A China China Media Media A
26.05.2017 02 02 30.06.2017
A China Media
06.03.--12.03.2015 19
䎭↛ྍ㻻 $175.40
⮩თ喝̹ᢾ䮐Ą➥ᮚцąछ㘩ᕓ ̳Ⴎ( Ϫ᱂ѧԏ⥪ၖۜϪၰ౷ԭᎍ ѧဎኍֽᦆသϪၰ⇌ ⮩თࣽ㼬Ϧ≪ඊ ᬑ䬧ࣽጯц̶㶔喏㒺ᩛᠭ̺Ӱ㒃ԉᠭĄ፤ą ⮰โϐڟ㈧喏̹ᢾ䮐➥᱃ᮚᕧ㐋ᄲ̷ᰴ݉⮰θ䯲ఎ喋( 喌ሜц̶̺Ӱ㒃 ᕧ㐋ᮚϘц䲎⮰छ㘩Ƞ ₐݹโ⩸䶰䃍喏 ᰴᓣⅵ്ͪ㵸 ( 䬠喏ᮚϘ̺➥᱃ᮚᰵ᱇䔇㵸仂⁍ цᮐȠ̹䓳Ӱ䓽ᬑ㶔喏ᮚϘস➥᱃ᮚ⇍ᰵцᮐ䃍ܾȠ
ⱑᅿথ㿔Ҏᮃ⌒า ᮹㸼⼎ˈϡ ᥦ䰸⡍ᳫ᱂ᘏ㒳ᇚϟ᳜߱ⱘ * ዄӮ ϞϢ֘㔫ᮃᘏ㒳᱂ҀӮ䴶ⱘৃ㛑DŽ 佭␃Ё䗮⼒ᧈᓩ䏃䗣⼒䘧ˈᮃ⌒ า䇈ˈབᵰঠᮍ䛑᳝ᛣᜓⱘ䆱ˈ㕢֘ঠ ᮍৃҹϔ䍋㾷އϔѯ䯂乬ˈᓔሩড়DŽ ᮃ⌒าᰃ㹿䆄㗙䯂ࠄĀ㕢֘ܗ佪ᰃ৺ Ӯᖋ * ዄӮᳳ䯈Ӯ䴶āᯊߎⱘ 䖭ѯಲᑨDŽᮃ⌒า⿄ˈ㕢ᬃᣕϢ֘㔫 ᮃ݇㋏ℷᐌ࣪ˈᏠᳯϢ֘ᮍ䖯㸠ৃ㛑ⱘ ড়DŽ ϡ䖛ˈ㕢֘݇㋏ᑊ≵᳝བৠҎӀ乘 ᳳⱘ䙷ḋಲᱪDŽ֘㔫ᮃ ᮹ᅷᏗˈপ ⍜֘Ѹ䚼ࡃ䚼䭓䞠ѮᏗ⾥Ϣ㕢ࡃ ࡵ॓佭ॳݰᅮѢᴀ਼В㸠ⱘӮDŽ䞠 ѮᏗ⾥ᡍ䆘㕢ᑨᇍᔧࠡঠ䖍݇㋏ⱘ ㊳㊩ሔ䴶䋳䋷DŽ⬠᱂䘡㾷䇏ˈ֘ᮍ䖭 ϔВࡼᰃಲᑨ㕢 ᮹䗑ࡴᇍ֘ࠊ 㺕ᮑDŽ ᮹ˈ㕢ҹಲᑨ֘㔫ᮃРܟ ݄䯂乬ϞⱘВࡼЎ⬅ˈᇍ֘Ͼ㒘㒛
ϾҎᅲᮑࠊ㺕DŽѮᏗ⾥ᔧᇍ㕢ᠽ ᇍ֘ࠊ㺕ϔџ㸼⼎䘫ធˈᑊ䗣䴆֘ᮍ ᇚߎৄডࠊᮑDŽ ᮹ˈ᱂Ҁⱘᮄ䯏⾬кԽᮃ⾥ г㸼⼎ˈ᱂Ҁ⡍ᳫ᱂≵᳝Ӯ䅵ߦDŽ Խᮃ⾥ᇍ䆄㗙䇈ˈⳂࠡخӏԩӮ ޚˈҔМ䅵ߦ䛑≵᳝DŽℸࠡˈ⬠乘 䅵ˈ ᳜Ϟᯀᖋ∝В㸠Ѡक䲚 ಶዄӮᳳ䯈ˈ᱂ҀϢ⡍ᳫ᱂᳝ᳯ䖯㸠佪 ӮDŽ ֘㔫ᮃ䰙ᅝܼ䯂乬ϧᆊ䇶㘊 ℸࠡ㸼⼎ˈ䖥ᳳϔ䖲Іџӊᇍᴹ֘ 㕢݇㋏ৃ㛑ⱘ䕀䗴៤њ䴲ᐌ⍜ᵕⱘᕅ ડDŽҪᣛߎˈ ᳜ӑᇚᖋВ㸠 * ዄӮˈԚϞ䗄џӊⱘথ⫳ᇚՓ֘㕢ϸ ܗ佪ৃ㛑ⱘӮ⊵∸DŽ䇶㘊䅸Ўˈ 䖭ӮᇍѢϸ݇㋏থሩ䴲ᐌ䞡㽕ˈ ᇚӮ⍝ঞ㾷䰸ࠊ㺕䯂乬ˈг⍝ঞР݄ܟ ሔⱘण䇗䯂乬DŽ✊㗠ˈݡ䱋ܹ⊹╁ ⱘ㕢֘݇㋏ˈⷁᳳݙԐТ䖬ᡒϡࠄಲᱪ ⱘ༥ᴎDŽ
e䨪ᣑe
Ȍ㉌㞦ᱛጴϔᅨ㺫⩧̷⮰⮩თ䃜㔱ц⣜౦ᗱᮛȠ
$//
ཛಮ⒙ᥚ $// ᝉռ᠂⇚ᱵϪᚭࢮ ⮩თᬕݹጯ喏⺭₎䃜㔱⮩ თ䃜㔱ц៹⚓喏$// ࣮㔯៑䕿∁Ꮩ 䬧⮰ֆ∁喏≪ܦᬃ̷⮰㉌㞦ᱛ ጴϔᅨ㺫ܦፙ⮩თ䃜㔱ц喏࢟ፙ⩧ ̷⣜౦ᗱᮛ䙹ऴ៑䕿Ƞ 㐨ऴ $//ȟ∁៑䕿喏 ᬑ喏 ϔᅨ㺫ݹᒬ⮩თ㺫㔨⮰䬧ࣽጯა喏 Ђ⇍ҫ⩔⩧᳢喏㔸᭛々ᝫ䬠ऺ ⩧ࣽ㼬Ϧ≪ඊࣽ㼬⮰ᗱۡȠ
⩝κ⮩თसᬢ⺭₎྾ѿผ䴟Ⱐ ᧙䃜㔱ц喏ᩱ $// 䃜㔱ц㏿̹ ͱ᧙ܦ᪠⃡ᒁ䴟ȠᰵԉႴ≪྾ѿ ᒎქ䛳⩔㉌⩧᭛喏$// ݅ᑦ 䄯ₐͪ៑䕿䬧䲎䲊፤ᰵ⩔Ƞ ≪ඊͦ⮩თ䃜㔱ц⺭₎ᥰᒝ ࣶผ䴟Ⱐ᧙⮰㻰䓕័喏ᠳᬌ䃦Ⱐ ᧙̺॒喏䃜㔱цጞ䃕⮩თ⮰ᩫも㣣 ᓃܲٱ䃔䃦Ƞ
ђ᪒ѻႱẨ๓▗⺤ఌᴑᬺ ۜポ䊣▗
͎ࢎঐᖦᙧຄᄯᄔ ᑿᬢ䬠 ᬑ̷ࡴ喏͙⼋Ջ㐅ᓣ⮰̬ ᄥ๓⚶⡗Ą᷒᷒ąȟĄ༳Ꮂą䶦ݕ១䓪ᓣ᳃喏 ः⁎◴☙ݜ䓺Ƞ̶ప͙ͦ侧ᓣ๓ҫञᬺᓣ 喋ጒ̵喌ȟ᳃ጮ䪫㆟߾喋ጒఇ喌ふܦፙᑿ๕ ᱦ౦ͪ㵸⮰⁎䓺ЖᐻȠटపͦĄ᷒᷒ą⁎ 䓺Жᐻ̶Ąࢂ㤸ąȠ ͙
㒺ۇ᳢上ᱦ㷗哅ࢣ䷺ᢋ⃭ &11 ᮹䘧ˈ啭ो亢Ϟ਼㺁ߏњ ԡѢݙᏗᢝᮃࡴᎲⱘ༹⊩⡍ぎݯഄˈ ᇐ㟈कᶊ㕢ݯ亲ᴎফᤳˈ݊Ёࣙᣀϸᶊ ( %Ā᮹ᅶᴎāDŽ 䘧ˈ⊶䷇ ( % 㹿⿄Ā᮹ ᅶᴎāˈᰃЎᔧ䙁䘛Ḍᬏߏǃ⫮㟇䰼 ᩲߏㄝᚙˈމᆊ䖯ܹ㋻ᗹ⢊ᗕഄ 䴶ഄ㹿ᨻ↕ᯊˈৃ⫼ぎЁᣛЁᖗˈ 㛑ᦤկĀᢹ᳝ᵕᔎᡫᠧߏ㛑ⱘᣛǃ ࠊѸ⌕Ёᖗˈ⫼Ѣᣛ㕢ˈݯᠻ㸠 ㋻ᗹѝੑҸˈҹঞण䇗㸠ᬓᴎᵘ㸠 ࡼDŽā 㕢 ぎ ݯথ 㿔 Ҏ 3DWULFN 5\GHU 㸼 ⼎˖Ā( % ৃЎᆊぎЁᣛЁᖗˈ
ᑊϨᰃЎᘏ㒳ǃ䰆䚼䭓ǃখ䇟䭓㘨ᐁ Ӯ䆂Џᐁᦤկⱘᆊݯ䯳ᣛ㋏㒳Ёⱘ ݇䬂㒘៤䚼ߚDŽā 3DWULFN 5\GHU 㸼⼎ˈЏ㽕亲ᴎ ᴀ᳜ ᮹ⱘ啭ो亢Ё䛑Ꮖ⾏ᓔDŽĀ( % ⱘЏ㽕ӏࡵ≵᳝ফࠄᕅડˈҡ✊ৃҹ ЎᆊぎЁᣛЁᖗDŽā ϸᶊ ( % џথᯊϡ༹⊩⡍ ぎݯഄˈϔᶊᶤ໘ᠻ㸠ӏࡵˈϔ ᆊᕫܟ㧼ᮃᎲᅝϰሐ༹ⱘ㓈ׂഄ 䖯㸠ֱˈݏℸˈⳂࠡ ( % ҡৃ㚰ӏ ݊Џ㽕ӏࡵDŽ 䰸њϸᶊ ( %ˈ㕢ݯ䖬᳝ ᶊ 5& պᆳᴎ啭ो亢ফᤳDŽ
㣅Ӻᬺ䄺ᮍ ᮹䆕ᅲˈᴀ᳜ ᮹ᇐ㟈㟇ᇥ Ҏϻ⫳ⱘḐӺ䌍ᇨὐ ☿♒ˈᰃ⬅ಯሖϔ᠓䯈ݙϔৄބㆅ䍋☿ ᓩথDŽℸˈ䖭ᷟὐ߮㺙ׂϡЙⱘ ᴤ᭭ᯧ➗ˈᰃ☿䖙䗳ҢѠὐ㫧ᓊ㟇 乊ὐⱘЏ㽕ॳDŽ ᮄढ⼒䘧ˈӺᬺ䄺ᆳሔᅬਬ㧆༹ g呺⾥偀ܟ䇈ˈϧᆊӀ⦄Ꮖᕫߎ㒧 䆎ˈ䖭എѠҹᴹӺᬺ㟈⅏Ҏ᳔᭄ⱘ ☿♒ˈᰃ⬅ϔৄൟোЎ )) %3 ⱘĀ⛁ ⚍ā⠠ބㆅ༅☿ᓩথˈބㆅ༅☿ᑊ䴲Ҏ ЎॳDŽ Ā⛁⚍ā⠠ᆊ⬉⌆Ѯഄऎ ⱘϮࡵᔦ㕢ᆊ⬉Ꮌ༈ᚴ㗠⌺᠔᳝DŽ ᚴ㗠⌺݀ৌ䇈ˈℷϢ㣅ᔧሔড়䇗 ᶹDŽᚴ㗠⌺䇈ˈ༅☿ൟোⱘބㆅ⫳ѻѢ ᑈ㟇 ᑈˈ݅⫳ѻњ ϛৄˈ
ℸࠡҢথ⫳䖛ীಲџӊDŽ㣅ᬓᑰ㽕 ∖ゟेᇍ䆹ൟোބㆅ䖯㸠ᡔᴃẔ偠ˈᇚ ḍ㒧ᵰއᅮᰃ৺䖯ϔℹ䞛প㸠ࡼDŽ㣅 ᬓᑰৠᯊ䇈ˈᢹ᳝ৠℒބㆅⱘҎ≵ᖙ 㽕ᢙᖗ䍋☿⫼ذDŽ 呺⾥偀ܟᔧ䖬䇈ˈ䄺ᮍྨᠬⱘϧ ϮᴎᵘẔ⌟њḐӺ䌍ᇨὐ㗏ׂЁՓ⫼ ⱘ䱨⛁䱨䷇ᴤ᭭ˈথ⦄ᅗᅠܼϡড় Ḑˈᑊ䅸Ўᅗᰃ☿䖙䗳㫧ᓊⱘЏ㽕ॳ DŽ 䄺ᮍ䇈ˈᇚϹᚽ᠔᳝ᇍ☿♒䋳᳝䋷 ӏⱘЏԧˈℷ㗗㰥᠔᳝䗖ড়ⱘ䍋䆝㔾ৡˈ ࣙᣀ䖛༅ᴔҎ㔾DŽ ᔧഄᯊ䯈 ᮹ᰮˈवྚⱏᏖᬓㅵ ⧚䚼䮼ߎ㋻ᗹއᅮˈ䅽 ᷟὐⱘ ᠋Ҏᆊᨀ䍄ˈㄝܼ䚼ᤶᴤ ᭭ৢᠡ㛑ᨀಲDŽ
