Democracy is in trouble, no question about that, and it comes in part from a deep dilemma in which it is embedded. It's increasingly irrelevant to the kinds of decisions we face that have to do with global pandemics, a cross-border problem; with HIV, a transnational problem; with markets and immigration, something that goes beyond national borders; with terrorism, with war, all now cross-border problems.
民主陷入了一種窘境, 它深深紮根於這個世界。 因這種窘境的存在,毫無疑問, 使得民主的通行,步履遲緩。 解決問題的方案,越來越不著邊際: 國與國間互相影響的事, 比如抗擊全球流行病; 國際上的事,比如關於HIV的問題; 經濟、移民,這些跨國的、需要國家間通氣的事; 又如恐怖主義、戰爭等等, 如上的問題,都不再是國家自己的問題, 而是跨越了國界的問題。 能解決這些問題的方案越來越少。 面對它們而制定的方案,效果也越來越差。
In fact, we live in a 21st-century world of interdependence, and brutal interdependent problems, and when we look for solutions in politics and in democracy, we are faced with political institutions designed 400 years ago, autonomous, sovereign nation-states with jurisdictions and territories separate from one another, each claiming to be able to solve the problem of its own people. Twenty-first-century, transnational world of problems and challenges, 17th-century world of political institutions. In that dilemma lies the central problem of democracy. And like many others, I've been thinking about what can one do about this, this asymmetry between 21st-century challenges and archaic and increasingly dysfunctional political institutions like nation-states.
今天,我們生活在二十一世紀, 這是一個需要彼此、依賴彼此的世紀。 正因我們的相互依賴與需要,二十一世紀也是 一個有很多現實而殘酷的問題的世紀。 當我們尋求政治問題、民主問題的解決方案時, 我們所面對的是一大堆四百年前 組織起來的政府機構; 我們面對的是一些個有法律、有領土的 自治國家、君主制國家。 這些機構、國家,分散於全世界 誰都說自己能處理好自己人民的問題 誰都說自己能處理好自己人民的問題 我們活在二十一世紀,活在一個國際化的、 充滿問題與挑戰的世界 卻也生活在十七世紀的政府機構之下。 民主的核心問題就隱藏在這樣的現狀之中。 老式的政府機構(比如民族國家政府)愈發衰弱 新時代的挑戰也在產生 我也和別人一樣, 思考過如何解決這二者帶來的不平衡 思考過如何解決這二者帶來的不平衡
And my suggestion is that we change the subject, that we stop talking about nations, about bordered states, and we start talking about cities. Because I think you will find, when we talk about cities, we are talking about the political institutions in which civilization and culture were born. We are talking about the cradle of democracy.
經過思考,我的建議是 換個角度看這個問題 我們不談國家、 不談劃分好的地界, 我們談城市,從城市入手。 因為,我想,當我們談起城市的時候, 你會發現我們在談的 是孕育了我們的文明和文化的政治機構; 我們談論的是民主的搖籃;
We are talking about the venues in which those public spaces where we come together to create democracy, and at the same time protest those who would take our freedom, take place. Think of some great names: the Place de la Bastille, Zuccotti Park, Tahrir Square, Taksim Square in today's headlines in Istanbul, or, yes, Tiananmen Square in Beijing.
我們談論的是全世界人民齊心協力 開創民主, 抵制奪走我們的自由、 我們的家園的勢力。 想想這些偉大的名稱: 法國的巴士底廣場、 美國的祖科蒂公園、 埃及的解放廣場、 今日伊斯坦堡報紙頭條上的塔克西姆廣場, 哦對了, 還有北京的天安門廣場
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Those are the public spaces where we announce ourselves as citizens, as participants, as people with the right to write our own narratives. Cities are not only the oldest of institutions, they're the most enduring. If you think about it, Constantinople, Istanbul, much older than Turkey. Alexandria, much older than Egypt. Rome, far older than Italy. Cities endure the ages. They are the places where we are born, grow up, are educated, work, marry, pray, play, get old, and in time, die. They are home. Very different than nation-states, which are abstractions. We pay taxes, we vote occasionally, we watch the men and women we choose rule rule more or less without us. Not so in those homes known as our towns and cities where we live. Moreover, today, more than half of the world's population live in cities. In the developed world, it's about 78 percent. More than three out of four people live in urban institutions, urban places, in cities today. So cities are where the action is. Cities are us. Aristotle said in the ancient world, man is a political animal. I say we are an urban animal. We are an urban species, at home in our cities. So to come back to the dilemma, if the dilemma is we have old-fashioned political nation-states unable to govern the world, respond to the global challenges that we face like climate change, then maybe it's time for mayors to rule the world, for mayors and the citizens and the peoples they represent to engage in global governance.
