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”
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過0的網紅墨小鯊 LAZY SHARK,也在其Youtube影片中提到,? GPA爆4升U分享 personal statement寫作重點注意事項!一對一線上輔導接受報名!|墨小鯊 LAZY SHARK|ASSO仔齊上岸 #11 Instagram 活動 (已完結) ▸ https://www.instagram.com/p/CEEWxuUF6Mg/?igshid=...
personal statement structure 在 吳文遠 Avery Ng Facebook 的精選貼文
【吳文遠十一遊行案法庭陳詞 — 中文譯本】
法官閣下:
從小我父母便教我要有同理心,要關顧社會上相對不幸的人。儘管在早年職業生涯上取得不俗成就,但我從來沒有意欲將追求個人財富視為人生目標。
當我在國外生活了多年後回到香港定居時,我為這個我自豪地稱之為家的城市,存在如此嚴重的社會不平等而感到困惑和擔憂。 令我震驚的是,社會如何漠視對窮人和少數族裔的歧視。既有的社會結構,有時甚至會鼓勵這種歧視繼續發生。同時,我們也無法一如其它地方,享有基本的民主權利和自由。
這些都是我參與社會運動以至參與政治的動機。我希望盡己所能,為被忽視的弱勢階層鼓與呼,替不能為自己發聲的人說話。
與許多人相比,我很幸運能夠接受良好教育,並擁有一定程度上的財務自由和社會地位。我們很幸運,能夠過上舒適生活,並有自由選擇我們的道路。我選擇為社會平等而奮鬥。其實這個法庭上許多人都差不多,我們都喜歡香港,這個稱為家的地方。或許我們在生活中選擇了不同的角色,但目標都是相同:為他人服務。
可悲的是,我擔心我們已經逐漸成為社會制度中的例外。當下許多香港人根本沒有那些機會,包括貧困長者,欠缺向上流動機會、被邊緣化的年輕人,還有犧牲所有時間但只能為家庭僅僅維持基本生活的工人。這些人再努力,生活中的選擇仍然局限於維持生計。對他們來說,「選擇」是負擔不起的奢侈品,更不用說如何決定自己的命運。
在生活壓力下,我們的視野通常很難超越自身的社交圈子,更難的是對陌生人展現同理心。兩極化的政治分歧產生越來越多裂痕,令我們有時候無法互相理解、和而不同,亦不願意試圖尋求某種程度的妥協。
我一直希望,一個較民主的制度能夠成為一道橋樑,彌合上述社會鴻溝,或者至少容讓我們選擇怎樣共同生活。
2019年的動盪,為整個社會帶來了沉重的打擊。無論政治立場如何,我敢肯定這個法庭上有許多人,都為此而傷心欲絕。整座城市都被不信任、仇恨和恐懼所淹沒。今天固然不是討論這個問題的合適地方,但我希望法庭能夠理解,僅靠司法機構並不能解決已經根深蒂固的社會政治鴻溝。
我們需要集體力量、勇氣、誠實和同理心來修補我們的家。看看幾位同案被告,他們在服務社會方面有著非凡的紀錄。比起囚禁在監獄,我相信他們能夠對社會作出更大貢獻。
為了追求全體香港人的權利,我的確違反了法律,並且已準備面對法院的判決。令人敬重的幾位同案被告,畢生捍衛法治,為民主而戰,為無聲者發聲,我十分榮幸能夠與他們並肩同行。
我相信終有一天,籠罩我們城市的烏雲將會消散,光明將會重臨,愛和同理心將會戰勝歸來。
吳文遠
2021年5月24日
Avery Ng Man Yuen’s Statement
Your Honour,
I was brought up by my parents to value the importance of empathy, to care and to feel for others in our community less fortunate. Although I enjoyed great success early in my career, I never had a desire to pursue personal wealth in the more traditional sense.
When I settled back in Hong Kong after years of living abroad, I was baffled and disturbed by how severe the social inequality existed in a city I am proud to call my home. I was struck at how discrimination against the poor and the minorities far too often goes ignored or can even at times is encouraged by the established social structure; and how we cannot have the basic democratic rights and freedoms that other places enjoy.
These were my motivations to join social activism and enter into politics. I chose to spend my energy to speak for the underprivileged, the disenchanted and often ignored segments of society. To offer a voice for those who could not speak for themselves.