ⓟ≞๓്⸭ќը ϫ⁓ٯ ϔӑ᳔ᮄਞᰒ⼎ˈ▇߽Ѯ ⻕ⱘӋؐৃ㛑䖒ࠄ ғ▇ˈܗᑊϨᇍ Ѣᬃᣕ䆹㒣⌢⌏ࡼ䍋ⴔ㟇݇䞡㽕ⱘ ⫼DŽ Ёᮄ㔥䘧ˈᖋࢸ㒣⌢ⷨお᠔ᇍ ⻕ⱘĀ㒣⌢ǃ⼒Ӯક⠠Ӌؐā䖯㸠 њ䆘Ԅˈᕫࠄњ䖭ϔ᭄DŽ 䆹ਞথ⦄ˈ⻕Ў▇߽Ѯⱘ 㒣⌢ᏺᴹњ ғ▇ⱘܗ䋵⤂ˈᑊϨᬃ ᩥⴔ ϛϾህϮ㘠ԡDŽ 䆹ਞᣛˈᑨ䆹䞛পᮑˈֱ ᡸ䖥ᑈফࠄ㾘⦞⨮ⱑ࣪⸈ണⱘ ⻕DŽ
䖭ϔⷨおਞ⬅⻕䞥Ӯྨᠬ 䖯㸠DŽ䞥ӮⱘӮ䭓㩖㧼䞥⡍㸼⼎˖ Ā䖭ӑਞᰒ⼎њϔϾ⏙Ἦⱘֵᙃˈ ⻕ЎϔϾ⫳ᗕ㋏㒳ǃ㒣⌢ࡼҹ ঞܼ⧗䋶ᆠ䴲ᐌ䞡㽕ˈϡᆍ᳝༅DŽā ĀЎഄ⧗Ϟ᳔ⱘ⫳ᗕ㒧ᵘԧˈ ҹঞܼϪ⬠᳔ᴖЄᆠⱘ㞾✊⫳ᗕ㋏ 㒳Пϔˈ⻕⿄ᕫϞᰃ᮴ӋПᅱˈ᮴ ৃҷ᳓DŽā 䗮䖛㒣⌢ᓎˈਞⱘ㗙䅵ㅫߎ ᴹⱘ⻕ᇍѢᮙ␌ϮⱘӋؐᰃ ғ ▇ˈܗᇍѢ┰∈ㄝӥ䯆⌏ࡼ⠅ད㗙ᴹ䇈ˈ ߭ؐ ғ▇ܗDŽ
㒺͙โϐႵڔᄥ䄉䓪 䶥ڝ䃲 Гᦆ᱂ࢎᯁͿ͎ࢎĄΞોᠲڗಾ⒀ą͆ࢎ∄⣁ᝎ֗ڲٮ
ᬑ喏㒺͙ࣸͪ㵸β仂䒚โϐႵڔᄥ䄉ȠϺₐ⁍ᄥ䄉⮰䔇⼷সࣸᄥ䄉㏿ ऺ⮰㶔ᔭᲑⰷ喏仂䒚ᄥ䄉䔇㵸ᓃఇ⽟ڗ喏᭪㒺͙ڟ㈧㜟ᄽ᱖Ბ͙ⴙڱ Ϲᄲԉᠭ⽟⮰ࣽᆁ߫Ƞ⩝κโϐႵڔᄥ䄉̬㝘Ⰻࣷ䬠ͪ㵸喏ᝬБ̬χ㺫 ྾ѿᗶন㒺ₐ⁍㐅β͙ĄϞჲⰋࣷᒱ䕳ąȠᰵ䃰䃦ᠳܦ喏䔅䄠∁㼬䓳ڢ喏 Ѳ㒺͙䬠ᄥ䄉ᱦ⮰ݢႸર喏ҫࣸܲₓ⮰㼏۟ᰵβ䶦⩱⮰ᱦݢ喏䔅䘩᭛݇ࢲञ⮰Ƞ
ᄥ䄉ᅝ᱉ᵤふ䬚䷄䓪ڝ䃲 佪䕂㕢ЁѸᅝܼᇍ䆱 ᮹ढ ⲯ乓В㸠ˈЁࡵྨਬᴼ⋕ㆾৠ㕢 ࡵ॓㩖ࢦỂǃ䰆䚼䭓偀㩖ᮃ݅ৠЏ ᣕDŽঠᮍഛ䆘Ӌℸᇍ䆱ᆠ᳝៤ᵰDŽ Ёᮄ⼒䘧ˈঠᮍህЁ㕢݇㋏݅ ৠ݇ᖗⱘ䯂乬⏅ܹѸᤶᛣ㾕ˈ䖒៤ҹϟ ݅䆚˖ ঠᮍ⿃ᵕ䆘ӋЁ㕢ܗ佪⍋ᑘುӮ ҹᴹϸ݇㋏থሩˈഛ㟈Ѣ㒻㓁ᣝ ✻ϸܗ佪Ӯ䖒៤ⱘ݅䆚ˈ݅ৠࡾ ᠽѦ߽ড়乚ඳˈᑊⳌѦᇞ䞡ⱘ ⸔Ϟㅵߚ℻ˈࡼЁ㕢݇㋏䭓ᳳعᒋ 〇ᅮথሩDŽঠᮍഛ䅸Ўֱᣕ催ሖᆚߛѸ ᕔकߚ䞡㽕ˈᜓ݅ৠࡾࡼϸܗ佪 ᳜∝Ӯ⡍ᳫ᱂ᘏ㒳ᑈݙᇍЁ џ䆓䯂পᕫ⿃ᵕ៤ᵰDŽ ঠᮍᜓ䗮䖛ࡴᔎᇍ䆱Ϣড়ˈࡾ ֗䖯Ѯഄऎᑇǃ〇ᅮǃ㐕㤷DŽঠᮍ އᅮህᬍϸѦࡼⱘᴀॳ߭䖯㸠䅼 䆎DŽ ঠᮍഛ㸼⼎ᬃᣕ㓈ᡸफ⍋ᑇ〇 ᅮ˗ᬃᣕḍ݀䅸ⱘ䰙⊩ॳ߭ˈࣙᣀ ᑈlj㘨ড়⍋⋟⊩݀㑺NJˈѢ টད䇜߸णଚᑇ㾷އѝ䆂˗ᬃᣕ䗮䖛 ᇍ䆱ㅵѝ䆂DŽ ঠᮍ䞡⬇㟈Ѣҹܼ䴶ǃৃḌᶹǃ ϡৃ䗚ⱘᮍᓣᅲ⦄ᳱ剰ञቯ᮴Ḍ࣪ⱘⳂ ᷛˈҹঞ㓈ᡸञቯᑇ〇ᅮDŽঠᮍ䞡⬇ 㘨ড়ᅝ⧚Ӯ᳝݇⍝ᳱއ䆂ⱘⳂᷛDŽঠ ᮍᜓ㒻㓁Ўℸߎࡾˈࣙᣀܼ䴶ǃϹ Ḑᠻ㸠ᅝ⧚Ӯ᳝݇އ䆂ࡼ᳝݇ᇍ䆱 䇜߸DŽঠᮍއᅮህञቯḌ䯂乬㒻㓁ֱᣕ ≳䗮Ϣড়DŽ ঠᮍ䅸䆚ࠄϸ㋏݇ݯᰃЁ㕢݇㋏ⱘ 䞡㽕〇ᅮ㋴ˈ⿃ᵕᇏ∖থሩᓎ䆒ᗻⱘǃ ࡵᅲ᳝ᬜᆠ᳝៤ᵰⱘ݇㋏DŽঠᮍৠᛣ
䅸ⳳ㨑ᅲᑈᑺѸ⌕ড়乍Ⳃˈࡴᔎ催ሖ Ѹᕔˈሑᮽᅲ⦄ϸ䰆䭓Ѧ䆓ǃ㕢ݯখ 㘨ӮЏᐁ䆓ढDŽঠᮍ㟈Ѣ⏅࣪Ҏ䘧 ЏНᬥᧈ♒ޣǃড⍋ⲫǃݯџएᄺㄝ݅ ৠ乚ඳⱘড়DŽ ঠᮍ䞡⬇ᓎゟⳌѦ⧚㾷ǃ䰡Ԣϸݯ 䇃߸亢䰽ⱘ䞡㽕ᗻDŽঠᮍ䞡⬇㟈Ѣ㨑 ᅲᓎゟֵӏᮑⱘ䇙㾷ᖬᔩˈࣙᣀĀ䞡 ݯџ㸠ࡼⳌѦ䗮ᴎࠊāĀ⍋ぎⳌ 䘛ᅝܼ㸠Ў߭ޚāDŽ ঠᮍއᅮࡴᔎᇍ㘨ড়㓈㸠ࡼⱘ ᬃᣕˈࣙᣀᖿ䗳䚼㕆㘨ড়㓈䚼䯳ঞ ֱ䱰㓈ҎਬⱘᅝܼDŽঠᮍৠᛣህࡴᔎ 䴲⌆ϝ㓈㛑ᓎ䆒ᓔሩড়ˈᑊ Ϣ䴲⌆ӭԈড়Ѣ ᑈᑩ⹂ᅮ䳔㽕 㓈㛑ᓎ䆒ⱘЏ㽕㭘ᔅ乚ඳDŽ Ё㕢ঠᮍ⹂䅸ᇚ⬹ᅝܼ乚ඳࡴ ᔎ≳䗮Ϣড়ˈࣙᣀ䅼ᮄⱘᓎゟֵӏ ᮑDŽঠᮍᜓህぎǃ㔥㒰ぎ䯈䰙㾘 ߭ࠊᅮㄝ䆂乬ࡴᔎ≳䗮ˈᑊᓔሩⳌ݇ᇍ ষ⺟ଚDŽঠᮍ䞡⬇㟈Ѣ䰆ℶ㾘ᴔ Ӹᗻ℺఼ঞ݊䖤䕑ᎹⱘᠽᬷDŽ ঠᮍᇚ㒻㓁㨑ᅲljЁ㕢Ḍᅝܼড় 㘨ড়ໄᯢNJˈᓔሩᑈᑺঠ䖍ᇍ䆱ˈ⏅࣪ ࡵᅲড়ˈ⫼དЁᆊḌᅝܼ⼎㣗Ё ᖗǃ⍋݇䕤ᇘ⌟䆁ЁᖗㄝᑇৄˈЎ ѮЗ㟇ܼ⧗ᦤկḌᅝܼ݀݅ѻકDŽ ঠᮍᇚࡴᔎডᘤֵᙃѸ⌕ǃᠧߏ ߽⫼㔥㒰ҢџᘤᗪЏН⌏ࡼⱘ㸠Ўǃ䰆 㣗ᘤᗪߚᄤ䎼๗⌕ばǃডᘤᗪ 㵡䌘ㄝ乚ඳⱘѸ⌕Ϣড়DŽ Ё㕢䞡⬇ࡴᔎ݀݅ि⫳ܼ⧗ि⫳ ᅝܼԧড়DŽঠᮍ哧ࢅ㞾ᜓখϢϪ⬠ ि⫳㒘㒛㘨ড়䚼䆘ԄDŽঠᮍᜓࡴᔎᡫ 㦠㋴㗤㥃ᗻ݊Ҫ݇ߛⱘড়DŽϸއ ᅮࡴᔎ䴲⌆ᆊ݀݅ि⫳㛑DŽ
ᬑ喏➥᱃ᮚ喋ट̵喌⮩თц㻭ࡺⰇ䶫ܦፙ仂䒚͙㒺โϐႵڔᄥ䄉⮰͙ ߍༀᲔ∭ㄖ喋ጒ̵喌Ƞसᬑ喏Ე∭ㄖ䔄⮩თц㻭βტႵڔηߍߕ⤲叒 ٷ侘➥喋ጒθ喌সᕧ㐋倄㏓䶪䬚ᎿϬ㏟喋ट̬喌Ƞ͙๚ۇༀༀȟ͙๚ۇༀ㖀 ऴ࣮䄷䘔࣮䄷䪫ᝫሜ䒵喋टθ ȟ͙侧㒺๓ҫቀ๕ܛ喋ጒ̬喌࣮ߌβ̶䔜ц㻭Ƞ ͙
᱖Ბ͙ⴙڱ 㒺͙ڟ㈧Ϲᄲԉᠭ⽟ࣽᆁ߫ ᖂֵ݀ӫোĀմᅶቯā ᮹থ㸼 䆘䆎⿄ˈҞᑈ ᳜ˈ⍋ᑘುዄӮϞˈ ЁᆊЏᐁд䖥ᑇϢ㕢ᘏ㒳⡍ᳫ᱂ 䖒៤៤ゟಯϾᮄᇍ䆱ᴎࠊˈ݊Ёϔ乍֓ ᰃਃࡼѸᅝܼᇍ䆱DŽ Пৢˈ䖭 ϔᇍ䆱ᴎࠊ㒜Ѣ㨑ᅲDŽ ᙝˈѸᅝܼᇍ䆱ϔ㠀ⲳট䯈 В㸠ˈ᠔ҹϔѯ㽓ᮍၦԧ㕢ℸ 㒭њЁĀ҆ᆚⲳটᕙ䘛āDŽ䖭⾡䇈⊩ ᔧ✊㿔䖛݊ᅲˈԚЁ㕢䯈ᇍ䆱ᴎࠊⱘᅠ ˈՓঠᮍߚ℻ⱘ㾷އ᳝њ乎⬙ⱘᴎࠊˈ 䖭䛑ᰃ߯ग़ⱘDŽ Ңℸᇍ䆱ⱘ䖯ঠᮍᇍ䆱㒧ᴳ ৢⱘ㸼ᗕᴹⳟˈ佪䕂ᇍ䆱䖯㸠ⱘಯᑇܿ 〇ˈᰒ⼎㕢Ё݇㋏㟇ᇥᴹЁⷁᳳݙ ҡᇚֱᣕ〇ᅮⱘথሩ༈DŽ ЎҔМ䇈㕢Ё݇㋏ᇚֱᣕ〇ᅮⱘথ ሩ༈˛݊㿔ˈ䖬ᕫⳟ⡍ᳫ᱂ⱘԧ 㸠ࡼDŽህ㕢Ё催ሖᅬਬढⲯ乓䅼䆎 ᳱḌǃफ⍋ǃডᘤǃϸ㋏݇ݯㄝㄝ䆂乬 ᯊˈ⡍ᳫ᱂г≵䯆ⴔDŽ ᮹ϟजˈ⡍
