I spoke to a doc friend of mine, and he echoes the sentiments that there is an insufficient number of posts available for housemanship in our country.
If you recall many years back , there was a glut of medical graduates - I remember during my Uni days, when the quota for students applying for courses in medicine was capped to a certain number. That was back in the late 90s early 2000s.
But with the introduction of private institutions which offer medical courses , we saw an increase of medical graduates.
“Over the years, private medical schools have become convenient scapegoats for what is claimed to be an excessive number of medical graduates in this country, when it is self-evident that this is only part of the story,” ~ Prof. Dr Pravdeep Nair.
Obstetrician and Gynaecologist senior consultant Prof Dr Zaleha Abdullah Mahdy pointed out that the country’s doctor to population ratio was alarmingly imbalanced.
“The problem now is that there aren’t enough posts for doctors to fill in the public health service sector; it has not expanded in line with the population’s needs.”
Prof Pradeep suggested ramping up our healthcare expenditure to ease the gridlock in available posts in the medium and long term, as Malaysia currently spends 4.4% of its gross domestic product on healthcare, compared to the recommended 7% by WHO.
“Another solution is to explore the possibility of smart partnerships with private medical centres and medical schools by allowing housemanship training in the private sector.
“This is in place in Australia under the Commonwealth Medical Internships Initiative,” he said.
He said with a moratorium currently placed on the number of medical programmes in the country as well as limits on intakes, the next steps to consider are a phased reduction in the number of overseas schools Malaysia recognises; a scheduled discontinuance of the provisional registration examination for unrecognised graduates; the introduction of a common competencies checklist for all Malaysian medical undergraduates studying locally or abroad; and the introduction of a common exit examination for all Malaysians who are medical graduates intending to work in Malaysia.
While calling for the current contract doctors to be absorbed into permanent positions, Medical Practitioners Coalition Association of Malaysia president Dr Raj Kumar Maharajah said the number of medical colleges in the country must be controlled.
“Cut down student intakes in private medical colleges by at least 70% and by 50% in public institutions until the situation is normalised,” he said.
.
.
.
Do you think it’s fair that these contract doctors decided to do a boikot when the country needs them most?
1. Hell yeah!
2. No. It’s an opportunist move.
Would love to hear your views.
同時也有208部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過1萬的網紅translation,也在其Youtube影片中提到,#'86年にテクモが稼働させた、AC用横スクロールACT作品。 プレイヤーは戦士を操作して世界を蹂躙する獣王ライガーを打倒する。 戦士はディスカーマーなる投げ武器があり、道中に配置されているパワーアップアイテムを取得する事で攻撃を強化出来る。 BGMはスターフォース(AC/'84年)や、デジタル・...
「place an introduction」的推薦目錄:
- 關於place an introduction 在 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於place an introduction 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於place an introduction 在 Scholarship for Vietnamese students Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於place an introduction 在 translation Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於place an introduction 在 Happy Kongner Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於place an introduction 在 Y. LIFE STYLE Youtube 的最讚貼文
place an introduction 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最佳貼文
這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。(加拿大法院鏈接在此:https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8)
這位法王的桃色事件,我是幾年前才聽到。但,藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞,我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過,也有一些活佛跟她表白。(這不只是她,其他地方我也聽過不少)
這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。
很多時候發生這種事情,信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇,或者說她們也精神病,或者說她們撒謊。
我不排除有這種可能性,但,多過一位,甚至多位出來指證的時候,我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。
大寶法王的桃色事件,最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒,第二位是香港的女出家人,現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。
對大寶法王信徒來說,這一次的比較麻煩,因為是有孩子的。(關於有孩子的,我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時,就有聽聞)
如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA,這對法王和他的信徒來說,會很尷尬和矛盾,因為做或不做,都死。
你若問我,我覺得『人數是有力量的』,同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來,是不出奇的。
我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒,如果你們真的愛佛教,先別說批判,但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議,你是間接害了佛教。
(下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容,當中有很多細節。)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
F. Delay / Prejudice
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).
[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.
[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.
[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.
[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.
BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.
[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.
[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.
[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.
[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.
[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.
[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.
[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.
[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.
[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.
[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.
[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.
[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:
a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;
b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;
c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;
d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.
[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.
[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.
[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.
[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:
I will definitely find a way to meet her
And you
Remember to take care of yourself if something happens
[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.