這些就是我們作為參與者、作為有權利的人民 這些就是我們作為參與者、作為有權利的人民 來行使我們的權利、寫下我們的歷史的地方 來行使我們的權利、寫下我們的歷史的地方 城市不僅是最古老的的政治機構, 還是最飽經滄桑的歲月見證者。 想想看, 君士坦丁堡、伊斯坦布爾,都比土耳其的年頭久遠得多 亞歷山大港,比埃及有更長的歷史 羅馬,義大利的老大哥 這些城市,還有好多城市,經久不衰。 我們各自在這些地方出生 我們各自在這些地方成長、受教育、工作、結婚 祈禱、嬉戲、變老,然後,終有一天,離開這個世界。 這些地方是我們的家。 作為一國公民 爲了國家 我們定期納稅、偶爾給個什麽選舉投個票。 我們眼巴巴地看著這些 由我們選出來的女士、先生 心中或多或少,總之並無我們地統治著國家。 但在我們土生土長的小城鎮裡可不是這樣 在我們長大的城市裡也不是這樣。 除此之外,在當前,全世界一半以上的人 都居住在城市里 在第一世界,城鎮居民的比例大約為78% 四分之三以上的人民 分別住在城市裡的各個地方 分別住在城市裡的各個地方 城市決定了國家的動向, 而我們就是城市。在古代,亞理士多德曾說 人類是政治的動物。 而我說,我們是城市的動物。 我們是生活在城市裡的物種,我們的家就是城市。 回到一開始我們說的那個“窘境”, 如果說,這窘境就是我們擁有著 過時政權和國家而無法“以政,治世” 在這種情況下,如果想治理全球面臨的共同挑戰, 比如說,氣候變化的問題, 那,也許到了市長們來接管這個世界的時候了。 因為市長們是市民們、人民們真真正正的代表, 他們拿得起全球問題。
When I say if mayors ruled the world, when I first came up with that phrase, it occurred to me that actually, they already do. There are scores of international, inter-city, cross-border institutions, networks of cities in which cities are already, quite quietly, below the horizon, working together to deal with climate change, to deal with security, to deal with immigration, to deal with all of those tough, interdependent problems that we face. They have strange names: UCLG, United Cities and Local Governments; ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Issues. And the list goes on: Citynet in Asia; City Protocol, a new organization out of Barcelona that is using the web to share best practices among countries. And then all the things we know a little better, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Mexican Conference of Mayors, the European Conference of Mayors. Mayors are where this is happening.
說起讓市長們接管世界, 當我第一次想出這種說法時, 我突然想起來,其實他們早就開始這麼做了。 其實,在國際社會、兄弟城市、 跨國機構、城市網絡中, 眾多城市 早已默默無聞地開始了 共同處理氣候變化、安全問題、 移民問題 等等諸多棘手的 共同問題。 這些城市都有個奇怪的名字: UCLG 城市和地方政府聯合組織 United Cities and Local Governments ICLEI 地方政治問題國際議會 the International Council or Local Environmental Issues 遠遠不止這些,還有: 亞洲城市組織Citinet in Asia、城市協議組織City Protocol(一個新成立的組織, 這個組織通過網絡, 來分享不同城市成功的實踐案例)。 還有些我們更熟悉一些的組織: 美國市長會the U.S. Conference of Mayors、 墨西哥市長會the Mexican Conference of Mayors、 歐洲市長會the European Conference of Mayors。 市長們成就了這些組織。
And so the question is, how can we create a world in which mayors and the citizens they represent play a more prominent role? Well, to understand that, we need to understand why cities are special, why mayors are so different than prime ministers and presidents, because my premise is that a mayor and a prime minister are at the opposite ends of a political spectrum. To be a prime minister or a president, you have to have an ideology, you have to have a meta-narrative, you have to have a theory of how things work, you have to belong to a party. Independents, on the whole, don't get elected to office. But mayors are just the opposite. Mayors are pragmatists, they're problem-solvers. Their job is to get things done, and if they don't, they're out of a job. Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia said, we could never get away here in Philadelphia with the stuff that goes on in Washington, the paralysis, the non-action, the inaction. Why? Because potholes have to get filled, because the trains have to run, because kids have to be able to get to school. And that's what we have to do, and to do that is about pragmatism in that deep, American sense, reaching outcomes. Washington, Beijing, Paris, as world capitals, are anything but pragmatic, but real city mayors have to be pragmatists. They have to get things done, they have to put ideology and religion and ethnicity aside and draw their cities together. We saw this a couple of decades ago when Teddy Kollek, the great mayor of Jerusalem in the '80s and the '90s, was besieged one day in his office by religious leaders from all of the backgrounds, Christian prelates, rabbis, imams. They were arguing with one another about access to the holy sites. And the squabble went on and on, and Kollek listened and listened, and he finally said, "Gentlemen, spare me your sermons, and I will fix your sewers."