ᳫ᱂⠅㥋ढ㒭ेᇚ䍈࣫Ҁሹᮄⱘᮄӏ 㕢偏ढՓ䗕㸠DŽ 䖭ԡᮄӏ偏ढՓᏗ݄ᮃศᖋ䎳⡍ ᳫ᱂Ѹᚙ乛⏅ˈϡҙᰃҪⱘᬓ⊏ⲳটˈ ݊ᄤ䖬ᰃ⡍ᳫ᱂⠅㥋ढゲ䗝ಶ䯳ⱘ䋳 䋷ҎˈЎ⡍ᳫ᱂䌶ᕫ䗝ゟϟ∫偀ࡳࢇDŽ ˈ⠅㥋ढᎲᔧњ ᑈᎲ䭓ˈᏗ ݄ᮃศᖋϢЁⱘ⏞⑤гϡ⌙DŽ݊ᔧᎲ 䭓ᳳ䯈ˈд䖥ᑇߚ߿ ᑈ ᑈϸ䆓䯂⠅㥋ढᎲDŽৃҹ䇈ˈ⡍ᳫ᱂ ⌒њϔԡĀЁҎ⇥ⱘ㗕᳟টāᢙӏ偏 ढՓˈ݊Ё⏅ᛣϡৃᗑ㾚DŽ 㕢Ё݇㋏〇ᅮⱘϔϾ䗍䈵ᰃ⡍ᳫ ᱂ⱘཇܓӞϛवཇၓᑧҔ㒇ৃ㛑Ӯᕜ ᖿ䆓䯂࣫ҀDŽᑧҔ㒇ཛЎᘏ㒳乒䯂ˈ ⱑᅿⱘ㾦㡆В䞡㢹䕏DŽ ᳜ˈЁ ࡵྨਬᴼ⋕ㆾӮ㾕⡍ᳫ᱂ˈᑧҔ㒇гখ ࡴњDŽ ᳜ˈдЏᐁϢ⡍ᳫ᱂⍋ᑘ ುⱘዄӮгᰃᑧҔ㒇ϔण䇗֗៤DŽ㢹 ཛѠҎℸ䆓䯂៤㸠ˈᇍ㕢Ё݇㋏ᖙ ✊᳝ϡᇣⱘࡼDŽ
ڝসچࡧԉ䖙࣮䃚䮎ڱچϦทࣹᄥ
༉ ংᶂ
ϔᇣᡍֱ݅ܮᅜ⌒খ䆂ਬᢙᖗˈ 䆹ⱘߎܮᮄएֱ⊩Ḝৃ㛑Ӯ⸈ണܼ ⱘ⼒Ӯֱ䱰ԧ㋏ˈℸҪӀৃ㛑ϡӮ䅽 䆹⊩Ḝ䕏ᯧ䗮䖛DŽ lj ढ ⲯ 乓 䚂 NJ ᮹ 䘧ˈ 䖭乍⊩ḜᇚӮᇍⳂࠡⱘए⭫㸹ࡽ䅵ߦ ˄0HGLFDLG˅ᏺᴹᎼⱘᬍবˈӮᐙ ᑺࠞޣ㘨䙺ᬓᑰᇍℸⱘᡩܹDŽ䖭ϔᎼ ⱘব࣪䅽ϔѯֱ݅ܮᅜ⌒䆂ਬᓔྟЎ ℸᛳࠄ⏅⏅ⱘᢙᖗˈЎҪӀ᠔ⱘᎲ Ңए⭫㸹ࡽ䅵ߦᑇӋए⭫⊩ḜЁѿফ ࠄњᕜད໘DŽ 䖭ѯ䆂ਬᢙᖗ䖭ϔ⊩ḜӮӸᆇࠄ᳔ 㛚ᔅⱘ㕸ԧˈᑊϨᇐ㟈䞣㕢Ҏ϶ᥝ 㞾ᏅⱘएֱDŽЎ䆹⊩ḜϡӮᕫࠄᴹ㞾 ㏩㏒ ᬑͪ㵸⦊ڤО㞮Ꮂ⺉≧ߔ喏䓺ᣑ㜟Ბ͠Ƞ⩣ຟ㔭 ⇥Џⱘܮᬃᣕˈখ䆂䰶᭄ܮ乚㹪㉇ ᄽᝠ㟝⣛喏⾫ⱬ㐆ͩ⮰㷱喏⑀⁎ᔗ⮰䴟ͼ喏䌟䊣ь㐋⮰㝊䍴Ƞ ༛g呺ᒋ༜ᇨབᵰ䆩ᴀ਼থ䍋ᡩ⼼ˈ ㏩㏒⮰⦊ڤО㞮⩝Ბ㜖⦊⼧⮰ڤℽϺࡃ⁓ፒ㜟㒺Ƞ ࡺ ᳔া㛑ᡓফϸৡ݅ܮҎⱘצៜDŽ
݅ܮখ䆂ਬ䖾ᘽg⍋ࢦ˄'HDQ +HOOHU˅ ᮹㸼ᗕϡӮᬃᣕ䆹⊩Ḝ⦄ ᳝ⱘᔶᗕПৢˈ݅ܮᮄएֱⱘࠡ᱃ব ᕫࡴᙊࡷ䍋ᴹDŽ ˈ䖬᳝ৡ݅ܮЁゟ⌒খ䆂 ਬᇍℸᣕ㾖ᳯᗕᑺˈᏠᳯ㛑䖯㸠䖯ϔℹ ⱘ䆘ԄˈᑊϨⳟࠄ䆹⊩ḜᇍԢᬊܹሙ⇥ ⱘᕅડDŽ ֱᅜ⌒䆂ਬⳂࠡ䴶Јⱘ䚼ߚय़ᴹ 㞾ए⭫㸹ࡽ䅵ߦҡ✊ᑓফ䖢DŽ ᮹ˈ⬅߃⋑ᆊᒁ䞥Ӯ˄.DLVHU )DPLO\ )RXQGDWLRQ˅থᏗⱘϔӑ⇥䇗 ᰒ⼎ˈህㅫᰃ݅ܮҎˈᇍ䆹乍Ⳃᣕ㚃 ᅮᗕᑺⱘгऴ䚼ߚˈᘏԧᬃᣕ⥛ᰃ 䖒ࠄ DŽ Ӯ乘ㅫߚᵤҎ䅵ߦ᳔ᮽᇚѢϟ ਼থᏗҪӀⱘ乘⌟ˈ᳝݇䆹⊩Ḝᇍ㘨䙺 䌸ᄫֱ䰽㽚ⲪҎ᭄ⱘᕅડDŽ
$e㒃䔯⼺ᕼ䖙➎⠝ͷ▪ 侘ᓣ䛸ᷬ ᬑ䃐ጞᄥ㺫⩞⮳侘⤯ᭋ $e㒃䊣䃵䃨喏ऺ㔱㷗ᠳᣓ䔯⼺ 䕪 ̳⁓ٯ喏̬ᷬЩผᬺ͙䄠喏$e㒃⊵Ą 㜟 Ꭰ䬠ႄ ⁍䔯⼺㵸ͦ喏⊵ࣶ⮰䛽䷉䓪 ̳⁓ٯąȠĄ㷗ॶ⊵ ⩔ݕᎠ⿷⮰ ̬ტژतᲑ䮼㫻㜖ጝ㺫⤙➅⮰㗂ᱯᩢڑ喏䔅᭛㜖ࣽ̀ᩱᘻ䔉ࣹЂ㺫⤙➅ Ꮐᅩ⮰㏟⼺͵ߍȠąผᬺ䄠Ƞຮ㒖ह⿷喏$e㒃 ⁍֣⼺⮰ܽ㉛䃍ᄲ䓪ݜ 㜟ᄽ ᎠȠ 䓽ᎠᲑ⁓≞䋟ಇ喏➥ݗ᭛㺫⤙➅䋟ಇ䶽ࣽ⤯䔯⼺ᵴ喏ጠ㥔⮰ᶱ㺫ȟ侘ܳ ៵䄦Бࣶₐݹᩴ߇⮳侘⮰ࢍࢍ䘩䖙䕳ㆧѨ⮰ჄतȠ䗏䔅χᵴТ㗸ऺݜᏁ䮼㫻ⱬϬ ʹᵣ⮰⼄ჲ喢
$e㒃䔯⼺̳⁓ ٯᝂᄲڑ⠝ Ϫ⬠䎇യϸ乊㑻⧗᯳üüṙ㽓Ϣ &g㔫⧗എϞϡߚԃӆˈഎϟгᰃĀᛎ ᛎⳌᚰāDŽএᑈṙ㽓ًⓣ ϛ ˈܗ㹿߸໘ Ͼ᳜ⲥ⽕DŽ㗠⦄ˈ&g㔫 г䘛Ϟњ㉏Ԑⱘ咏⚺ˈЎṙ㽓ⱘ⍝ Ḝ䞥乱⫮㟇䖲Ҫⱘ䳊༈䛑↨ϡϞDŽ 㓐ড়㔥ᯧԧ㚆ǃᮄ⌾ԧ㚆䘧ˈ偀 ᖋ 䞠 Ẕ ᆳ ᅬ ᣛ ˈ&g 㔫 ᑈ 㟇 ᑈ䯈ˈ߽⫼⍋݀ৌᴹ䱤㮣㞾Ꮕ 㽓⧁⠭ⱘ㙪ڣᴗᬊܹˈ䗗 ԭ ϛ݊ˈܗЁ ᑈ䗗 ϛˈܗ ᑈ Ў ϛ ˈܗᑈ Ў ϛ ˈܗᑈ߭⣯⍼㟇 ϛܗDŽ 㽓⧁⠭lj䰓ᮃNJ⿄ˈ&g㔫ᇚӮ 㟇ᇥ䴶Ј ϛܗ㔮ℒⱘ໘㔮ˈϨ ᄬܹ⣅ৃ㛑ˈߥᳳ᳝ৃ㛑䭓䖒 ᑈ˄ఇ ⁍䔯⼺㵸ͦᄲᢎఊ㜟ᄽ Ꭰȟ Ꭰȟ Ꭰস Ꭰܽ˅DŽϡ䖛ˈ㗗㰥ࠄ &g㔫 ℸࠡᏆ㒣㔈㒇㔮ℒϨᴹгᇚ㸹Ѹ ℒˈҪ᳝ᕜὖ⥛Ӯ㦋ᕫˈߥޣህབৠ ṙ㽓ϔḋDŽབᵰ㹿ߥޣϔञˈ䙷М &g㔫
ⱘߥᳳᇚЎ ᑈञDŽབᵰˈ ߥޣ䙷 ߥᳳᇚЎ Ͼ᳜DŽ ᣝ✻㽓⧁⠭⊩ᕟˈ߱⢃ߥᳳ Ͼ᳜ҹৃˈⱘݙҹ䗮䖛㔈㒇㔮䞥ㄝᮍᓣ ᴹ䙓ܹܡ⣅DŽгህᰃ䇈ˈা᳝㹿ߥޣ ⱘᚙމϟˈ&g㔫ᠡ㛑䗗䙓⠶⣅П♒DŽ 䯏䆃㹿䍋䆝ৢˈ&g㔫ಶ䯳ゟࠏথໄDŽ ݊᠔ⱘ㒣㑾݀ৌ *HVWLIXWH ৺䅸 &g㔫 ᳝䖛ӏԩࠏᛣًⓣⱘВࡼˈᕟᏜ⋯ ⊶gજ㓈ᇨᰃᣓߎṙ㽓ⱘḜ՟䇈џ˖ Ā䖭ᰃ㒱ᇍⱘϡ݀ℷDŽ䖭Ϣṙ㽓ҹঞ݊ Ҫ⧗ਬⱘḜ՟ᅠܼϡৠˈЎ䖭ѯҎ≵ ᳝݀⼎ӏԩџᚙDŽ㗠 &g㔫㹿䇗ᶹП ࠡˈህᏆ㒣݀⼎њ䳔㽕݀ᓔⱘ᠔᳝ᬊܹ ᭛ӊDŽā ᮹ˈ&g㔫ᴀҎгキߎᴹಲᑨ䗗 џӊDŽҪ⼒Ѹ㔥キϞݭ䘧˖Ā᳝ᯊ ᳔དⱘಲᑨህᰃֱᣕ≝咬āˈᑊ䜡Ϟ ϔᓴ㞾Ꮕᇚ亳ᣛᬒఈϞ⼎ᛣ䯁ఈⱘ✻ ⠛DŽҢ㸷ⴔথൟᴹⳟˈ䖭ᓴ✻⠛ᰒ✊ ᰃ &g㔫䖥᮹ᢡᨘⱘDŽ
Ȍ
⩝κ⊵䔯 ⼺喏 ᶱ 㺫喋 ጒ 喌 ܦ Ꮩᣑः䃛䬚Ƞ ⊖ѿ㗞