[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.
[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.
[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.
[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.
[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:
3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person
(a) is married to another person, or
(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and
(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.
[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).
[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.
[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.
[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.
[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.
[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.
[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.
[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.
[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.
[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.
[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.
[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:
[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.
[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:
1. Shelter:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?
2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?
3. Services:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals;
(b) washing and mending clothes;
(c) shopping;
(d) household maintenance; and
(e) any other domestic services?
4. Social:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?
(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?
5. Societal:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?
6. Support (economic):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?
7. Children:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?
[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).
[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:
[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.
[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.
[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.
[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:
[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.
[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:
a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.
b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.
c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.
d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.
e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.
f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.
g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.
[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.
[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.
[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.
[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).
[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.
[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.
[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.
[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.
[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.
[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.
[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.
[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:
[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.
[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.
[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.
[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:
[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.
[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:
[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …
[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.
[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.
F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.
[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.
[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.
[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.
[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.
[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.
[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.
[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.
[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.
CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.
[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.
[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.
“Master Elwood”
place an introduction 在 Scholarship for Vietnamese students Facebook 的最讚貼文
KINH NGHIỆM LUYỆN THI ĐẠT IELTS 8.0 VÀ TIP PHÒNG THI HỮU ÍCH
Tác giả: Nguyễn Thị Diễm Hằng
_______________
Chào các bạn, gần đây mình có thi lại IELTS và được 8.0. Thời gian ôn thi của mình khá gấp gáp, chỉ khoảng 2 tháng , tuy nhiên cùng với kinh nghiệm đã tích lũy được trong 5 năm nay đi dạy IELTS, mình có rất nhiều tip và chia sẻ hữu ích dành cho tất cả các bạn.
A. Kĩ năng nghe – Listening:
I. Tip luyện thi:
#1: Muốn nghe tốt phải phát âm đúng:
Lời khuyên đầu tiên đó là phải PHÁT ÂM ĐÚNG. Các bạn có thể phát âm chưa được hay, ngữ điệu chưa được “native” nhưng điều quan trọng là NHỮNG TỪ CƠ BẢN các bạn phải phát âm đúng (hoặc ít nhất là biết cách phát âm “correctly”). Đơn giản là vì nếu như các bạn phát âm sai một từ nào đó thì khi nghe người ta phát âm đúng các bạn cũng không thể luận ra được đó là từ gì. Chắc chắn có nhiều bạn đến khi xem đáp án rồi mới ồ lên “hóa ra là từ này à”, đúng không nào?
=> HÃY HỌC PHÁT ÂM TRƯỚC KHI LUYỆN NGHE
(cách học phát âm mình sẽ nói ở phần Speaking nhé!)
#2: Luyện đề nghe thì cần thời gian:
Ý mình không phải chỉ là 30 phút thôi đâu nhé! Sau khi làm xong 1 đề nghe các bạn đừng vội check đáp án luôn. Hãy cho bản thân cơ hội nghe lại lần nữa với những vị trí mà bạn chưa chắc. Nếu nghe đến lần thứ 2,3 mà bạn vẫn chưa biết phải điền/chọn gì thì hãy xem đáp án và đọc script (đọc kĩ để hiểu tại sao lại là đáp án này mà không phải đáp án kia.) Vậy là xong? Không, các bạn cần nghe lại 1 lần ko nhìn script, cố gắng nghe hiểu nhiều nhất có thể, sau đó nghe lại 1 lần nữa, vừa nghe vừa đọc script (lần nghe này các bạn nên nhẩm theo audio -> vừa luyện nghe vừa học được cách phát âm, ngữ điệu của người bản xứ siêu hiệu quả nha!
=> HÃY PHÂN TÍCH 1 ĐỀ NGHE TỈ MỈ ĐỂ TRÁNH CÁC BẪY TRONG BÀI NGHE
#3: Đọc kĩ câu hỏi trước khi nghe:
Tip này nghe có vẻ hơi “boring” nhưng lại vô cùng quan trọng! Hãy đọc, phân tích câu hỏi, các lựa chọn và DỰ ĐOÁN đáp án cho mỗi câu. Các bạn nên đặt câu hỏi cho bản thân như: vị trí này nên điền loại từ nào, loại thông tin nào, nếu là danh từ thì là danh từ số ít hay số nhiều, danh từ chỉ nơi chốn hay danh từ chỉ đồ vật…., có cần đơn vị không, có thể có những thông tin gây nhiễu như thế nào, PARAPHRASE…
Đến đây, nhiều bạn sẽ thắc mắc có mỗi 20-30s đọc trước câu hỏi mỗi phần, đọc còn chả kịp thì phân tích với dự đoán kiểu gì? Hãy nhớ là PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT, hãy luyện tập thật nhiều rồi các bạn sẽ thấy khả năng dự đoán của mình sẽ tăng lên đáng kể đó.