Compared to many, I am privileged to have a great education and a certain level of financial freedom and social standing. We are fortunate enough to be able to lead comfortable lives and have the freedom to choose the path that we take. I chose to fight for social equality. Many of those in this court are not that much different. We all love Hong Kong, the place we call home. We chose our different roles in life but with the same aim: to serve others.
Sadly, I fear that many of us are increasingly the exception to the rule. Today far too many Hong Kong people do not have that chance, whether that is our elderly who live in poverty, marginalized youth with few opportunities for social mobility, or workers who give up all their time slaving away to provide the bare minimum for their families. These people all struggle to make ends meet with very limited options in life. “Choice” for them is a luxury that they cannot afford. Let alone having the gratification of being able to dictate their own destiny.
I recognise, with the pressures of life, it is often difficult for people to see beyond their own social bubble. It is harder still to acquire empathy for strangers. Polarized political division increasingly has driven a wedge between people, making it sometimes impossible for people to understand and empathise with one another, to disagree agreeably, and attempt to find some level of compromise.
It has always been my hope that a more democratic system could be the bridge that heals this social divide or at the very least allow us to choose how we can live together in our home.
I’m certain that none of us in this court wanted to see the turmoil in 2019, which has seen our whole society suffer regardless of political preference. Distrust, hatred, and fear has engulfed Hong Kong. Today is certainly not the right forum for this immense topic. However, I hope the court can understand that the Judiciary alone cannot resolve the deep-rooted socio-political divide which exist.
It will take our collective strength, courage, honesty, and empathy to mend our home. Looking at my fellow defendants with their extraordinary history in serving this society, I believe they can do far greater good among us in society than being locked in prison.
In pursuit of the rights of all Hong Kong people, I have broken the law. I am prepared to face the court’s judgement. I am proud to be in the company of my esteemed fellows who have spent their lives championing the rule of law, fighting for the democracy and voicing for the voiceless.
I believe the storm-clouds that currently reside over our home will one day lift, and make way for a bright and clear day. I believe love and empathy will eventually prevail.
————————————
文遠交低話大家記住一定要撐 #文遠Patreon 呀!
⭐️支持文遠⭐️請訂閱Patreon⭐️
www.patreon.com/AveryNg
personal statement structure 在 我就是健 Facebook 的最佳解答
王儲一番話,就引來成千上萬的迴響~看來這次最受關注的選區還會是柔佛吧?
PANDANGAN IKHLAS SAYA UNTUK RAKYAT JOHOR YANG SAYA SAYANGI
Hanya pandangan peribadi saya untuk rakyat Johor.
Assalamualaikum W.B.T. Saya ingin mengambil kesempatan ini untuk berkongsi pandangan dan pesanan saya kepada rakyat Johor yang saya kasihi sekalian. Saya memberi nasihat dan berkongsi pendapat saya bukan sebagai ahli politik yang perlukan undian, tetapi ia datang dari hati saya sebagai seorang anak Raja yang berkhidmat kepada rakyatnya. Taat setia saya adalah kepada Sultan saya, negeri Johor dan rakyat saya. DYMM Sultan Johor dan saya saling berkongsi pandangan dan inisiatif apa yang terbaik buat masa hadapan negeri Johor. Bukan sahaja dalam segi pentadbiran kerajaan tetapi untuk memperbaikinya dan menjadi kuasa ekonomi dalam negara, menangani mentaliti ektrimis, menaiktaraf sistem pendidikan dan sistem kesihatan.
Dengan senario politik yang berlaku sekarang dalam negara, tidak kiralah parti yang memerintah atau parti pembangkang, rakyat perlu pandai menilai apa yang terbaik untuk negeri kita dan negara. Dalam situasi politik, rakyat hanya dengar apa yang disampaikan oleh ahli politik di dalam ucapan mereka atau di media sosial. Tetapi yang tahu situasi sebenar adalah DYMM Sultan Johor dan saya sendiri. Apa sahaja rahsia sulit dan agenda mereka kami tahu. Semua maklum bahawa ahli politik ini apabila inginkan sesuatu, mereka akan menabur janji-janji manis. Saya bukan ahli politik tetapi saya juga ada agenda saya sendiri dan agenda saya adalah untuk kedaulatan negeri Johor dan kesejahteraan rakyat Johor.