$e㒃䔯⼺ηТ㗸ऺ⮰䭠䄷ტ 㒉㾖㹿Ჱߎ䗗ⱘ &g㔫ǃ⾥ᘽ⡍ ᳫǃԽԽˈ⫮㟇ᰃ᳐㘨ЏᏙ〚䞠ሐ༹ㄝ Ҏⱘ㚠ৢˈ䛑ᰃৠϔϾ㒣㑾Ҏˈ䙷ህᰃ 䎇⧗ݙা䙂ⱘ劘üü䮼ᖋ ᮃDŽ ᑈˈ 䮼 ᖋ ᮃ ߯ ゟ 㒣 㑾 ݀ ৌ *HVWLIXWHˈ䖭гᰃҪⱘЏ㽕ᬊܹᴹ⑤DŽ 㗠 *HVWLIXWH ϟˈҪজѢ ᑈ ⠅ᇨ݄៤ゟњϔᆊϧㅵ䌲ࡽড়ৠϢଚϮ ҷ㿔ⱘߚ݀ৌ 3RODULV 6SRUWVDŽ䮼ᖋ ᮃᴀҎᢹ᳝䆹݀ৌ ᠔᳝ᴗˈᰃ᳔ 㙵ϰDŽ㗠 ᑈˈ䮼ᖋᮃህᥜᛣ *HVWLIXWH ⱘᘏ㒣⧚ࡵݐЏㅵ༢ ᕟᏜवᮃ⡍㔫⠅ᇨ݄⊼ݠњ 0,0 䖭ᆊ ぎ݀ৌDŽ䖭ህᰃ䮼ᖋᮃᵘㄥⱘ䗗ԧ ㋏˖⧗ਬⱘଚϮҷ㿔䌍⫼ܼ䚼⬅ 0,0 ҷ ᬊপˈ0,0 ҢЁᢑ Ўᦤ៤ˈݡҬ 㒭 3RODULV 6SRUWV ҷ⧚䌍DŽ⧗ਬ䗮 䖛 0,0 䌮পⱘ⍋ᬊܹা䳔㽕ᣝ✻⠅ᇨ ݄⥛ˈ䖭ḋህ䙓ܡњ㽓⧁⠭ⱘݙ催 ⥛DŽ ݊ᅲˈ䖭ᑊϡᰃ䮼ᖋᮃⱘ⣀߯ᮍ⊩ˈ Ϫ⬠ᕜൟӕϮ䛑Ӯ߽⫼Ԣ⥛ᆊ 䙓DŽ᳔㹿Ҏ❳ⶹⱘḜ՟ᰃ㕢㣍ᵰ݀ ৌDŽ ᑈ ᳜ˈⲳᅠ៤ᇍ㣍ᵰ݀ ৌⱘࡵ䇗ᶹˈ㽕∖ҪӀ⠅ᇨ݄ᔧሔ 㸹㔈 ғܗℒˈ䖭ᓩথ⬠ᇍ㣍 ᵰࠊԧ㋏ⱘ䅼䆎DŽ ڣ㣍ᵰ䖭ḋⱘ䰙࣪݀ৌᐌ⫼ৡ ЎĀ ⠅ ᇨ ݄ ། 㥋 ݄ ϝ ᯢ ⊏ā˄'RXEOH
,ULVK :LWK D 'XWFK 6DQGZLFKā˅ⱘ ࠊ㒧ᵘˈ㾘䙓њ᭄⍋Ϯࡵⱘ ᬊDŽҪӀ⠅ᇨ݄ܜᓎゟϔϾ䰙䖤㧹 ݀ৌˈԚ݊ᘏ䚼ԡѢ㣅ሲ㓈Ҁ㕸ቯ䖭ḋ ⱘ䙓ූDŽḍ⠅ᇨ݄⊩ˈेՓᰃ ⠅ᇨ݄⊼݀ⱘݠৌˈা㽕݊↡݀ৌ˄ᣓ ݢᱯ˅ᘏ䚼˄ネ⤲ᱯ˅䆒ˈህ Ӯ㹿䅸ᅮЎᰃ݀ৌˈᣝ✻㾘ᅮ⥛ 㔈DŽ Пৢˈ㣍ᵰ݀ৌݡ䆒ゟϔϾ䰙䫔 ଂ݀ৌˈᣝ✻ ⱘԢ⥛ᬊ䰸㕢 ˈܼ⧗㣍ᵰѻકⱘ䫔ଂᬊܹDŽԚ݊ Ё䚼ߚ㧹ᬊ䖬ᰃ䳔㽕䕀⿏ࠄ䖤㧹݀ ৌˈҹ䖯ϔℹ䕀⿏ࠄԡѢ䙓ූⱘᘏ 䚼DŽབᵰⳈҢ䫔ଂ݀ৌࠄ䖤㧹݀ৌˈ 䳔㽕⠅ᇨ݄㔈㒇᠔ᕫˈѢᰃজ㥋 ݄⊼ݠњ⌆䖤㧹݀ৌЎၦҟDŽЎ ⠅ᇨ݄Ϣ㥋݄ⱘ⊩䛑㾘ᅮˈϢⲳ៤ ਬ݀ৌП䯈ⱘѸᯧৃҹܡ㔈᠔ᕫDŽ䖭 ḋϔᴹህৃҹ ៤ᴀᇚ䫔ଂᬊܹ䕀⿏ࠄ 䖤㧹݀ৌDŽ ᇚ䫔ଂ݀ৌⱘᬊܹ䕀⿏ࠄ䖤㧹݀ৌ 䳔㽕ϔϾ䕑ԧˈ㗠݀ৌѻકϧ߽ⶹ䆚 ѻᴗህ៤Ў䖭Ͼ䕑ԧDŽ䰙䖤㧹݀ৌ䗮 䖛៤ᴀߚ᨞ण䆂Ң↡݀ৌᕫࠄᥜᴗˈህ ৃҹᡞᥜᴗ䕀㒭䫔ଂ݀ৌˈ䫔ଂ݀ৌ߭ ҹϧ߽Փ⫼䌍ⱘৡНᇚᬊܹ䕀⿏㒭䖤㧹 ݀ৌDŽ䖭ḋϔᴹˈ䚼ߚ䗮䖛䫔ଂ᠔㦋 ⱘᬊܹህࠄњԡѢ㣅ሲ㓈Ҁቯⱘ䰙䖤 㧹݀ৌᘏ䚼DŽ
䋟ಇ⤯ᭋ䔯⼺ηТ䶽ࣽȞȞ
Ȍ $e㒃
䰙䎇യ᳔ᮽ㹿Ჱܝ⍝Ⴀ䗗ⱘ ⠠⧗᯳ᰃĀ⧗⥟ā偀ᢝ㒇DŽ ᑈ㟇 ᑈᬜᛣ⬆䙷ϡࢦᮃᳳ䯈ˈ 䉰᫅ప❳ 偀ᢝ㒇⬭ϟ催䖒 ϛⱘܗ㔈 ℒDŽЎ֗ڀ㸹㔈ˈᛣ߽Ẕᮍϔ ᑺ㾘ᅮ偀ᢝ㒇䖬⏙ℒࠡϡᕫܹ๗ ᛣ߽DŽ ᑈҹᴹˈ⠠⧗᯳⍝Ⴀً ⓣџӊϡᮁ㹿ࡵ䚼䮼ၦԧ䴆DŽ ӏˈ᭛ӊㅒথ᮹ᳳЎ ᑈ ᳜ ᮹DŽ 㔫㒇ᇨ䖾ሐ༹ǃ㽓ǃ偀ᇨ㩖ሐǃ Ԛ⌆ၦԧ䇗ᶹ㘨ⲳ˄⩝ ტⴑ ᠬ༹ǃववǃ㧆ៜㄝⶹৡ⧗᯳ˈ䛑᳒ ह྾ѿ㏰⮰䄯ᴑఎѿ˅ПϔⱘljϪ⬠ Ў⍝Ⴀًⓣ㹿Ⳍ݇䚼䮼䍋䆝໘ NJ䅸Ўˈ䖭ӑ᭛ӊϡ䎇ҹ䆕ᯢ &g㔫 㔮DŽ 㗠䖥Ͼ䌯ᄷˈⱛ偀Ꮘ㧼៤Ў⧗ ⱘ⏙ⱑDŽҪӀг䴆њϔӑ᭛ӊˈᰃ ࡵሔ ᑈ ᳜ㅒথⱘ݇Ѣ &g㔫 ᯳⍝ႠًⓣⱘĀ䞡♒ऎāDŽ ᑈˈ ᯊӏⱛ偀䯳䭓ⱘव㽓߽Ѯᮃ㹿ᶹߎً ࡵ䇗ᶹⱘਃࡼ᭛ӊDŽ џӊᲱⱛˈৢܝ偀ᅬᮍгゟࠏথ㸼 ⓣDŽ㹿㽓⧁⠭ࡵ䚼䮼䇗ᶹৢˈव ໄᯢ˖ĀׅФ䚼ℸໄᯢˈ៥Ӏ㽕∖ 㽓߽Ѯᮃ㸹Ѹњ ϛܗℒDŽ䱣ৢˈ ⬠ᇞ䞡 &g㔫䖭ḋⱘ⧗ਬDŽЎᬜ ࣙᣀ䰓䱚㋶݊ⱘݙҪ ৡⱛ偀⧗ਬˈ ⱛ偀ᳳ䯈ˈҪ⍝ঞࠄ䋶ᬓࡵ䯂乬Ϟ г⍝Ⴀًⓣ㹿䇗ᶹDŽ ᑈˈᏈ ⱘ㸠Ўˈ⿄ᰃ᠔᳝⧗ਬⱘ㣗DŽā݊ 㧼⧗ਬ䰓ᖋ䞠Ѯ䇎偀ᮃߛᢝ䇎ৢܜӴ ᅲˈҸⱛ偀䯍ᖗⱘৃϡℶ &g㔫ˈԽԽ˄϶ ߎًⓣϥ䯏ˈ䱣ৢ䰓ᖋ䞠Ѯ䇎㸹㔈њ ⻧ᐬ⮳侘˅ǃ⾥ᘽ⡍ᳫ䖭ϸৡⱛ偀⧗ ϛܗℒˈ偀ᮃߛᢝ䇎߭㸹㔈 ਬг⡉ᡃࠄً亢⊶ЁDŽҪӀ䛑ᡞ㞾Ꮕ њ ϛܗℒ ϛܗ㔮ℒ ⱘ㙪ڣᴗ䕀⿏㒭њԢ⥛ⱘ⾏ኌ݀ৌˈ ৢˈ᳔㒜ᕫҹܡ䰸 ᑈⱘ⠶⣅П♒DŽ 㗠ফ⬠݇⊼ⱘᰃṙ㽓䗗ⱘḜ ҹ䗗䙓㽓⧁⠭ⱘ催ᬊDŽⱛ偀ԐТ㽕䴶 ӊDŽᙝˈೈ㒩ṙ㽓ⱘًⓣ䇗ᶹᏆᣕ Јϔ䰉Ꮌⱘࡵ亢ᲈDŽ
$e㒃➡⮳ܦ侘⼺ߍ䷺ᯠ 㽓⧁⠭Ẕᮍ䩜ᇍ &g㔫ⱘ䇗ᶹˈҢ ᑈህᓔྟњDŽ㗠᳔ᮽᥔ䍋䖭എ亢 ᲈⱘᰃ⬅Ā䎇⧗㾷ᆚā㔥キথ䍋ˈᖋljᯢ 䬰਼ߞNJㄝ⌆ ᆊၦԧǃ ৡ䆄 㗙㘨ড়䖯㸠ⱘĀ⧗᯳䗗䇗ᶹ㸠ࡼāDŽ ljᯢ䬰਼ߞNJ䴆ⱘ⏅ᑺ䇗ᶹˈ &g 㔫 ϔ Ⳉ 䛑 ߽ ⫼ ϔ ᆊ ⠅ ᇨ ݄ ӕ Ϯ ˄ৡЎ㓈ԧ㚆Ϣ㙪ڣㅵ⧚݀ৌˈㅔ⿄ 0,0˅ᓔথ㞾Ꮕⱘ㙪ڣᴗˈҹ䖒ࠄ䙓 ⱘⳂⱘDŽ ⬅Ѣ &g㔫ଚϮᮍ䴶ⱘᬊܹᰃᎼ ⱘˈℸҪ㽓⧁⠭䳔㽕㔈㒇 ⱘϾҎ᠔ᕫDŽ㗠߽⫼⠅ᇨ݄ⱘぎ ݀ ৌˈ&g 㔫 ⱘ 㙪 ڣᴗ ᬊ ܹ া 䳔 㔈 㒇 ⱘӕϮˈ䖭ⳌᏂ ⱘℒৃ ϡᰃᇣ᭄ⳂDŽ䱣ৢˈ&g㔫ⱘ㒣㑾݀ৌ *HVWLIXWH 䖬ߎ⼎њϔӑ㽓⧁⠭ࡵሔ ᓔⱘ᭛ӊˈ䆕ᯢ &g㔫ሹ㸠њࡵ䋷
㓁䖥 ᑈˈṙ㽓г᭄᳒㸹㔈ℒˈԚ ᳔㒜ձ✊≵᳝ܡ䰸Ϲढ़໘㔮üü㹿߸໘ Ͼ᳜ⲥ⽕DŽ 䖥ᑈᴹ⊶ঞԡ⠠⧗᯳ⱘ䗗亢 ⊶ˈ݊Ḍᖗ㘮⛺⧗ਬ㙪ڣᴗᬊܹ ϞDŽձ㽓⧁⠭ㄝ⌆Ѩ㘨䌯᠔ ᆊⱘⳌ݇ࡵ㾘ᅮˈ⧗ਬⱘᎹ䌘༪䞥 ᬊܹ䛑᳝ϹḐⱘ㒇ᴵℒˈᕜ䲒᳝ড়⧚ 䙓ⱘ᪡ぎ䯈DŽℸ㞾⬅ᑺᢧ ሩぎ䯈ⱘ㙪ڣᴗᬊܹˈ֓ስስ៤Ў⧗ਬ ⍝ႠًⓣⱘĀ♄㡆ഄᏺāDŽ 㽓⧁⠭ࡵ䚼䮼ᇍѢṙ㽓ⱘ䇗ᶹ Ёˈ䅸Ўṙ㽓 ᑈ㟇 ᑈᳳ䯈ˈ ϾҎ㙪ڣᴗᬊⲞϞ㔈ϾҎ᠔ᕫᮍ䴶 ᄬًⓣ㸠Ўˈ⍝ঞ䞥乱䍙䖛 ϛ ܗDŽϔԡᏈ㧼⧗᯳偀ᮃߛᢝ䇎ˈ߭ 㹿ᣛ ᑈ㟇 ᑈ䯈ˈ䗮䖛ᇚ 㞾Ꮕⱘ㙪ڣᴗ䕀⿏ࠄϸᆊ⾏ኌ݀ৌˈߚ ߿ᇥ㔈ℒ ϛܗ ϛܗDŽ ᳝݇⧗ਬ㙪ڣᴗᬊܹ䲒ҹᕕⱘ䯂 乬ˈ݊ᅲᑊ䴲㽓⬆㘨䌯᠔⣀᳝DŽ䖥ᑈᴹˈ 㒱䚼ߚⱘ㣅䍙⧗᯳ׅФ䚼ㅒ㑺 ᯊˈ䰸њℷ㾘ⱘᎹড়ৠˈ䖬Ӯ᳝ϔѯ ࣙᣀ㙪ڣᴗⱘݙଚϮ䖤㧹䰘ࡴড়ৠDŽ 䗮ᐌ⧗ਬӀӮ䗝ᢽ⊼ݠϔѯ⾏ኌ݀ৌᴹ ׅФ䚼ㅒ䅶㙪ڣᴗড়ৠˈ䖭ḋ᳝݇ 㙪ڣᴗⱘᬊܹϞህৃҹࠄخ䙓DŽ