=> DỰ ĐOÁN CÁC ĐÁP ÁN CÓ THỂ TRƯỚC KHI NGHE
II. Tài liệu luyện nghe:
- Làm toàn bộ test Listening từ Cam 7 đến Cam 15, không thiếu 1 bài.
- Nếu còn thời gian, bạn có thể làm thêm Official Guide to IELTS, IELTS Test Plus 3, Improve IELTS Listening.
Làm hết chỗ này là đủ rồi nhé, không lo thiếu đâu 😊
III. Tip phòng thi:
#1: Concentration is a key.
Luôn luôn tập trung tối đa, không sao nhãng dù là 1s.
#2: KO NÊN DÀNH TOÀN BỘ THỜI GIAN CHECK ĐÁP ÁN CHỈ ĐỂ CHECK ĐÁP ÁN, THAY VÀO ĐÓ HÃY DÀNH NHIỀU THỜI GIAN ĐỂ ĐỌC TRƯỚC CÂU HỎI CỦA PHẦN SAU NHÉ!
#3: Take note:
Dù bạn thi hình thức nào, thi máy hay thi giấy thì cũng nên take note nhé! Đặc biệt là với những bài tập chọn đáp án, việc take note key word sẽ giúp bạn loại bỏ những đáp án sai và dễ dàng chọn đáp án đúng hơn đấy.
B. Kĩ năng đọc – Reading:
I. Tip luyện thi:
#1. Quản lý thời gian hiệu quả:
Trong bài thi IELTS Reading, sẽ có 3 bài đọc tương đối dài với độ khó tăng dần và bạn phải làm trong thời gian 60 phút. Vậy có phải chúng ta nên chia thời gian 20 phút cho 1 bài đọc?
Theo mình thì KHÔNG nhé, vì bài đọc số 1 thường là bài dễ nhất nên thay vì dành 20 phút cho bài này thì chúng ta chỉ nên làm trong 15 phút thôi còn bài đọc số 3 – khó nhất thì ta sẽ dành 25 phút.
=> Vậy chiến lược về thời gian của chúng ta ở đây là 15’-20’-25’ cho từng bài bạn nhé!
#2. Không dành quá nhiều thời gian cho 1 câu hỏi:
Chúng ta cùng thử làm 1 phép tính, các bạn cần phải làm 40 câu trong vòng 60 phút như vậy là chưa đến 2 phút cho 1 câu. Vậy nếu các bạn đã dành hơn 3 phút cho một câu nào đó mà vẫn chưa thể tìm ra đáp án thì lời khuyên của mình là hãy dừng lại và chuyển sang những câu tiếp theo ngay nhé. Tất nhiên các bạn có thể đánh dấu câu ấy và quay lại làm nếu còn thời gian!
#3. Skimming and scanning:
- Skimming: trước khi trả lời các câu hỏi các bạn nên dành thời gian đọc qua toàn bộ bài đọc để nắm được nội dung chính của cả bài cũng như là cấu trúc của bài đọc. Việc làm này rất quan trọng vì nó giúp các bạn hình thành trong đầu chủ đề, những nội dung chính, sơ lược nội dung của từng đoạn văn. Bạn sẽ thấy sau khi skimming thì bạn sẽ dễ dàng tìm thông tin cho mỗi câu hỏi nhanh hơn rất nhiều.
Nhớ là đọc qua, đọc lướt bài đọc chứ không phải cố gắng đọc hiểu tất cả từ cũng như toàn bộ nội dung của bài text đâu nhé!
- Scanning: Các bạn nên gạch chân hoặc highlight những key word trong câu hỏi và câu trả lời. Sau đó, scan (tìm) những từ/cụm từ đó trong bài đọc. Khi đã xác định được vị trí thông tin, các bạn không nên chỉ đọc mỗi câu chứa key word/ thông tin đó mà nên đọc những dòng xung quanh đó nữa nhé!