Semua maklum bahawa UMNO dilahirkan di negeri Johor, di dalam istana negeri Johor. Saya tahu buat masa ini rakyat semua berkecil hati terhadap kepimpinan negara dan saya faham. Bagi pandangan saya, UMNO perlu lebih aset daripada liabiliti. Ia bermakna UMNO perlu bertukar cara pentadbiran dan pemikiran serta polisi terutama sekali sistem hirarki. Kita perlu lebih aset iaitu orang-orang muda yang ingin berkhidmat kepada negara dan berkongsi pengetahuan mereka yang berpotensi.
Saya juga tidak akan lupa siapa yang merosakkan UMNO, yang menjadi peneraju dan melahirkan kroni-kroni, melahirkan korupsi, melahirkan proksi dan juga siapa yang cuba menarik kuasa-kuasa Diraja termasuklah cuba untuk membubarkan Askar Timbalan Setia Negeri Johor (JMF) yang kami semua sayangi. Kedaulatan negeri Johor jangan dipersoalkan. Kami telah wujud dari tahun 1885 sehingga kerajaan persekutuan juga belajar protokol, pentadbiran dan perlembagaan daripada kami. Kami adalah negeri pertama yang mempunyai perlembagaan sendiri dan ia menjadi contoh kepada negara. Kadangkala kita tidak boleh menyalahkan sesebuah organisasi atau parti oleh kerana hanya seorang yang bermasalah.
Saya tidak lupa pada tahun 1992 ketika saya kecil dahulu dan nakal di sekolah, cikgu akan bercakap kepada saya, “Awak jangan main-main, awak tu kerabat diraja. Jika saya mengadu kepada Mahathir, habis awak.” Begitu juga dengan kisah Prebet Adam dimana Almarhum Sultan Iskandar iaitu datuk saya yang tidak ada peluang untuk mempertegakkan diri kerana ketika zaman itu tiada kemudahan internet, semua media dikawal oleh kerajaan.
Media mengeluarkan kenyataan kononnya prebet Adam mengamuk apabila mendapat tahu adik beliau dibunuh oleh Sultan Johor ketika itu. Sedangkan Prebet Adam tiada adik lelaki dan hanya ada adik perempuan yang meninggal dunia ketika berumur 2 tahun dalam tragedi rumah terbakar. Saya juga ada berjumpa dengan seorang individu berasal dari Kedah pada tahun lepas. Beliau yang bercerita kepada saya yang beliau berjumpa dengan Prebet Adam dan Prebet Adam menceritakan bagaimana dia dipaksa sepanjang 10 hari di dalam bilik sel yang gelap oleh anggota polis untuk mengaku yang Sultan Johor membunuh adiknya. Inilah yang sanggup dilakukan oleh kepimpinan tertinggi kerajaan ketika itu demi mendapatkan kuasa sepenuhya di dalam negara.
Rakyat jangan mudah tertipu dengan individu lidah bercabang dua seperti ular. Buat masa ini individu tersebut bukan ingin selamatkan negara tetapi apa yang dia sedang lakukan sekarang adalah kerana takut apa akan terjadi kepada anak-anaknya pada masa akan datang. Sedangkan orang yang paling kaya di dalam dunia pun belum pasti mampu untuk melahirkan tiga orang anak yang ‘billionaire’. Nasihat saya kepada rakyat Johor, jikalau kita tidak suka sesuatu dengan kerajaan, laungkan suara kita untuk pastikan mereka tahu apa yang kita inginkan. Anda semua mempunyai DYMM Sultan Johor dan saya di mana kami boleh sampaikan suara rakyat kepada kerajaan yang memerintah dan kepimpinan tertinggi dalam negara. Jangan sesekali anda sangka yang kami tiada inisiatif untuk memperbaiki sistem yang berada didalam kerajaan.
Tuan-tuan dan puan-puan yang saya hormati. Jikalau anda mahu berperang atau mahukan pertembungan antara kerajaan negeri Johor dan kerajaan persekutuan ia tidak akan mendatangkan apa-apa faedah. Jikalau kami mampu melahirkan ramai lagi anak muda yang ada potensi, sanggup berkhidmat kepada negara dan kami boleh pastikan yang dia mampu mewakili kerajaan, kita boleh mengubah segala-galanya daripada dalam.