AI v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP)
December 2015 Senator the Hon. George Brandis QC Attorney-General Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
[2015] AusHRC 101
Dear Attorney, I have completed my report pursuant to s 11(1)(f)(ii) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) into the complaint made by Mr AJ and Mr AK on behalf of their father, Mr AI against the Commonwealth of Australia – Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the department). I have found that failure to refer Mr AI’s case to the then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship around October 2012 for the Minister to consider his public interest powers resulted in Mr AI’s detention being arbitrary, contrary to article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). For the same reason, I have found that there was an arbitrary interference with Mr AI’s family, contrary to articles 17(1) and 23(1) of the ICCPR. 0U SPNO[ VM T` ÄUKPUNZ 0 YLJVTTLUKLK [OH[ [OL KLWHY[TLU[ WYVTW[S` W\[ H Z\ITPZZPVU [V the Minister for consideration of a residence determination in favour of Mr AI, subject to such reporting requirements or other conditions as may be necessary. )` SL[[LY KH[LK :LW[LTILY [OL KLWHY[TLU[ WYV]PKLK H YLZWVUZL [V T` ÄUKPUNZ HUK recommendations. The department accepted my recommendation to refer Mr AI’s case to the Minister for consideration of the exercise of his public interest powers. I have set out the department’s response in part 7 of this report. I enclose a copy of my report. Yours sincerely,
Gillian Triggs President Australian Human Rights Commission Australian Human Rights Commission Level 3, 175 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000 GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001 Telephone: 02 9284 9600 Facsimile: 02 9284 9611 Website: www.humanrights.gov.au
AI v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2015] AusHRC 101 • 1
Contents 1 2
3
4
Introduction to this inquiry
3
Legal framework
4
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
