匯你個頭
「匯賢智庫」是由一群身在美國留學或工作，卻心繫香港的港人所創辦。曾經旅居海外的香港人都會體驗到他們在異地生活最大的樂趣，就是與香港友人聚首一堂，一邊吃香港菜，一邊談香港事…… http://www.savantas.org/tc/aboutsavantas.asp
「匯賢智庫」的名字的來由「Savantas」是由意指「飽學之士」的法語「savant」配以一個拉丁文名詞字尾（如 veritas、caritas、pietas）而成，藉以表達我們對知識和智慧的重視。 http://www.savantas.org/tc/aboutlogo.asp
（摘自匯賢智庫網頁）
諸位重視知識和智慧的飽學之士，卻萬萬想不到，這個以法文加拉丁文拼湊而成的「造字」「Savantas」，卻原來仍然是法文，意即faux savant，「偽飽學之士」也。 不啻是「唔識嚇死，識就笑死」。曾經何時，香港的電視鬧劇，會有個日本人角色，名叫「大卷廁子」。大家都知道日本人姓名某些特性：以大字開頭啦，女生名字則以「子」結尾啦，在一知半解，知一些不知大部分的情況下，大家開些無傷大雅的玩笑，笑完作罷。大家都知道這些都是玩笑，也知道，其實係乜都唔識。
同樣道理，匯賢的一眾飽學之士，其實也是一知半解。知道savant 何解，也知道許多拉丁名詞以as結尾。一加起來，卻產生了比「大卷廁子」更爆笑的喜劇效果。更要命的是，葉劉一幫，懞懞然不知道，大話當真話，笑話當箴言，流傳萬世，供後人景仰。 葉劉淑儀因《二十三條》觸發五十萬香港人上街，辭去保安局局長一職。在美國史丹福大學修了個東亞研究碩士學位、恤了個新髮、減了點肥，回港後先把畢業論文摘要寄給各大報館刊載，繼而成立「匯賢智庫」，圖以學者身分再現香江。本來，二十一世紀之初文學碩士學術性有多高，大家心裏有數；又看到她把在史丹福寫的論文公諸於世，佩服其勇氣之餘，亦不禁驚訝其分析之粗糙，立論之求其。聽說很多人拜讀鴻文後，都自信心大增，甚有衝動湧到花旗國撈一個史丹福碩士學位，「一邊吃香港菜，一邊談香港事」，畢業後順便加入Savantas，也許還可以免會費兩年。不過，學費生活費令不少人卻步，少不免還要些人脈關係……你還以為史丹福很容易？還要懂得在鳥堆裏扮獸，在獸堆裏扮鳥；在美國吃香港菜談香港事，在香港用法文拉丁文。
只是，不學無術，這幫人如何的重視知識？Savantas一字雖不再通用，但其舊義，清楚載於現今仍通用的法語字典，毫不含糊。一本字典，零售價不出五百港元，恐怕葉劉在史丹福恤一個髮也不只這個數目。不買，公立圖書館也可借閱，無論如何法國文化協會一定有。大費周章開記者會，在網頁上不嫌其煩介紹名字的「意思」，卻連查清楚個字何解也嫌費事。如何救？ 葉劉等人可能悔恨「改錯名」，不過細想一層，有哪個名字更加切合這群烏合之眾？以偽飽學之士形容他們，實在再也貼切不過。一萬個文膽加起來，大概都沒有這神來之筆。不懂法文不懂拉丁文，也懂什麼是「鬼拍後尾枕」。
Et des gens comme vous doivent fuir l'entretien
De tous ces savantas qui ne sont bons à rien.
Molière
And people like you should get away from the conversation
Of all these savantas who are good at nothing.
Molière
搜尋
回應
都幾搞笑
真係匯你個頭!
搞錯呀……
真係當香港人唔識拉丁文？彈比忽然一周唱衰佢啦，天大笑話
你話
如果啲李八方余錦言路過見到，香港市民真係心情都特別好…
戴珍，好文！
Wahahahaha!!!
Idiots!