DYMM Sultan Johor dan saya mempunyai agenda dan perancangan tersendiri. Agenda utama kami adalah untuk negeri Johor tetapi apa cara untuk kami sampai ke Putrajaya, kami tidak boleh kongsikan kepada anda semua. Ia adalah sulit dan rahsia. Saya bukan ingin menyokong mana-mana parti politik tetapi untuk mengubah nasib negara dan memperbaiki sistem, bukan untuk menjatuhkan kerajaan. Kita perlu mengubahnya daripada dalam.
Jadi, saya dan negara-negara jiran kami berpandangan, jika kapal ini telah berjalan dengan baik selama berpuluh tahun dan mempunyai masalah oleh kerana nakhodanya yang bermasalah, tidak perlu tukar kepada enjin yang baharu. Duduk di dalam kapal yang sama, dan membimbing nakhoda tersebut dan beritahu ke mana kita mahu pergi. Cukup ini sahajalah yang dapat saya kongsikan bersama rakyat. Tetapi rakyat Johor perlu percaya kepada visi DYMM Sultan Johor dan saya sendiri. Tidak perlu banyak perkara untuk dijadikan contoh. Cukup satu perkara kecil sahaja yang boleh saya beritahu anda semua untuk dijadikan sebagai contoh.
Apa yang anda lihat dengan apa yang saya lakukan dalam pentadbiran Persatuan Bolasepak Malaysia (FAM) adalah sama apa yang kami akan lakukan di pentadbiran peringkat tertinggi. Bola sepak hanyalah minat saya. Pada 30hb Jun 2016, saya ada mengeluarkan satu kenyataan dalam laman rasmi JOHOR Southern Tigers yang mengatakan kami akan memusnahkan apa yang anda bina dan kami akan bina yang lebih baik. Ia adalah satu pembayang apa yang ingin saya lakukan kepada sistem pentadbiran FAM ketika itu. Saya tidak kongsikan perkara ini kepada ramai pihak tetapi hari ini saya akan kongsikan kepada semua. Misi saya ketika menyertai FAM adalah untuk memperbaiki dan mempertingkatkan struktur sedia ada. Ia juga untuk menukar struktur perlembagaan dalam FAM bagi memastikan kuasa Presiden FAM dan Persatuan Bolasepak adalah terhad. Mereka hanya menjaga Jawatankuasa Tatatertib, pengadil dan pasukan kebangsaan. FAM juga tidak lagi memberi arahan dan terlibat dengan apa yang berlaku kepada pasukan, kelab, kewangan dan pentadbiran liga. Apa yang saya lakukan adalah saya mengubah perlembagaan di mana kami melabur kepada FAM, melabur kepada semua pasukan dan kami menjaga kepentingan Malaysian Football League (MFL). Ini adalah sebab mengapa saya keluar daripada FAM kerana kuasa tiada kepada Persatuan Bolasepak sama seperti di negara-negara luar. Kuasa berada pada badan berkecuali yang menguruskan liga seperti LaLiga (Sepanyol), Seria A (Itali), English Premier League (England), Bundesliga (Jerman) dan sekarang di Malaysia adalah MFL. Tetapi jangan salah tafsir dengan menganggap Presiden FAM sebagai proksi. Beliau bukan proksi tetapi adalah individu yang layak dan boleh bekerjasama dengan MFL. Ini diibaratkan seperti latihan saya sebelum agenda saya yang lebih besar di peringkat tertinggi melibatkan pentadbiran sistem negeri dan kerajaan.
Tuan-tuan dan puan-puan, saya datang dari keluarga dan hidup di dunia yang anda tidak boleh lihat dan dunia itu dikawal rapi. Anda lihat bagaimana pergerakan sesuatu rejim dan organisasi sulit mengawal dunia. Kami juga mempunyai sistem yang sama tetapi kami organisasi yang berbeza. Jika anda lihat bagaimana organisasi sulit mengawal negara-negara besar daripada sebuah tanah kecil di Timur Tengah dan inilah yang kami lakukan disini untuk mengawal takdir sesebuah negara. Ia telah dilakukan sejak zaman nenek moyang saya dan kami akan meneruskannya untuk rakyat bagi ‘restore the order’ apabila ia terkeluar daripada ‘order’ tersebut. Itulah tanggungjawab kami dan ia akan sentiasa menjadi tugas kami.