Đừng quên tập trung vào các key word như là tên, năm, ngày tháng, địa điểm…..nhé!
#4. Kỹ năng paraphrase:
Không cần nói chắc ai cũng biết Paraphrase là kĩ năng vô cùng quan trọng trong IELTS. Và cách để paraphrase thường được dùng nhiều nhất là synonym tức là từ đồng nghĩa. Tuy nhiên, vẫn còn nhiều cách khác nhau để viết lại câu trong bài đọc với ý nghĩa không đổi.
=> Vậy để đạt điểm cao, các bạn cần phải trau dồi vốn từ vựng phong phú, đồng nghĩa, trái nghĩa,.. và thuần thục kỹ năng paraphrase.
Ví dụ:
About 1900s
=> The early years of the twentieth century
II. Tài liệu luyện đọc:
(như phần luyện nghe)
III. Tip phòng thi:
#1: Làm đến đâu chắc đến đó:
Thông thường một đề đọc khá dài cho nên ít bạn có đủ thời gian để xem lại bài làm của mình, cho nên các bạn nên cố gắng làm đến đâu kiểm tra lại luôn tới đó nhé!
#2: Không cố gắng hiểu tất cả các từ:
Thay vào đó hãy chỉ tập trung vào các CONTENT WORDS (từ chứa nội dung) như danh từ, động từ, tính từ để đoán nghĩa của câu thôi nhé!
#3: Bỏ qua những gì bạn đã biết về chủ đề bài đọc:
Hãy chỉ tập trung vào nội dung bài đọc, ko chọn đáp án theo suy đoán hay hiểu biết cá nhân! Bài viết đôi khi được viết chủ quan theo quan điểm của tác giả, có thể đúng hoặc sai nên ko dùng “phán đoán” để làm, bất kì câu hỏi nào cũng phải dựa theo thông tin bài đọc cung cấp nhé!
C. Kĩ năng viết – Writing:
I. Tip luyện thi:
#1. Đọc và phân tích bài mẫu:
Mình để ý khi mình yêu cầu học sinh đọc bài mẫu, các bạn ý thường đọc rất nhanh khoảng 2-3 phút là xong. Tuy nhiên, điều quan trọng là sau khi đọc xong các bạn phải hiểu logic của bài viết ấy, mỗi câu có chức năng gì, tác giả có những luận điểm, luận cứ như thế nào, từ vựng, cấu trúc của bài đó có gì hay….?
Sau khi đọc xong, các bạn nên viết lại áp dụng những gì mình đã học được từ bài mẫu.
#2: Task 1: Học các cách diễn đạt khác nhau cho cùng một nội dung:
Ví dụ:
The amount of household expenditure has diminished significantly by 30% this year.
=> There has been a marked decrease of 30% in the amount of expenditure this year.
=> The figure for domestic spending has witnessed a remarkable decline to 20% this year.
Các bạn nên học các cách diễn đạt khác nhau cho cùng 1 ý (tăng/giảm/ko thay đổi/trái ngược...). Bên cạnh đó, bạn cũng nên note lại những cách diễn đạt đặc trưng cho mỗi loại hình task 1. (VD: Pie chart - “made up the bulk of, accounted for the majority of…”).
#3: Task 2: Học theo chủ đề:
Với Task 2, các bạn nên học idea và topic vocabulary theo những chủ đề sau:
- Advertising
- Animals
- Art
- Crime
- Education
- Environment
- Family
- Health
- Finance
- Technology
- Social problems
- Tourism
- Transportation
- Work – jobs
.....
II. Tài liệu luyện viết:
- Đọc bài mẫu của các Examiner: thầy Simon, cô Liz và thầy David Lang.
- IELTS – Write Right (học cuốn này để hiểu các band điểm khác nhau ntn nhé)
- Kientran – 7.5+ Writing Guarantee (học cuốn này để hiểu logic của 1 bài viết nhé)
- Ngoài ra, các bạn có thể tham khảo: Academic Writing Practice for Ielts (Sam Mc Carter), A Solution to score 8.0….