弄了個圖像
http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=137037&group_id=176
匯你個頭？？
冇色之士才疏學淺，故不是滙智中人，只是
想請問戴珍為甚麼法文tas會解作／變成
faux? 請問戴珍查哪本字典作如是解（Savantas=faux savant)？
Please also read this, sir!
http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=136837&group_id=37
-tas does not mean 'fake' as a suffix, but the whole word 'savantas' has its own meaning.
戴珍姐姐萬歲！
我又學到一點東西了：要不斷充實自己，拆穿這些偽飽學之士的假面具。
好叻啊戴珍姐姐。
ABYSS!!!!!!
Don't keep calling everyone '姐姐'!!! You know, what, normally HK girls prefer to be addressed in a 'young' way, hehee...
:-P
咁我無理由「妹」佢架嘛
全個inmedia最細都怕且係我啦下嘩，我要等多三日先得十八歲，唔「姐」人唔通「姐」我自己？
咁我唔通一開口大叫「喂！阿戴珍你都幾好野個喎」勁似無禮貌又要扮熟又要認親認戚果d人。
唔「姐姐」都得既，用台式叫法囉：「戴珍大大，您真內行啊！」國語就話得啫，你睇下廣東話幾多「大/戴」幾多「真/珍」？
「姐」下先啦，有個title隔一隔好似有禮貌d丫嘛……睇下佢叫我點叫佢我先點叫佢啦好唔好？
囧rz
Perhaps...
You call me 妹 La, Abyss, wahaha!!!
wahaha?
wahahahawahahhahwahhawhahwhwahahw...................
Please stop debating on the word. It's MEANINGLESS.
I seriously doubt the motives of the writer of these articles related to Savantas.
If the writer or Inmediahk aims to contribute to the Hong Kong society, I'd like to urge you to stop.
I don't see there's anything wrong with the Savantas organization as well as its name. I do not care what "savantas" actually means after you have looked at different dictionaries. I can assure you that you can find a lot more about this word when you check other dictionaries or history books and what you are doing is endless and meaningless. What I care is that I can at least see the courage Mrs.Yip is taking in an effort to CONTRIBUTE to Hong Kong.
Opposing to everything the government or former officer does not do any good to the society. CONTIRUBTION is not like that. Instead of objection, please SUGGEST ways to improve.
"Said is easier than done". I do not see how you guys will do a better job than than those officers you are shouting at every day. Do you know why the government is always doing unsatisfactory jobs? It is because of the negative atmosphere that you have created in the society all these years. No one is recognizing the good things but everyone is pointing at the bad things. Different ideas, supporting or opposing, are always welcomed. But, please, start APPRECIATING what the government does to Hong Kong.
Giving out negative feedbacks is easy and does not make you someone. Everyone can do that. If you wanna contribute to Hong Kong, please start with more appreication and suggestion.
指鹿為馬就是好馬
wahwahwah，好恐怖，嚴謹求真的精神係香港已經所餘無幾，依家有人指出錯誤，反而會有人話，指鹿為馬又有乜所謂，最緊要大家當佢係馬就得，仲要係一隻好馬。
好得人驚好得人驚。
欲罷不能
我寫這篇文章的動機很簡單：看不過眼。看不過眼葉劉拋書包，還是個爛書包。我看到的香港社會是跟紅頂白的，大有人在；所謂駡，也是小駡大幫忙。要拍掌歡呼的，不需要在下，也有排輪唔到在下。搞寸派對，倒需要些少勇氣。看，在這裏放個小屁，就可以吸引多頂帽子飛過來，實在令我眼界大開。也叫我欲罷不能，繼續要出聲。
Why should they stop???
Is there STILL freedom of speech?!
What to be appreciated there? Their 'pretencious name' is just funny, and is a good material for a joke or anything like that. This bunch of people have not done anything meaningful for anyone to APPRECIATE yet, so why blame the others doing something meaningless?
You complain that a joke is meaningless, right? Is that what you mean? Ha.
Please stop criticize other pointing out errors, it is MEANINGLE
I serious doubt the motives of kal's comment.
