

但這問題只礙於動機，只有動機

Change the incentives, and the behavior changes,

動機改變了，行為就跟著改變

and the states that have adopted small dollar funded systems

接著採用小金額資助制度的幾個州

have seen overnight a change in the practice.

會一夜就看到實行上的改變

When Connecticut adopted this system,

當康乃狄克州(Connecticut)在第一年採用這制度

in the very first year, 78 percent of elected representatives

78%的當選代表

gave up large contributions and took small contributions only.

放棄了大額助選金而選擇只收取小額助選金

It's solvable,

是解決得了的

not by being a Democrat,

不是透過民主黨

not by being a Republican.

不是透過共和黨

It's solvable by being citizens, by being citizens,

是透過公民解決，透過人民解決的

by being TEDizens.

、透過TED成員解決的

Because if you want to kickstart reform,

因為若你想要發起一項改革

look, I could kickstart reform

我可以發起一項改革

at half the price of fixing energy policy,

只用到解決能源政策所需的一半金額

I could give you back a republic.

我可以還給你一個共和

Okay. But even if you're not yet with me,

好 若你還沒加入我

even if you believe this is impossible,

甚至覺得這是不可能的

what the five years since I spoke at TED has taught me

過去五年我在TED演講教導我的

as I've spoken about this issue again and again is,

我一而再再而三的討論這個議題

even if you think it's impossible, that is irrelevant.

就算你覺得這是不可能，沒關係

Irrelevant.

沒關係

I spoke at Dartmouth once, and a woman stood up after I spoke,

我曾在達特茅斯演講一次，我講完之後有一位女性站起來

I write in my book, and she said to me,

我有寫在我書裡，她告訴我

"Professor, you've convinced me this is hopeless. Hopeless.

「教授，你說服我這沒希望了。沒希望了

There's nothing we can do."

我們束手無策了」

When she said that, I scrambled.

當她這麼說，我慌了

I tried to think, "How do I respond to that hopelessness?

我試著想：「我該怎回應這種絕望?」

What is that sense of hopelessness?"

「這種絕望是什麼感覺?」

And what hit me was an image of my six-year-old son.

讓我頓悟的是我六歲兒子

And I imagined a doctor coming to me and saying,

我想像一位醫生告向我走來並告訴我：

"Your son has terminal brain cancer, and there's nothing you can do.

「你兒子有晚期腦癌，你束手無策

Nothing you can do."

你束手無策」

So would I do nothing?

我真的什麼都不做嗎?

Would I just sit there? Accept it? Okay, nothing I can do?

我就坐在這？坦然接受？我什麼都不能做嗎?

I'm going off to build Google Glass.

我就去做研發谷歌眼镜

Of course not. I would do everything I could,

當然不是 我會盡力而為

and I would do everything I could because this is what love means,

我會盡力而為因為這意味著愛

that the odds are irrelevant and that you do

這無關輸贏，你就做所有你能夠做的

whatever the hell you can, the odds be damned.

管他輸還是贏

And then I saw the obvious link, because even we liberals

然而我就看到其中的關係 因為即便是我們這些自由派人士

love this country.

都愛這個國家

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

And so when the pundits and the politicians

所以當權威人士或政客

say that change is impossible,

說這改變是不可能

what this love of country says back is,

愛國情操會這麼回答：

"That's just irrelevant."

「這不重要」

We lose something dear,

若我們失去共和

something everyone in this room loves and cherishes,

我們會失去我們所摯愛的東西

if we lose this republic, and so we act

會失去在場所有人共同珍惜的東西 所以我們要採取行動

with everything we can to prove these pundits wrong.

盡其所能地去證明這些權威人士是錯的

So here's my question:

那麼這是我的問題：

Do you have that love?

你有這種愛嗎?

Do you have that love?

你有這份種愛嗎?

Because if you do,

因為如果你有

then what the hell are you, what are the hell are we doing?

那你到底是誰? 你到底在做什麼?

When Ben Franklin was carried from the constitutional convention

1787年9月，當班富蘭克林(Ben Franklin)從制憲會議離開

in September of 1787, he was stopped in the street by a woman who said,

他在街上被一位女性攔下來問說

"Mr. Franklin, what have you wrought?"

「富蘭克林先生，你造就了什麼?」

Franklin said, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

富蘭克林回答：「一個共和，若你們能繼續保有它」

A republic. A representative democracy.

一個共和。一個代表性的民主

A government dependent upon the people alone.

一個單獨取決於人民的政府

We have lost that republic.

我們失去了這個共和

All of us have to act to get it back.

所有人必須行動把它找回來

Thank you very much.

非常感謝你們

(Applause)

(掌聲)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause)

謝謝 謝謝 謝謝 (掌聲)