Sekarang ini, di dalam negara situasi politik agak berkucar kacir. Tetapi ia tidak semestinya adalah pengakhiran dunia (kiamat). Inilah masanya untuk ‘restore the order’ dan melaksanakannya kepada sistem yang telah dirosakkan oleh individu yang berumur 93 tahun ingin menjadi Perdana Menteri sekarang ini. Jangan tertipu, buka mata anda, gunakan akal fikiran dan ikut bayangan yang akan saya berikan kerana saya tahu apa yang anda tidak tahu. Anda perlu percaya kepada saya kerana saya tahu apa yang ingin saya lakukan. Inilah masanya untuk bumi selatan mengawal sesetengah situasi dan memulihkan semula ‘order’ yang telah dirosakkan oleh individu yang tamakkan kuasa dan duit. Jangan mudah terpengaruh dan percaya dengan apa yang anda dengar semalam di Pasir Gudang. Negeri Johor tidak akan pernah lupa kepada individu yang ingin membubarkan Angkatan Setia Negeri Johor (JMF) yang telah wujud sejak 1886 dan berangan mahu menarik kuasa Sultan Johor yang memerintah serta memperkecilkan perlembagaan negeri Johor yang telah wujud sebelum adanya negara bernama Malaysia.
Ingatlah wahai rakyat Johor yang saya kasihi sekalian. Bersatu kita teguh bercerai kita roboh. Selagi rakyat Johor bersatu bersama-sama dengan kepimpinan DYMM Sultan Johor termasuk saya, pelbagai perkara yang kita mahukan boleh dicapai untuk masa hadapan anak cucu cicit kita. Jangan kita berpecah belah dan mudah dipermainkan dengan anasir-anasir luar yang mahu menghancurkan kedaulatan negeri ini. Lihatlah apa yang telah saya lakukan terhadap bola sepak. Bola sepak ini hanyalah latihan. Ia ibarat saya ke ‘driving range’ sebelum pertandingan golf sebenar.
Jangan tukar kapal jika enjin masih berfungsi dengan baik. Jangan menukar nakhoda kapal tetapi benarkan sultan saya dan saya membimbing nakhoda tersebut demi anda.
Ubah dan pertingkatkan apa yang perlu diubah dan apa yang perlu dipertingkatkan untuk negeri dan negara yang tercinta.
DYAM Mejar Jeneral Tunku Ismail Ibni Sultan Ibrahim, Tunku Mahkota Johor
————
MY HONEST OPINION FOR MY BELOVED PEOPLE OF JOHOR
Just my personal opinion Johorean
Assalamualaikum and peace be upon you. I would like to take this opportunity to send a message and express my views to the beloved people of Johor. I’m giving my advice and sharing my views not as a politician, but rather a message from my heart as a young prince serving his people. My loyalty is to my Sultan, the state of Johor and to my fellow Johorean. HM The Sultan of Johor and I have shared our views and initiatives for what is best for the state of Johor in the future. All aspects have been taken into consideration which not only covers the governance of Johor, but also the blueprint to make Johor an economic powerhouse in this country. Along with this, we’ve also addressed issues to tackle extremism as well as upgrading the educational system and healthcare.
With the political senario that is currently happening in our country, regardless whether or not it’s the ruling government or the opposition, the people must be smart in evaluating what is best for our state and country. Currently, the people are only hearing what the politicians are saying through their speeches or reading articles circulating on social media. The ones who know the real situation is HM The Sultan of Johor and myself. We know their secrets and agendas. Everyone is well aware that when a politician wants something, they will make sweet promises. I am not a politician but I too have my own agenda, and my agenda is to ensure the sovereignty and the welfare of the state of Johor.
Everyone knows that UMNO was formed in Johor. In a Johor’s state palace to be exact. I know the people are discouraged by the leadership of the country and I understand. In my view, UMNO needs to have more assets than liabilities. It means UMNO needs to revamp the way it governs, change the way it thinks and it's policy. One important factor in my opinion is the current party’s hierarchy system. We need more assets in the form of young talents who are ready to serve the country and share their knowledge and replace the old guards with those who have these potential.
I will never forget those who damaged UMNO. The forerunner who gave birth to cronyism, those who gave birth to corruption and proxies, those who wanted to strip away the power of the royal institution and those who attempted to disband our beloved Johor Military Force (JMF). Do not question the sovereignty of Johor. We have been established since 1885. In the early days of the formation of Malaysia, the central government learnt protocols, adopted the structure of governance as well as the constitution from us. We were the first state to have our very own constitution and has been a model to other countries. We should not blame the whole organisation or party because of one problematic individual.