我想問大家一個問題: 我們如何創造一個 市長們和市長們所代表的市民們 扮演著突出地位的角色的世界? 要想把事情說清楚, 我們就要明白爲什麽城市這麼重要、這麼特別、 與總理、總統們相比, 爲什麽市長們就這麼與衆不同。 因為我的前提是市長和前二者 各自處於同一政治派別的不同立場。 要想當總理或者總統, 你得有思想、 你得會用理論解釋理論、 你得能說明白萬事萬物的運作規律、 你還得有個政治歸屬,也就是不能是當無黨派人士。 沒幾個人聽說過 哪個獨行俠是辦公室英雄 而市長們正印證了這一點。 市長們個個能說會道、八面玲瓏。 他們的工作就是把事情做完,如果做不完, 他們就沒工作了。 費城的納特市長曾經說過, 我們不能眼看著華盛頓的失業率只升不降、 我們不能眼看著華盛頓的失業率只升不降、 坐視不管、麻木不仁。 爲什麽?因為路面的坑窪要有人填補, 因為火車還得有人讓它運行, 因為孩子們還得上學, 得有人教他們知識、教他們做人。 而這些就是我們的使命, 想做好這些,就得深諳美國人說話的藝術, 想做好這些,就得深諳美國人說話的藝術, 要不你怎麼做出結果? 華盛頓、北京、巴黎,都是世界級的首都城市。 而要想治理好這些城市,花言巧語是不行的 但是真正的市長,恰恰懂得怎麼運用“花言巧語” 他們得做事啊, 他們得把什麽思想啊宗教啊 民族啊的差異都放在一邊, 來把各自的城市團結在一起。 二十年前,我們就目睹了這些事情: 偉大的耶路撒冷市長泰迪·克萊克(Teddy Kollek) 在八九十年代 曾被一夥兒有著不同背景的宗教領袖 圍堵在辦公室裡。 基督教主教、拉比教、阿訇教的教徒們, 擠在一起喋喋不休 爭論著能抵達聖地的途徑到底是什麽 他們爭個不停 克萊克耐心地聽了半天 最終說道:“好了,先生們, 你們歇會兒,我去給你們修下水道。“ (譯者覺得意思是“我不干涉你們的精神世界,但是你們別耽誤我保障你們物質生活的工作。”)
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
That's what mayors do. They fix sewers, they get the trains running. There isn't a left or a right way of doing. Boris Johnson in London calls himself an anarcho-Tory. Strange term, but in some ways, he is. He's a libertarian. He's an anarchist. He rides to work on a bike, but at the same time, he's in some ways a conservative. Bloomberg in New York was a Democrat, then he was a Republican, and finally he was an Independent, and said the party label just gets in the way. Luzhkov, 20 years mayor in Moscow, though he helped found a party, United Party with Putin, in fact refused to be defined by the party and finally, in fact, lost his job not under Brezhnev, not under Gorbachev, but under Putin, who wanted a more faithful party follower. So mayors are pragmatists and problem-solvers. They get things done.
