The terms are neither in Filipino nor Mandarin. They are in English. There should be no need to translate.
Unfortunately, these terms are either euphemism or dysphemism. As such, the words per se do not mean what they say at face value and finer definitions and expansive qualifications are necessary where words disguise rather than reveal their true meaning.
It is a matter of underlying purposes. Or agenda. Some of the terms are contrived for political correctness. Some for marketing so that certain negativities are packaged with nice brightly colored paper and spruced up with red silk ribbons. On the other hand, some are pure and plain vanilla deceit.
In the terminology of some of the following examples, there are equal amounts of diplomacy and deception that cancel out each side of the equation. Most however either lean towards diplomacy or deception. Where one places the weights is subjective. And it is solely for this reason that cryptic terminologies continue to exist.
Allow us to tackle a few of these euphemisms alongside political commentary where the milieu is conducive to both diplomacy and deception.
In the western world three terms are often heard surrounding the political developments in the United States as the Democratic Party fights a trench war to recapture the White House taken from them in 2016. The three terms are “liberalism,” “far Left” and “socialism.” Common among the three is a platform they call the “New Green Deal.”
Liberalism is a political ideology that advocates civil liberties that emphasize freedoms. Sans responsibilities and accountability, in a progressive continuum, liberalism intensifies and ratchets up, and turns into the term “far Left.” If we add “socialism” as the ultimate endgame, we might see where the Democratic Party is taking the American electorate in the 2020 presidential derby.
To validate, simply analyze who comprise the supporters of Democratic candidate Joseph Biden. They are the supporters of Bernard Sanders and followers of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both rabid advocates for a socialist state underlying a bizarre “New Green Deal” that effectively transforms the United States into a heavily taxed colossal 18th century Amish town.
On this side of the Pacific the following terms have been bandied about. One trading partner expands its influence globally via a debt-based offensive characterized by the buzz words “Dual Circulation.”
Cutting to the chase, its global economic strategy is essentially a chemistry of bilateral debt and infrastructure programs that bind economies amid a global trade war employing “dual circulation” — economic gobbledygook for nothing more than import substitution, the come-on strategy to wean economies away from traditional suppliers by substituting and replacing within the supply chain cheaper, volume-priced goods.
As our foreign policy pivots strategically from east to west and back, to maintain our balance as we spin and pirouette, we need to know the truth behind the buzzwords from either hemisphere.