Functions of the Commission Scope of ‘act’ and ‘practice’ Arbitrary detention Interference with family
Background
3.1 Arrival in Australia 3.2 Immigration history and criminal record 3.3 Ministerial consideration of Mr AI’s status and attempts to remove him from Australia
Release from immigration detention pending outcome of judicial proceedings
4.1 Power to make residence determination and applicable guidelines 4.2 Consideration of residence determination
4 5 5 6
7 7 7
11
13 13 14
5
Interference with family
17
6
Findings and recommendations
18
7
Department’s response
19
© Australian Human Rights Commission 2015. The Australian Human Rights Commission encourages the dissemination and exchange of information presented in this publication and endorses the use of the Australian Governments Open Access and Licensing Framework (AusGOAL).
All material presented in this publication is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence, with the exception of: the Commission’s logo, any branding or trademarks; and where otherwise indicated. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. In essence, you are free to copy, communicate and adapt the publication, as long as you attribute the Australian Human Rights Commission and abide by the other licence terms. Please give attribution to: © Australian Human Rights Commission 2015. ISSN 1837-1183 Further information For further information about the Australian Human Rights Commission or copyright in this publication, please contact: Communications Unit Australian Human Rights Commission GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Telephone: (02) 9284 9600 Email: communications@humanrights.gov.au. Design and layout Dancingirl Designs Printing Masterprint Pty Limited
1
Introduction to this inquiry
1.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has conducted an inquiry into a complaint by Mr AJ and Mr AK on behalf of their father Mr AI. Mr AI is 58 years old and has lived in Australia for the past 27 years. His wife, Ms AL, and one of his sons, Mr AJ, are Australian citizens. His other son, Mr AK is a permanent resident.
2.