He says pointing out errors is doing no good to HK. He also somehow equalivalent Savantas to the HK government. In the matter of facts, his reply is doing nothing good to HK either.
It is funny that someone always say don't criticize the government unless you can do better. Here is my response:
I CAN do better, now please kick Mr. Tsang out of the office and put me as the CEO of HK. The HK government is so screwed because it doesn't listen to MY VOICE. Pointing out their error is the first step to correct their course. If there is true democracy, we don't have to convince (i.e. pointing out errors) the government, we can simply replace them.
Kal, now please support me to be the next CEO of HK and let me show you what is a better government.
Regina & Savantas Policy Institute
In an open society like Hongkong, opinion and suggestion, no matter it be casual or serious, constructive or destructive, or even just farty tease all are bricks help solidifying its foundation.
As a side effect, with the help of this tiny little piece of information I have the opportunity to update what Regina and her incompact colleagues have endeavored lately to headspearing themselves into Hongkong's politics again.
I think Regina was not without reason to follow Larry Diamond as his apostle in Standford University. Larry Diamond (still a member of U.S.Agency for International Development (USAID)) among many other so called academics is actually the vanguard of pressures for liberalization and democratization in under-developed and developing countries. And, USAID as part of America's cultural or ideological-imperialism-machine is a vehicle to fight wars without smoke.
Look at such examples that duplicated America's module of democracy and economic development programs as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Peru of Latin America, and India etc, have they not been framed and trapped onto America's globalization web becoming economic slaves of their big brother that at least one-third of their GDPs has to be surrendered annually?
Hongkong was, and still is a crossover for the West's political and ideological penetrations into China.
Now, Regina has Savantas Policy Institute to receive funds....
Perhaps we are having some misunderstanding here
Ok, I'd like to clarify that I am here to discuss, not to start a quarrel with anyone. I am just trying to bring more constructive comments from you. Negative feedbacks are always good. But too many negative feedbacks without any appropriate suggestions are useless and discouraging.
To be honest, what I thought about this article is exactly and ironically what 戴珍 mentioned: "爛書包". As I have mentioned, "I can assure you that you can find a lot more about this 'savantas' word when you check other dictionaries or history books and what you are doing is endless and meaningless." What I care is what Savantas is a. I maybe wrong about your true intention. I can feel that you are well-educated and care a lot about the society.
However, I really cannot agree to the logic used by Frostig and havangel. "Is there STILL freedeom of speech"? Hahah what is all that about? Do you think
I tried to stop you from saying anything? Did I not mention "different ideas, supporting or opposing, are always welcomed"?
"The HK government is so screwed because it doesn't listen to MY VOICE"? Hahah who are you? What kind of reason is that? What is your proposals or suggestions? "I CAN do better" wow, I have to say that is very persuasive. Try that on your some logical people and see if anyone supports you to be the next CEO. Come on! Tell us what you want but not what do not want. I guess I know you think about Donald Tsang and how shitty he is. Ok, you do not want him to be the CEO. But who can be the next CEO? Who do you think is suitable? What changes will the new CEO need to make? Please provide us with some PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS, instead of all these whines, which the society is already filled up with.
Are we having an autocracy here that I am not allowed to express some opposing opinion? The attitude you 2 have brought here are very destructive to open discussion. Based on what you have written (maybe you are not in fact), it looks to me that you are just some 憤世嫉俗 guys and that's it. Yes, the world and especially Hong Kong owes you a lot. I don't even think 戴珍 or 荒诞者共和 will agree with you. But if you guys are just joking that I misunderstood you, I apologize in advance.
Again, my hope is to bring more constructive ideas, BUT NOT TO STOP ALL CRITICISMS ON THE GOVERNMENT. Please do not misunderstand my intention. I can see that all columnists here care about Hong Kong and they all want to contribute to the society. It is my opinion that a more positive attitude towards the government maybe more benefitial and effective.
