Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Kim-See Teo

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

636 profile views
  1. Now that you, Mr. Gerber, specifically wrote a text to highlight a clarification, I'm even more impressed. I didn't mean to take what's stated in the Rulebook and define it at variance to its exactness. I can't do that. Nobody can do it. To me, it's almost like a parliamentary "Bible" for all who believe in it and use it in their practice. Since I came to know the 10th Edition a decade ago, I already knew that not a word could be interpreted in any other way, in its well thought out English, in precision. Those who come to reading the Rulebook must come with this in mind. I'm no different. I knew that the Chinese culture, especially, in its language, isn't like that. They would have read it broadly and interpreted erroneously. But for myself, albeit of a Chinese descent, I'm only made to this realisation, never to the Chinese way of interpretation of English, much less their translation of a precision textbook of English. To me, only precision matters. Otherwise, ambiguities arise. The way I wrote and debated rather forcefully at first was my nature, but once I knew I "learned" a fresh point, by what Mr. Honemann said, I halted. I knew it was something worthy of personal absorption. It was good for me and for my learners in China, and I had already explained that episode to them. With their gratitude. Cheers.
  2. I didn't know what that joke was, you're right. But I did sense that it was said in a jovial vein or in some figurative delight. Anyone who enters this room and "speaks" must be ready for an experience, and be noticed, in my opinion. Here's where one can perfect one's thoughts, in the parliamentary excellence. Cheers.
  3. To the Chinese, letting or even making people learn something is always a pride. To them, as to me too, learning is a never ending exercise. Had I not bumped into AIP and then NAP, way back in 2004, I wouldn't have known many outstanding parliamentarians. Mr. Gerber, you're admired. Cheers.
  4. No. Just trying to share what the Chinese learners seek to learn from the Western world. In fact, they are looking into the English room through the windows, intellectually speaking. Cheers.
  5. I didn't use QTI as anything other than just to mean "quarterly time interval". It was a faux pax on my side. I should have typed it out completely the three words each time I referred to it. That so called ambiguity was gone, in my mind, after I learned that it was free to define that quarterly time interval in a way I want. (I would like to bring up another topic in respect of understanding and the adoption of what's a written Resolution and its Preamble, on pp 108-9. It's another area where the Chinese learners would "almost never understand why". At an appropriate time.) Although to me, English is a language of mathematical precision, it could nevertheless stir in the mind of another beholder. That explained why I gave a livid example of the Handover of Hong Kong to highlight how two cultures, well nigh two great ancient nations could contend in the Clash of Two Mighty Civilizations for over 12 years when one side used English and the other used Chinese in their negotiations. Until today, the two haven't seen eye-to-eye yet even since 1997, after another 19 years! Of course there was a vast difference of the great divide in politics. Their ambiguity and perhaps even mistrust will remain. I have attended the NAP Conventions three times, in 2007,2009 and even in 2009 at St. Pete., FL., and got your jointly edited RONR personally authorised at its debut of the 11th edition. It has been my privilege engaging in a live discussion with you, Mr. Gerber. My deep appreciation. Cheers. KimSee.
  6. I feel bad that I could not say in a way easily understood by an expert in PP. Let me recap. It all began when the parliamentary term, "QTI" was translated into Chinese as a "3-month period", where the Chinese learners would regard that as "3 months", mathematically speaking. Had it been translated into any singular Chinese word, say "Ju", it would be just fine. That could become an approximate number, meaning three months or so. The elusive factor was that RONR's definition which ignores the nth day of the "month" in which the first session was held. The quarter was defined by the three months beyond that "month". So when I learned that we actually could define the QTI, in any way we like if we choose to disregard how it's defined in the RONR. At that point, I was convinced of a good explanation to let the Chinese learners know, just disregard the incorrect Chinese translation. Treat it on its face value, if need be. I'm now all clear, as I should as much as any intellectual reader of that section (pp 89-90). To me, if I may, use that QTI as a frame of reference, to define the period between two sessions. Over.
  7. I'm a bit concerned that my written communication, in respect of my last para, has failed to connect with a brilliant mind. Will try to re-write what I said in bullet point form, without all figurative slants. Stay tuned, Mr. Gerber.
  8. My checks with the American Heritage Dictionary and the British Cambridge Advanced a Dictionary show the meaning of "conversant" to be "familiar with something, by study or experienc," instead. So that was what I meant when I said the people of HK were conversant in Cantonese and Chinese, not just the ability to speak but also read and write. I know it's a bit hard to appreciate what's Cantonese, since it's only a local provincial dialect, and not all Chinese know or understand that dialect. You might like to know that there are probably over 10 different dialects in China, which are totally strange to each other in speaking but only one form of Written Chinese in China. (Taiwan is a little different). BTW, I'm a collector of English dictionaries and have over 25 different advanced and mixed ones in my home library. That was well before e-dictionary version appeared.