III. Tip phòng thi:
#1: Lập dàn ý trước khi bắt tay vào viết:
Việc lập dàn ý sẽ giúp bạn định hướng bài viết của mình, tránh viết lan man, dàn trải, ko rõ ý. Các bạn có thể lập dàn ý trong đầu hoặc viết note! Thời gian lập dàn ý cho mỗi task ko quá 3’ nhé!
#2: Chú ý chính tả, ngữ pháp trong khi viết:
Đừng để mất điểm vì những lỗi sai không đáng nhé!
#3: Không dành nhiều thời gian cho Introduction:
Nên nhớ 1 Introduction “thần thánh” không đảm bảo các bạn được điểm cao đâu. Thay vào đó, với Task 1 – cố gắng viết 1 Overview tóm tắt những thông tin nổi bật nhất, 2 đoạn Body ko liệt kê mà tập trung vào so sánh, xu hướng chính, số liệu…; với Task 2: 2 đoạn Body cần mạch lạc, luận cứ mở rộng, đi sâu hơn từ luận điểm, ví dụ phải cụ thể và “support” trực tiếp cho luận cứ.
D. Kĩ năng nói – Speaking:
I. Tip luyện thi:
#1. Học phát âm trước khi luyện nói:
Các bạn nên học phát âm từng âm một (âm đơn, âm đôi phát âm như nào, khẩu hình ra sao, ghép vào từng từ như thế nào…). Các bạn dành thời gian mỗi ngày luyện phát âm 2-3 âm thật nhuần nhuyễn, kết hợp cả luyện âm (chú ý cả Stress các bạn nhé) và luyện nghe. Chỉ sau khoảng 1 tháng đều đẵn, các bạn sẽ thấy mình thay đổi rõ rệt. Tiếp đến các bạn hãy luyện nói theo ngữ điệu, học Chunking, Shadowing…
#2: Ôn thật kĩ bộ đề dự đoán:
Dù cho thời gian ôn luyện có gấp gáp đến đâu, các bạn hãy cố gắng ôn hết bộ đề dự đoán, ít nhất mỗi chủ đề Part 1, 2 nên tập trả lời 1-2 lần. Đặc biệt với những chủ đề là lạ thì hãy chuẩn bị vocab sẵn. Đừng để đến lúc vào phòng thi là “tim đập chân run” vì “chưa nghe thấy chủ đề này bao giờ luôn” nhé!
=> BÍ QUYẾT CỦA SỰ TỰ TIN LÀ CHUẨN BỊ THẬT TỐT
#3: Tập trung vào sự trôi chảy:
Luôn luôn nhớ rằng, giám khảo chấm “how you speak” chứ ko phải “what you speak”. Và để nói thật sự trôi chảy, các bạn cần luyện tập phản xạ, dẫn dắt những chủ để mình không biết về những chủ đề mình “có thể chém được”.
Trong part 1, các bạn nên học 1 số idea để có thể trả lời cho nhiều đề nhất.
Ví dụ:
? tại sao nó cần thiết/quan trọng => giúp tôi thư giãn/ kết bạn/ gia tăng hiểu biết….
? có thích ….ko? => ko bởi vì ko có tiền/ ko có thời gian/ thay vào đó thích cái khác…..
#4 : Ôn Part 2 hiệu quả :
Các bạn nên nhóm các đề giống giống nhau hoặc chia theo 5 chủ đề chính:
1. Describe a person.
2. Describe a place
3. Describe an object
4. Describe an activity/event/experience
5. Others
Hãy chuẩn bị 1 dàn bài chi tiết cho mỗi nhóm chủ để trên.
a. Ý tưởng: cái này nên lấy từ chính trải nghiệm của bản thân các bạn, hoặc tham khảo từ những nguồn script mẫu như sách của thầy Mat Clark hoặc nhờ cậy “ông chú Google”.
b. Từ vựng: Từ vựng thì gom nhặt từ bài mẫu hoặc trau dồi thêm từ 3 kĩ năng còn lại, đặc biệt là Writing nhé.
c. Ngữ pháp: Các bạn tìm đọc cuốn 31 High-scoring để có 1 cái nhìn khái quát về cách ăn điểm ngữ pháp cho 1 bài nói. Hoặc cố gắng “input” các cấu trúc như bị động, mệnh đề quan hệ, ...