I won't forget the year 1992. Back then I was a small and naughty kid in school. My teachers will say, "Do not play a fool, you are royalty, if I were to report you to Mahathir, you are done for ". Same goes for the story of Private Adam, where my late grandfather, Almarhum Sultan Iskandar was not given a chance to defend himself. Back then we did not have the luxury of the internet and all media were controled by the government.
The media reported that Private Adam apparently “ran amok” when he got news that his brother was murdered by the Sultan of Johor. Private Adam did not have a brother and only a sister who perished in a fire at home when she was 2. Last year I met an individual from Kedah who told me that he met with Private Adam who told him how he was forced for 10 straight days in a dark cell by policeman and confess that the Sultan of Johor had killed his brother. This is how low the highest government’s leadership then is willing to go to have absolute power in this nation.
I hope the people are not easily fooled by a forked tongue individual. At the moment he is not trying to save the country, he is more worried of what will happen to his children in the future. Even the wealthiest person on earth would not be able to give birth to three 'billionaires'. My advice to the people of Johor is, if you have a problem with the government then raise your voice and let them know what you want. All of you have me and the HM Sultan of Johor to convey the peoples voice to the highest leadership in the country. Never for once think that we have no initiative to fix the system within the government.
Ladies and gentlemen. If you want to fight or start a war between the Johor government and the federal government, a head on collision, it does not bring any benefits. If we can produce more young talents with potential, willing to serve the country so we can ensure he or she is capable of representing the government, we can change everything from the inside.
HM Sultan of Johor and I have agendas and plans. Our main agenda is the state of Johor, but how we reach Putrajaya, we can’t disclose to all of you as it is private and confidential. I do not any political party, but in order to change a country’s fate and improve the system, it is not by bringing down a government. We need to change it from the inside.
Our neighboring countries and I believe that if a ship has been sailing fine for many years but has an issue due to its skipper, do not fix it with a new engine. We stay on the same ship and guide the skipper to where we want to go. That’s all I’m sharing with the people. But the people of Johor must believe in the vision of HM Sultan of Johor and I. I do not need to show many examples. Just one small example is enough for me to illustrate for you.
What you saw with what I did with the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) administration is similar to what we will do with the administration at the highest level. Football is only my hobby. On the 30th June 2016, I released a statement with a quote on the JOHOR Southern Tigers official page saying, “We will destroy what you have built and we will build an even better one". It hinted on what I wanted to do with the FAM administration at that time. I did not share it with many people, but today I will share it with all of you. My mission when I joined the FAM was to fix and improve the existing structure. It was also meant to change the FAM’s constitution ensuring that the powers of the FAM President and Football Association are limited. They will only look after the disciplinary committee, referees and the national teams. The FAM will no longer have the power to instruct or be involved in matters related to teams, clubs, the finances and the league’s
administration. What I did was I changed the constitution whereby instead of investing in the FAM, we invested in all the teams and we took care of the interests of Malaysian Football League (MFL), no longer the FAM. This was why I left the FAM because the power is no longer with the Football Association just like in other countries. The power is with a neutral body that manages the league just like in LaLiga (Spain), Serie A (Italy), English Premier League (England), Bundesliga (Germany) and now in Malaysia. It’s called the MFL. Don't misinterpret it by thinking that the President of the FAM is a proxy. He is not a proxy but an individual who is qualified and can work together with the MFL. Once again, the modus operandi is simply my training before partaking my bigger agenda which is the highest levels involving the state and federal administration.
Ladies and gentlemen, I come from a family and live in a world that you cannot see and that world is carefully guarded. Just look at the small state regime in the middle east and the secret societies that controls the world. We are a totally different organisation but what we do is pretty similar. That is what we are doing here, to shape the destiny of a nation from the small southern state. It has been done long ago by my fore fathers and we will keep on doing it for the people. To restore the order when the order steps out of line. That is our duty and will forever be our duty.
At the moment, the political situation in the country is a bit messy, but it is not the end of the world. This is the time to restore the orders and implement systems that have been damaged by individuals who are dreaming of becoming Prime Minister. Do not be deceived, open your eyes, use your minds and follow the clues I have given because I know things you don't know. You only have to trust me, I know what I am doing. This is the time for the South to take control of the situation that has been damaged by money and power greedy individuals and stear it in the right order. Do not be easily manipulated into believing whatever you heard last night in Pasir Gudang. Johor state will never forget that individual who tried to disband the Johor Military Force (JMF) an organisation that has stood since 1886 and that same time, dreaming of diminishing the Sultan's power, belittling our constitution that has been here since before the inception of the country called Malaysia.