Mr AI and his family have asked that they not be referred to by name in this report. I consider that the preservation of the anonymity of Mr AI and his family is necessary to protect their privacy. Accordingly, I have given a direction pursuant to section 14(2) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (AHRC Act) and have referred to him throughout as Mr AI, his two sons as Mr AJ and Mr AK and his wife as Ms AL.
3.
Mr AI is currently detained in Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (VIDC). The key complaint by Mr AI’s sons is that Mr AI should be released into community detention pending the outcome of his current legal proceedings seeking review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa.
4.
This inquiry has been undertaken pursuant to section 11(1)(f) of the AHRC Act. The complaint raises issues under articles 9, 17 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) dealing with arbitrary detention and arbitrary or unlawful interference with family.
5.
During the time that Mr AI has been in Australia, he has been convicted of four offences which the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the department) describes as ‘relatively minor’. He was also refused two visas on character grounds. Three of Mr AI’s offences resulted in him having to pay a fine. One of the offences (being in possession of jewellery suspected of being stolen) resulted in a custodial sentence of 5 months and 15 days. By contrast, Mr AI has been held in immigration detention for a cumulative period of more than 4 years. Most of this period of detention was later found to be unlawful as result of the failure by the department to properly notify Mr AI about adverse decisions on his visa applications and his right to review these decisions. He has been provided with compensation for part of this period of unlawful detention.
6.
16.
Section 8(6) of the AHRC Act requires that the functions of the Commission under s 11(1)(f) be performed by the President.
2.2
Scope of ‘act’ and ‘practice’
17.
The terms ‘act’ and ‘practice’ are defined in s 3(1) of the AHRC Act to include an act done or a practice engaged in by or on behalf of the Commonwealth or an authority of the Commonwealth or under an enactment.