II. Tip phòng thi:
#1: Hãy nói thật tự nhiên:
Đừng cố gắng nhồi nhét idiom hay từ khó mà hãy cố gắng sử dụng các cụm từ tự nhiên mà người bản xứ hay dùng.
Các trang Youtube các bạn nên subcribe:
Ieltsdragon
English Speaking Success
Accurate English
Một cách khá hay để luyện nói đó là ghi âm và nghe lại. Lần 1 bạn sẽ nói rất đơn giản và mắc nhiều lỗi, hãy nghe lại và bắt đầu sửa dần những lỗi bạn mắc, kèm theo triển khai thêm vocab. Cứ liên tục như vậy chắc chắn bạn sẽ tiến bộ.
#2: Phát âm rõ ràng, tốc độ vừa phải
#3: Topic Vocab, Collocation, Paraphrase
Chú ý dùng nhiều topic vocab, collocation và tránh lặp từ. Luyện tập Paraphrase câu hỏi nữa nhé!
#4: Bình tĩnh và phải thật bình tĩnh:
Hãy coi giám khảo như 1 người bạn để nói chuyện và trao đổi, đừng lo lắng quá. Chúng ta sẽ không thể trả lời tốt nếu như run bần bật đúng ko nào. Hãy tập nói chuyện với mình trong gương hoặc quay video nếu cần nhé!
Còn rất nhiều điều mình muốn chia sẻ thêm với các bạn, các bạn hãy follow hoặc kết bạn với mình nhé! Và nếu có thắc mắc gì đừng ngần ngại inbox cho mình nha! Chúc tất cả các bạn đạt được mức điểm IELTS như ý!
------------------------
💓 Join group, share, tag, invite bạn bè để không lỡ info hay nhé 💓
#HannahEdEnglishClub
#ielts
#scholarshipforVietnamesestudents
place an introduction 在 translation Youtube 的最佳解答
#'86年にテクモが稼働させた、AC用横スクロールACT作品。
プレイヤーは戦士を操作して世界を蹂躙する獣王ライガーを打倒する。
戦士はディスカーマーなる投げ武器があり、道中に配置されているパワーアップアイテムを取得する事で攻撃を強化出来る。
BGMはスターフォース(AC/'84年)や、デジタル・デビル物語 女神転生(FC/'87年)等の増子氏が作曲。
作曲:増子司氏
manufacturer: 1986.05 Tecmo
system: Rygar
hardware: Z80,YM3812,MSM5205
composer: tsukasa masuko
----------------------------------------------------
00:00 01.Credit (クレジット)
00:02 02.Introduction ~ Main BGM (アルゴスの戦士 メインBGM)
02:34 03.Bonus Points (ボーナス)
02:40 04.Interval (Repulse, Rank, Timer Bonus) (ラウンドクリア)
03:03 05.Get An Indra! (インドラ)
03:08 06.Main BGM (Without Intro) (メインBGM *イントロなし)
04:00 07.Invincibility (闘気のインドラ)
05:13 08.Main BGM (Restart) (メインBGM *リスタート)
06:22 09.Extend (エクステンド)
06:26 10.Timer Alert (時間切れ~ゴーディン)
06:32 11.Undead Monster (アンデッド)
07:16 12.Special Bonus Points (インドラの秘伝書/100万点ボーナス)
07:31 13.Ending (エンディング)
08:16 14.Name Entry (1st Place) (ネームエントリ1)
10:54 15.Name Entry (Below 2nd Place) (ネームエントリ2)
11:32 16.Game Over (ゲームオーバー)
----------------------------------------------------
place an introduction 在 Happy Kongner Youtube 的精選貼文
⇀勞麗麗 WMA 委託計劃「機遇」-《寂靜春天來臨前》
Lo Lai Lai Natalie’s exhibition ‘The Days Before The Silent Spring’
.
展覽詳情 Details of the exhibition:
日期 / Date: 15.12.2020 - 15.01.2021
時間 / Time: 12nn - 7pm (星期二至日 Tue to Sun)
地點 / Place: WMA Space, 中環永和街23-29號俊和商業中心8樓
8/F Chun Wo Commercial Centre, 23-29 Wing Wo Street, Central
.