To my beloved people of Johor, we must remember that United we stand, divided we fall. As long as the people of Johor are together with HM The Sultan of Johor and I, we can achieve anything for the future of our children and grandchildren. Do not be easily played by the bad influences out there who want to destroy the sovereignty of this state. Look at what I have done for football. It is merely training at driving range before the real tournament.
Don't change the boat if the engine is not broken, don't even change the skipper but allow HM The Sultan of Johor and I guide the skipper for you. Change what needs to be changed and upgrade what needs upgrading for the sake of our beloved country.
HRH Major General Tunku Ismail Ibni Sultan Ibrahim, Crown Prince of Johor
Johor Mesti Sentiasa Jadi Johor
#HarimauSelatan
#SouthernTigers
#PermataSelatan
#JewelOfTheSouth
#JDTuntukSemua
#JDTforAll
personal statement structure 在 墨小鯊 LAZY SHARK Youtube 的最佳貼文
? GPA爆4升U分享 personal statement寫作重點注意事項!一對一線上輔導接受報名!|墨小鯊 LAZY SHARK|ASSO仔齊上岸 #11
Instagram 活動 (已完結)
▸ https://www.instagram.com/p/CEEWxuUF6Mg/?igshid=t9ym4eqvf19q
- - - ღ - - - ღ - - - ღ - - - ღ - - - ღ - - -
【過三爆四|一對一線上輔導】
▸ https://forms.gle/zDQSMhvMPgoUPFen9
【預約免費理財需要分析|投資理財交流群組】
▸ https://forms.gle/LhnSAYi6j8pmg4wVA
=== 本集傳送門 ===
00:01 - Personal Statement (IG活動)
00:30 - ASSO Q&A
02:35 - ASSO 社科心理學系 // 一對一線上輔導 (業餘模式)
04:33 - 頻道簡介宣傳
05:15 - Personal Statement 上集下集介紹
06:35 - Personal Statement Structure // 字數分配 // 注意事項等
08:08 - Personal Statement Introduction 個人心得
09:42 - Personal Statement Main Body 個人心得
10:07 - Personal Statement Conclusion 個人心得
10:35 - 結語及下集預告
// ღ // ღ // ღ //
==== 更多墨小鯊 LAZY SHARK ===
大學鯊系列
▸ https://reurl.cc/9XAeQx
副學鯊系列
▸ https://reurl.cc/OqaZeg
心理鯊系列
▸ https://reurl.cc/VXZAqb
電影鯊系列
▸ https://reurl.cc/8nAEOd
日常鯊系列
▸ https://reurl.cc/v1bY41
// ღ // ღ // ღ //
=== 金主歡迎 ===
▸ https://streamlabs.com/tsukishima_hitomi
▸ https://payme.hsbc/mozishark
// ღ // ღ // ღ //
=== 社交平台 ===
Instagram ▸ https://www.instagram.com/moziii_5/
Facebook ▸ https://www.facebook.com/ozishark
// ღ // ღ // ღ //
=== 本集內容 ===
#nonjupas #asso升u #asso升大學
#懶人包 #副學士生存指南
#asso仔齊上岸 #我的經驗
#人形頹廢鯊魚 #墨小鯊
#gpa爆4 #心理學 #社科
#哲學 #文學院 #社會學
#副學士 #升大學 #升學心得
#大專補習 #一對一線上輔導
#online補習 #線上補習 #asso補習
- - - ღ - - - ღ - - - ღ - - - ღ - - - ღ - - -
personal statement structure 在 How to structure your UCAS personal statement - Target ... 的相關結果
Basic personal statement structure tips · Use paragraphs. This can be tricky as it will eat into the 47 lines available to you so don't use lots of paragraphs ... ... <看更多>
personal statement structure 在 Step three: structure your personal statement - Birkbeck ... 的相關結果
The main body of your personal statement should comprise examples that demonstrate your preparedness for your chosen course. · Start by choosing 3 or 4 examples. ... <看更多>
personal statement structure 在 How to write a UCAS Undergraduate personal statement 的相關結果
How to write your personal statement · Write in an enthusiastic, concise, and natural style – nothing too complex. · Try to stand out, but be careful with humour, ... ... <看更多>