這就是市長們的工作。 他們做的都是平常小事, 一千個人有一千種方法 (但目的都是爲了人民好) 倫敦的波利斯·約翰遜自稱“無政府主義者-托尼” 這詞兒挺怪,但他也算是這樣的人。 他是自由主義者、無政府主義者。 他騎自行車上班, 但是他在一些方面也挺傳統。 紐約的布魯姆伯格是個民主黨支持者 可後來又加入共和黨了。 最終,他退出了黨派,說 入黨就那麼回事。 當了二十年莫斯科市長的魯什科夫 雖然他在建立聯合黨(United Party)為普京貢獻過一份力量 但其實他並不被這個黨派所承認 最終,他不是在勃列日涅夫手下 也不是在戈爾巴喬夫手下 而是在渴望一個更衷心的黨羽的普京的手下丟了工作。 所以,市長們都得會說話、會辦事。 他們就是辦事的嘛。
But the second thing about mayors is they are also what I like to call homeboys, or to include the women mayors, homies. They're from the neighborhood. They're part of the neighborhood. They're known. Ed Koch used to wander around New York City saying, "How am I doing?" Imagine David Cameron wandering around the United Kingdom asking, "How am I doing?" He wouldn't like the answer. Or Putin. Or any national leader. He could ask that because he knew New Yorkers and they knew him. Mayors are usually from the places they govern. It's pretty hard to be a carpetbagger and be a mayor. You can run for the Senate out of a different state, but it's hard to do that as a mayor.
但是,關於市長們,我還想說的事是 我很喜歡叫他們老街坊、老夥計 考慮到我們還有女市長們,那我就叫他們老街坊吧。 他們是我們的鄰居 他們是我們社區的一員,大夥互相都認識。 艾德·科赫(Ed Koch)過去常在紐約城內溜達 見人就問:“你覺得我是個好市長嗎?” 想想,這事兒放在卡梅倫身上 他滿英國溜達 見誰都問:“你對我的工作滿意嗎?”,他夠嗆能得到什麽滿意的回答。 或者普京、或者任何其他的國家領導人都一樣。 但艾德·科赫就能這麼問,因為他了解紐約人, 紐約人也都了解他。 市長們通常都選自他們管轄的地區, 外來政客是很難成為當地市長的。 你能在別的州為競選參議院議員拉選票 但是你要是想為當市長, 還是別這麼做了,這麼做行不通。
And as a result, mayors and city councillors and local authorities have a much higher trust level, and this is the third feature about mayors, than national governing officials. In the United States, we know the pathetic figures: 18 percent of Americans approve of Congress and what they do. And even with a relatively popular president like Obama, the figures for the Presidency run about 40, 45, sometimes 50 percent at best. The Supreme Court has fallen way down from what it used to be. But when you ask, "Do you trust your city councillor, do you trust your mayor?" the rates shoot up to 70, 75, even 80 percent, because they're from the neighborhood, because the people they work with are their neighbors, because, like Mayor Booker in Newark, a mayor is likely to get out of his car on the way to work and go in and pull people out of a burning building -- that happened to Mayor Booker -- or intervene in a mugging in the street as he goes to work because he sees it. No head of state would be permitted by their security details to do it, nor be in a position to do it.
諸如此類,市長、城市議員和地方代表, 諸如此類,市長、城市議員和地方代表, 才更讓市民們信服。 而這也是國家領導人不具有而 市長具有的第三項職能——更強的民心民意。 在美國,有個可悲的統計數據: 18%的美國人支持國會和國會的作為。 18%的美國人支持國會和國會的作為。 而且,就算是民眾青睞的總統奧巴馬 民眾的對他的支持率也只有40%到45% 有時候走運了,能到50%,也就這樣了。 而最高法院的民眾支持率大幅下跌,跟過去沒法比。 但你要是問“你信任你的市議員嗎?” 或者“你信任你的市長嗎?” 投贊成票的會激增到70%到75%,甚至有80% 爲什麽這麼高?因為他們是市民們的鄰居 和市長們、市議員們一起工作的人民不是別人,正是他們的老街坊、老鄰居。 比如說,紐沃克市的市長布克 他就是那種走路去上班的市長 而且要是哪兒有火災了,他會衝進火場救人 他真的這麼做過。 要是街上有搶劫,他也能見義勇為,除暴安良 因為只要是他看見的事,他就不會不管。 可是要是沒有保安條令的許可, 哪個州的領導、大官,也不能做這些 也不會去做這些
That's the difference, and the difference has to do with the character of cities themselves, because cities are profoundly multicultural, open, participatory, democratic, able to work with one another.