預約 / Reservation: https://bit.ly/3qnKoYI
有關展覽詳情:https://bit.ly/3ospxS8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
⇀HappyKongner 香油錢錢箱在此:https://streamlabs.com/happykongner
⇀HappyKongner Payme Link (Only for Phone):https://qr.payme.hsbc.com.hk/2/GDM5B4TbjP7ZL66jN4Awve
⇀HappyKongner Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/happykongner
⇀HappyKongner Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/happykongner/
⇀米迦 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/micahcheng/
(Kongner有關道尼嘅「三不一沒有」原則:不主動要求;不鼓勵追求;不抗拒收受;弟兄姊妹沒有必要道尼的理由,所以大家隨緣樂助,切記係唔收八達通,多謝大家支持)
訂閱 Happy Kongner 快活角落頭:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCW_n...
同朋友一齊成為Kongner嘅一份子!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
資料來源:
Della Porta, D & Diani, M. (1997) Social Movements : An Introduction, John Wiley and Sons Ltd
Ducasse, A & Regouby, C (2017), Manger Est un Acte Citoyen, French and European Publications Inc
黃偉豪、吳曉鋒 著。二〇一七。《食物霸權:吃什麼,真的由你決定?》。花千樹出版有限公司
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
如果對於呢條片有咩意見,請多多指教。
我哋會竭盡全力做到最好。
如果你哋睇完之後鍾意嘅話,我哋希望你可以同多啲人分享!
我哋嘅圖片同影片大多都係網上搜尋到嘅資源。
如涉及侵權,請聯絡我哋。
All videos on this channel are only used for commentary, criticism, research, scholarship, teaching, comment, and news reporting. Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#食物霸權 #本土農業 #社會運動
place an introduction 在 Y. LIFE STYLE Youtube 的最讚貼文
♦︎今日のひとこと♦︎
他人と過去は変えられないが、自分と未来は変えられる。
Eric Berne.
▼お仕事のご相談、ご依頼はこちらからお願い致します▼
https://www.uuum.co.jp/
▼チャンネル登録はこちらから▼
https://www.youtube.com/c/YLIFESTYLE4696/featured
▼オススメアイテムを楽天ルームにまとめています▼
https://room.rakuten.co.jp/y.lifestyle/items
▼オリジナルグッズ購入はこちらから▼
https://muuu.com/videos/4645f7f1e7fa4909
▼お手紙とプレゼントの宛先はこちら▼
〒107-6228
東京都港区赤坂9-7-1
ミッドタウン・タワー 28階 UUUM株式会社
Y. LIFE STYLE宛
♡いつもありがとうございます♡
https://uuum.jp/guidance
【楽曲提供】
Production Music by http://www.epidemicsound.com
----------FOLLOW ME----------
YouTube 1
http://www.youtube.com/c/YLIFESTYLE4696
YouTube 2
http://www.youtube.com/c/YsKitchen
YouTube 3
http://www.youtube.com/c/YOHVLOG
Top Buzz 1
https://www.topbuzz.com/user/6591228825131974661/publish
Top Buzz 2
https://www.topbuzz.com/user/6630962201393233926/publish
Yahoo!Creators Program
https://creators.yahoo.co.jp/ylifestyle
Blog
https://ameblo.jp/yohkichi-blog/
Twitter
https://twitter.com/y_lifestyle_
Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/y.lifestyle/
room
https://room.rakuten.co.jp/y.lifestyle/items
#掃除 #ライフスタイル #年末 #収納 #料理 #暮らし #主婦ユーチューバー
Hello everyone. Nice to meet you!
Welcome back to my channel! Thanks for tuning in.
I will try writing a comment in English.
Let me introduce myself. My name’s Yoh.
I am living in a place called Aichi prefecture in Japan with my husband and son. There are 3 peoples in my family.
Without further ado, let’s get started the introduction of my channel.
That’s why Welcome to my show and as always thanks for watching. I'm mainly making a video of the Japanese lifestyle. It’s cleaning up the room and introduction in the Black&White tool of the interior.
I LOVE there so much. well, I will introduce a convenient tool in Japan. I love the clean up the room. so, I want to tell as many people on my channel I hope.
I have also the second channel of the cooking video.
if you like you can watch there.
I am happy you are interested in my channel and then, I feel honored you have an interest in Japan.
I will continue to call all useful information
Thank you for Always supporting me.
Subscribe to my channel! Oh, by the way, Please thumbs up and follow my twitter, Instagram thank you.
Thank you so much for watching my channel, please enjoy.
Yours truly