  9. I'm less troubled than you perceive, Mr. Gerber. I gathered from all input that I should be more concerned with the "form" of the QTI, than the "substance" of it. It's just a frame of reference that's of relevance, not so much about the precision of the definition of that period of a Quarter. It shouldn't even bother me and my Chinese PP learners whether that period should be 91 or 92 days or even a little less than 120 days to define a quarter. It's more about how to understand that period between the two consecutive quarters that's of essence in application. After all, we can even define how a quarter should be as long as they serve the purpose within our assembly of intellectual members (so says Mr. Honemann) and so long as there're only four quarters in a calendar! That's my understanding of the rationale. Notwithstanding, learning a new field of parliamentary education by a people of completely different culture takes many gigantic steps! It's not just about the language for learners in China but also the restricted form of their political setting, as it were. And the way for them to tune into the Western frequency of thinking and life, as it is. This probably explains why so far there are 3 RPs in China today, who earned their credentials very recently in the Chinese language form, and who so excitedly have been asking me to "fill in their intellectual gaps" in understanding and applying the RR. Despite their credentials, they're at a complete loss, so to speak. So far, all other English qualified RPs and PRPs in the world, are non-Chinese speaking until I appeared in their scenario recently. Just fancy that. Over.
  10. No. Both Cantonese and Mandarin have almost the same written characters but in speaking they're miles apart. Cantonese speakers don't understand Mandarin speakers at all, and vice versa. I read and write Mandarin and Cantonese but speak only Mandarin, no Cantonese. Now my speaking Cantonese is getting better.
  11. Had Mr. Robert been here today, he might be somewhat amazed to realise that there's the Art and Science of his original thoughts written for the world. What Kim has enticingly illustrated here is the Science of the Robert while the world since, Feb 19, 1876 has enjoyed a lot of the Art, which I summarised in a short article to share with my Chinese learners in China, just weeks ago. indeed, Kim worked out nicely based the Law of Averages to convince even the most reticent that what's turbidity can be crystal clear, in number terms. I should refer to his numerological thinking when this QTI comes up again in our learning discussions. Interestingly too, i shared a point in my jovial vein recently on fB, with a famed writer now on the 3rd edition of his book on Robert, that I could read his mind rather easily, than the RONR today. Why? Well, this Rulebook today has become the composite works of five brilliant minds, instead of just one. It has sort of become the behemoth of squeezed intellectual juices on Robert, where even the best will only become better. Only here on the Q&A Forum do we get a glimpse to probe into the active minds of two of the five most incisive intellectual crunchers, if I may, to enjoy every moment. Thanks, Kim, I appreciate you very much.
  12. I tend to agree with you fully, my learned friend, Richard. When I was working full time in HK for four years as a high ranking high tech officer for the Pacific region, I taught part time English law to graduate students in the evenings. They were only conversant in Cantonese and Chinese but little English. Yet they all loved me as I spoke no Cantonese, and used English only to teach English law. Perfect fitting for them. So I knew what was required for Chinese translation from any English text. Thereafter, I even earned my Chinese Law Diploma from the Beijing Law Society, in 1989. Why I say this now? You may recall at that time, from 1985 onward, Britain was fiercely negotiating with the PRC for the return of HK to the Mainland. What gives. They were at loggerheads and deadlock. Up till 1997, both governments could not find their meeting points to finalise their Basic Law for HK. Why? For the UK, they had over 500 years of English Legal System to back up but for the PRC, then only about 50 years of the so-called Chinese Law to talk about. It was like a square peg finding to slot into a round hole. As I understand both languages and was comfortable with both legal systems, I enjoyed the fun of seeing how the tough 12 years of excruciating pains suffered in HK, PRC and the U.K., well beyond negotiating table, beyond translation of one language into another, let alone the legal terms. So now, I find similar difficulties here, since the RONR was translated by one who wasn't even trained in PP, in the 10th Ed, and in the 11th Ed, he sort of overthrew lots of terms for new ones! Imagine how readers feel, never mind if they are confusingly disturbed. Many, many parliamentary terms or phrases were translated with inventive words in Chinese. Perhaps, over time, things will become easier. Bear in mind, Chinese language is digital while English to me is analog. In between there's a need for Analog-Digital Converters! I'm well aware of what you've in mind, since I got into learning PP in 2004. Happily so. Cheers.
  13. Maybe I don't get you when you say, "as long as you define what your terms mean,..." Would I have the liberty to define QTI in any way I like, as long as it's approx three months?
  14. Suppose the session started with a meeting on the 10th of March, and the next session could be held, if within the QTI, anytime before end of the third month, not counting March. That could be the end of June, to be still "...separated by no more than a QTI,..." Isn't it correct? Let say, the next session begins on 30th of June, and so the period counted would be 3 calendar months plus two weeks. The ambiguity lies in the definition of a Quarter, which in the Chinese translation is in three words, not just one word, and so in the Chinese equivalent of "three (calendar) months". But then a QTI could be three months plus two weeks as in the example above. That's the difference. Over to you.
  • Create New...