這就是差別 而且這種差別跟城市自己的風氣有關 因為城市的文化都是複合的、多元的: 開放、熱心、民主、 互助。
When states face each other, China and the U.S., they face each other like this. When cities interact, they interact like this. China and the U.S., despite the recent meta-meeting in California, are locked in all kinds of anger, resentment, and rivalry for number one. We heard more about who will be number one. Cities don't worry about number one. They have to work together, and they do work together. They work together in climate change, for example. Organizations like the C40, like ICLEI, which I mentioned, have been working together many, many years before Copenhagen. In Copenhagen, four or five years ago, 184 nations came together to explain to one another why their sovereignty didn't permit them to deal with the grave, grave crisis of climate change, but the mayor of Copenhagen had invited 200 mayors to attend. They came, they stayed, and they found ways and are still finding ways to work together, city-to-city, and through inter-city organizations. Eighty percent of carbon emissions come from cities, which means cities are in a position to solve the carbon problem, or most of it, whether or not the states of which they are a part make agreements with one another. And they are doing it. Los Angeles cleaned up its port, which was 40 percent of carbon emissions, and as a result got rid of about 20 percent of carbon. New York has a program to upgrade its old buildings, make them better insulated in the winter, to not leak energy in the summer, not leak air conditioning. That's having an impact. Bogota, where Mayor Mockus, when he was mayor, he introduced a transportation system that saved energy, that allowed surface buses to run in effect like subways, express buses with corridors. It helped unemployment, because people could get across town, and it had a profound impact on climate as well as many other things there. Singapore, as it developed its high-rises and its remarkable public housing, also developed an island of parks, and if you go there, you'll see how much of it is green land and park land. Cities are doing this, but not just one by one. They are doing it together. They are sharing what they do, and they are making a difference by shared best practices. Bike shares, many of you have heard of it, started 20 or 30 years ago in Latin America. Now it's in hundreds of cities around the world. Pedestrian zones, congestion fees, emission limits in cities like California cities have, there's lots and lots that cities can do even when opaque, stubborn nations refuse to act.
當國與國交流時, 舉個例子,比如中美,它們是這樣的。 但當城市相互交流時,它們是這樣的。 中美兩國,且不說最近兩國在加州舉辦的高層會議。 中美兩國,且不說最近兩國在加州舉辦的高層會議。 兩國近來一直被各種憤怒、不滿、競爭禁錮 說白了,兩國在爭第一。 我們聽說過很多很多誰會是第一的說法 但城市,才不在乎誰是不是第一呢。 城市得彼此合作,而它們也真的在彼此合作。 不同的城市都在一起努力對抗氣候變化。舉個例子, 像C40、ICLEI等等這些我剛才提到的組織 在哥本哈根會議前的很多很多年 就已經開始共同奮鬥了 四五年前,在哥本哈根, 184個國家聚首,向彼此解釋 爲什麽本國的主權部門不允許他們 一起處理這場人類自掘墳墓一樣的氣候危機。 但是哥本哈根的市長,卻邀請到了 二百位市長與會。 他們參加會議,共同商討 直到今天也仍致力於找尋在城市之間、通過城際組織共同的工作道路。 直到今天也仍致力於找尋在城市之間、通過城際組織共同的工作道路。 全球80%的碳排放源自城市 這意味著城市正處於解決碳排放問題的關鍵位置 這意味著城市正處於解決碳排放問題的關鍵位置 不管這些城市是否源於同一國家 城市與城市做出了共同的決定 而它們也都在履行自己的承諾。 洛杉磯清理了它的港口 也就是說,減少了港口40%的碳排放 洛杉磯也因此減少了20%的碳排放 紐約有一項老建築翻新的工程 這項工程能加強建築物的冬天的保暖功能 也能防止夏天屋內空調冷氣的外滲 工程反響甚好。 波哥大前市長莫克斯(Mockus) 在任職期間,引進了一套交通系統 這套交通系統很節能, 能讓公交車運行得像地鐵一樣高效 這套交通系統很節能, 能讓公交車運行得像地鐵一樣高效 讓公交車佈滿了大街小巷。 這降低了失業率,因為人們能在城裡通行了。 而且這個交通系統還像很多其他措施一樣, 對當地氣候起到了保護的作用。 新加坡,有著眾多高科技的高層建築 和可圈可點的公共住房政策 其實不光是這些,新加坡還發展了島嶼公園政策 如果你到新加坡,你會看見遍地的優秀綠化 你會覺得新加坡是個名副其實的“花園城市” 城市都在發展,它們不是一個個地發展 而是一起發展 它們分享自己的經驗 也通過這種分享讓世界日新月異 我想很多人都聽說過公用自行車 沒錯,這是一項二三十年前起源於拉美的項目 現在全世界數以百計的城市都有這個項目 行人專用區、交通擁堵費、 以及像洛杉磯這種城市所設立的限制排放條款 就連一些冥頑不化的國家拒絕這樣行動起來的時候 許許多多城市也都做了非常多的好事
So what's the bottom line here? The bottom line is, we still live politically in a world of borders, a world of boundaries, a world of walls, a world where states refuse to act together. Yet we know that the reality we experience day to day is a world without borders, a world of diseases without borders and doctors without borders, maladies sans frontières, Médecins Sans Frontières, of economics and technology without borders, of education without borders, of terrorism and war without borders. That is the real world, and unless we find a way to globalize democracy or democratize globalization, we will increasingly not only risk the failure to address all of these transnational problems, but we will risk losing democracy itself, locked up in the old nation-state box, unable to address global problems democratically.