若不是匯賢改了個爛外文名字，我對它一點興趣也沒有。
你說得對，我由頭到尾的確是衝著它的名字而來。若不是匯賢改了個爛外文名字，我對它一點興趣也沒有。你當然有認真了解它的自由；在下不學無術，抱住個爛書包，但也有查字典的自由；你不能一句「沒有意思」，就叫我唔好查字典，馬上收口。「研究」、「政策」、「為香港作出貢獻」，說得動聽，其中一個結果，就是不斷將公共空間與普通人的生活愈扯愈遠，蟻民莫說要參與，連聲也不能出。我們有沒有停下來，問一下，這些議程由誰訂？為誰服務？為什麼一定要跟著這些議程走？身為社會一分子，即使學歷唔夠葉劉咁照，為什麼不可以用自己的方式參與社會討論？
200% AGREE!!!
Agree with 戴珍.
If not for this 'funny' name, I am not interested in the 'savantas' at all.
~THE END~
wiki論政
很多所謂智庫組織，都說『貴精不貴多』，只以所謂的民調來收集民意，然後由幾個所謂的飽學之士閉門做車。
我在想，可否建立一個以Wiki為基礎的論政組識，讓一般人直接參與法律或政策編定？
有眼睇
constructive 好好聽, 竊聽條例民主派二百幾個修訂, 但無一個過, 啲咩智庫, 偽賢雅集又無一個出聲, 抑話佢地暗瓦底同政府好 "constructive" 地建議一個修訂都唔好過呢?
constructive 都要有啲基礎, 好 constructive 啲野, 係一個無民主唔 open, 不用問責的社會, 一野就比人話係垃圾.
咁耐偽賢雅集唯一 "constructive" 咪話香港可以等多幾年有普選, 政府智庫亦隨即話普選羅, 無話唔得, 不過提名阿爺認可的推委話事, 仲衰過國內地區人大的選舉.
咁又幾 constructive, 連普選的意義都扭到殘, 背著港人同阿爺話, 香港人好易擺平的, 以前我都幫英國政府擺平到, 依家無話唔得, 求其比幾隻馬佢地買下羅, 你應承咗馬照跑嘛, 咁咪比多幾隻馬佢地揀, 大家開心, 你又可以大小通吃.
Reply to kal
Having read all the comments as well as the original post, let me just say that Kal's responses are the most UNCONSTRUCTIVE of the lot.
What's wrong with pointing out the irony of the think-tank's name? Especially when its own website spent such pains at explaining the name, and how it's meant to indicate the organisation's core values regarding scholarship and research. Now we all know precisely how much they REALLY "value" scholarship... It's bloody funny that they didn't bother to look up the meaning of their own name properly when they are in the business of research!
And it's thanks to Dai Jun's insightful criticism that the general public finds out what a joke Yip-Lau's think-tank really is. Her article is doing the public a great service in puncturing the pretensiousness of Yip-Lau's organisation and exposing its utter ignorance.
Kal's comments on the other hand, simply exposed his own inadequacies at logical reasoning. Not only did he conflate Yip-Lau's think-tank with the HKSAR government in his arguments, but somehow he believes constructive criticisms are defined as "Tell us what you want but not what do not want." Leave aside the bad grammar of that sentence for a minute, he should at least realise that helpful critique comes first from identifying what is wrong. Not wanting to listen to forthright criticisms when it's well-deserved is a rather childish attitude. However, we're not playing with sand castles at the beach, where one could afford to pretend that things are fine as long as they look good and sound great; no, we're dealing with the serious matter of governance for our own city, where we need proper evidence-based policies. And when you have think-tanks such as Yip-Lau's which are meant to be supplying such research evidence for policy developments and yet could be so inept in researching their own name, then the whole thing is beyond a joke. Yip-Lau may very well have good intentions to contribute to HK society via her think-tank, but to be honest her organisation doesn't sound competent enough to begin to understand the important task in front of them.
By criticising Dai Chun's article, what Kal was doing in effect was to stifle legitimate dissent and debate. His responses are, as such, the most unconstructive, and are especially unhelpful in an environment where there is already precious little room for participatory democracy.