那,城市這麼做的底線是什麽? 底線就是,我們還是生活在這樣的政治制度下 生活在國界阻隔、充滿隔閡的世界里 也就是一個高牆聳立的世界裡、 一個國與國拒絕一起行動起來的世界裡。 然而,我們知道,我們正做著穿越國界的事 每一天都是。 疾病不管你是哪國,到處流竄 而我們的無國界衛生組織, 不管你是哪國,醫生都會救死扶傷。 同樣地,經濟、科技跨越了國界 教育跨越了國界 恐怖主義和戰爭也不分國界 這就是真實的世界。 如果我們不想方設法,要麼開創國際民主, 要麼就把全球化給民主化 我們早晚有一天 不光要冒著無法解決國際問題的風險 還要冒著失去民主的風險。 如果我們不醒一醒,這些都將成為現實。 我們也將再也無法民主地解決國際事務。
So where does that leave us? I'll tell you. The road to global democracy doesn't run through states. It runs through cities. Democracy was born in the ancient polis. I believe it can be reborn in the global cosmopolis. In that journey from polis to cosmopolis, we can rediscover the power of democracy on a global level. We can create not a League of Nations, which failed, but a League of Cities, not a United or a dis-United Nations, but United Cities of the World. We can create a global parliament of mayors. That's an idea. It's in my conception of the coming world, but it's also on the table in City Halls in Seoul, Korea, in Amsterdam, in Hamburg, and in New York. Mayors are considering that idea of how you can actually constitute a global parliament of mayors, and I love that idea, because a parliament of mayors is a parliament of citizens and a parliament of citizens is a parliament of us, of you and of me.
那,我們該怎麼辦? 讓我來告訴大家,實現全球民主 跟國家民主沒有關係 反而,跟城市民主有關係 民主是在早期城邦中誕生的 我相信,民主定會在國際化大都市重生 在從城邦向國際化大都市轉變的過程中 我們會重新發掘全球層次的民主的力量 我們會重新發掘全球層次的民主的力量 我們可以創造的不是已經沒落的國際聯盟 而是城市聯盟 不是或聯合或不聯合的一眾國家 而是聯合起來的全世界的城市。 我們可以成立全球市長議會。 這是個新主意,這是我關於未來新世界的概念。 但這也是市政廳會議桌上的議題 在韓國首爾、在阿姆斯特丹、 在漢堡、在紐約 市長們都在考慮著如何能真真正正地 組建起一個全球市長議會 我愛死這個主意了,因為全球市長議會 事實上就是全球市民議會 也就是我們自己的議會—— ——你我的議會。
If ever there were citizens without borders, I think it's the citizens of TED who show the promise to be those citizens without borders. I am ready to reach out and embrace a new global democracy, to take back our democracy. And the only question is, are you?
如果真的有無國界的市民 我想,那肯定是TED人。 是誓願成為無國界市民的TED人。 我已經準備好,張開懷抱 去迎接全球的民主 我伸出雙手,來拿回本屬於我們的民主 那麼 你呢?
Thank you so much, my fellow citizens.
謝謝各位市民的聆聽與關注,非常感謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Thank you. (Applause)
謝謝。(掌聲)