18.
Section 3(3) provides that the reference to, or to the doing of, an act includes a reference to a refusal or failure to do an act.
19.
The functions of the Commission identified in s 11(1)(f) of the AHRC Act are only engaged where [OL HJ[ JVTWSHPULK VM PZ UV[ VUL YLX\PYLK I` SH^ [V IL [HRLU"1 that is, where the relevant act or practice is within the discretion of the Commonwealth, its officers or agents.
2.3
Arbitrary detention
20.
The rights and freedoms recognised by the ICCPR are ‘human rights’ within the meaning of the AHRC Act.2
21.
Article 9(1) of the ICCPR provides: Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
22.
The following principles relating to arbitrary detention within the meaning of article 9 of the ICCPR arise from international human rights jurisprudence: H ÂşKL[LU[PVUÂť PUJS\KLZ PTTPNYH[PVU KL[LU[PVU"3 (b) lawful detention may become arbitrary when a person’s deprivation of liberty becomes unjust, unreasonable or disproportionate to the Commonwealth’s legitimate aim of ensuring the LɈLJ[P]L VWLYH[PVU VM (\Z[YHSPHÂťZ TPNYH[PVU Z`Z[LT"4
The department first considered whether to refer Mr AI’s case to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for consideration of a community detention placement in June 2014. By this time, Mr AI had already been in immigration detention for more than two years. The department decided not to refer Mr AI’s case to the Minister. The department’s internal assessment as to whether Mr AI’s case should be referred to the Minister properly took into account his criminal history and prior visa refusals on character grounds. The mitigation of risks to the Australian community was a legitimate aim on behalf of the Commonwealth.
J HYIP[YHYPULZZ PZ UV[ [V IL LX\H[LK ^P[O ÂşHNHPUZ[ [OL SH^Âť" P[ T\Z[ IL PU[LYWYL[LK TVYL IYVHKS` [V PUJS\KL LSLTLU[Z VM PUHWWYVWYPH[LULZZ PUQ\Z[PJL VY SHJR VM WYLKPJ[HIPSP[`"5 and (d) detention should not continue beyond the period for which a State party can provide HWWYVWYPH[L Q\Z[PĂ„JH[PVU 6
23.
In Van Alphen v The Netherlands the United Nations Human Rights Committee found detention for a period of 2 months to be arbitrary because the State Party did not show that remand in custody was necessary to prevent flight, interference with evidence or recurrence of crime.7 Similarly, the Human Rights Committee considered that detention during the processing of asylum claims for periods of 3 months in Switzerland was ‘considerably in excess of what is 2 Legal framework necessary’.8
7.
However, there was material before the department which could have led to the conclusion that the risk to the Australian community either was low or could have been mitigated by conditions placed on community detention. This material included the department’s own view that Mr AI’s previous convictions were ‘relatively minor’, the fact that he has not been convicted of anytooffence for more than 10 years, and its view from the time when Mr AI was living in the 1 Introduction this inquiry community that Mr AI was compliant with the department and therefore unlikely to be a flight risk. These factors did not form part of the department’s internal assessment.
24.
The Human Rights Committee has held in several cases that there is an obligation on the State Party to demonstrate that there was not a less invasive way than detention to achieve the ends of the State Party’s immigration policy (for example the imposition of reporting obligations, sureties or other conditions) in order to avoid the conclusion that detention was arbitrary.9
AI v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2015] AusHRC 101 • 3
8.
Further, the department’s internal assessment failed to properly take into account the fact that from at least October 2012 Mr AI had outstanding legal applications which would take a significant amount of time to resolve. There was no prospect of his imminent removal from Australia. As a result, there was a significant risk that his continued detention while the assessment of his claims for protection were finally determined would be protracted and could become arbitrary.
9.
In the circumstances, the failure to refer Mr AI’s case to the Minister in order for the Minister to assess whether to exercise his public interest powers in light of all of the facts was not proportionate to the aim of either facilitating his removal from Australia or mitigating risks to the Australian community.
10.
The department should have made a referral in or around October 2012 for the Minister to consider exercising his public interest powers. That referral should have contained a risk assessment of Mr AI balancing relevant factors in his case, along with a consideration of whether any risks could be mitigated in a community detention placement.
11.
There was no reasonable justification for the delay of more than a year and a half in making a decision on the question of referral.
12.
I find that the failure to refer Mr AI’s case to the Minister in or around October 2012 for the Minister to consider exercising his public interest powers resulted in Mr AI’s detention being arbitrary, contrary to article 9(1) of the ICCPR. For the same reason, I find that there was an arbitrary interference with Mr AI’s family, contrary to articles 17(1) and 23(1) of the ICCPR.
13.
I recommend that the department promptly put a submission to the Minister for consideration of a residence determination in favour of Mr AI, subject to such reporting requirements or other conditions as may be necessary.
2
Legal framework
2.1
Functions of the Commission
14.
Section 11(1) of the AHRC Act identifies the functions of the Commission. Relevantly, s 11(1)(f) gives the Commission the following functions:
AI v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2015] AusHRC 101 • 5
25.
Detention in the course of proceedings for the control of immigration is not per se arbitrary, but [OL KL[LU[PVU T\Z[ IL Q\Z[PÄLK HZ YLHZVUHISL ULJLZZHY` HUK WYVWVY[PVUH[L PU [OL SPNO[ VM [OL circumstances and reassessed as it extends in time. Asylum seekers who unlawfully enter a State party’s territory may be detained for a brief initial period in order to document their entry, record their claims and determine their identity if it is in doubt. To detain them further while their claims HYL ILPUN YLZVS]LK ^V\SK IL HYIP[YHY` PU [OL HIZLUJL VM WHY[PJ\SHY YLHZVUZ ZWLJPÄJ [V [OL PUKP]PK\HS such as an individualized likelihood of absconding, a danger of crimes against others or a risk of acts against national security. The decision must consider relevant factors case by case and not IL IHZLK VU H THUKH[VY` Y\SL MVY H IYVHK JH[LNVY`" T\Z[ [HRL PU[V HJJV\U[ SLZZ PU]HZP]L TLHUZ of achieving the same ends, such as reporting obligations, sureties or other conditions to prevent HIZJVUKPUN" HUK T\Z[ IL Z\IQLJ[ [V WLYPVKPJ YL L]HS\H[PVU HUK Q\KPJPHS YL]PL^
26.
It will be necessary to consider whether the detention of Mr AI in closed detention facilities could be justified as reasonable, necessary and proportionate on the basis of particular reasons specific to him, and in light of the available alternatives to closed detention.
2.4
Interference with family
27.
The rights and freedoms recognised by the ICCPR are ‘human rights’ within the meaning of the AHRC Act.11 The applicant claims that the Commonwealth has engaged in acts which
are inconsistent with or contrary to his rights under articles 17 and 23 of the ICCPR. 28.
where the Commission considers it appropriate to do so – to endeavour, by conciliation, to LɈLJ[ H ZL[[SLTLU[ VM [OL TH[[LYZ [OH[ NH]L YPZL [V [OL PUX\PY`" HUK
(ii) where the Commission is of the opinion that the act or practice is inconsistent with or contrary to any human right, and the Commission has not considered it appropriate to endeavour to LɈLJ[ H ZL[[SLTLU[ VM [OL TH[[LYZ [OH[ NH]L YPZL [V [OL PUX\PY` VY OHZ LUKLH]V\YLK ^P[OV\[ Z\JJLZZ [V LɈLJ[ Z\JO H ZL[[SLTLU[ Âś [V YLWVY[ [V [OL 4PUPZ[LY PU YLSH[PVU [V [OL PUX\PY`
15.
4
Article 17(1) of the ICCPR provides: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
29.
Article 23(1) of the ICCPR provides: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
30.
Professor Manfred Nowak has noted that:12 B;DOL ZPNUPÄJHUJL VM (Y[ SPLZ PU [OL WYV[LJ[LK L_PZ[LUJL VM [OL PUZ[P[\[PVU ¸MHTPS`š ^OLYLHZ [OL right to non-interference with family life is primarily guaranteed by Art. 17. However, this distinction PZ KPɉJ\S[ [V THPU[HPU PU WYHJ[PJL
to inquire into any act or practice that may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right, and: (i)
Relevant jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee on the right to liberty is collected in a general comment on article 9 of the ICCPR published on 16 December 2014. It makes the following comments about immigration detention in particular, based on previous decisions by the Committee:10
31.
Section 20(1)(b) of the AHRC Act requires the Commission to perform the functions referred to in s 11(1)(f) when a complaint in writing is made to the Commission alleging that an act is inconsistent with or contrary to any human right.
6
For the reasons set out in the Australian Human Rights Commission report Nguyen and Okoye v Commonwealth [2007] AusHRC 39 at [80]-[88], the Commission is of the view that in cases alleging a State’s arbitrary interference with a person’s family, it is appropriate to assess the alleged breach under article 17(1). If an act is assessed as breaching the right not to be subjected to an arbitrary interference with a person’s family, it will usually follow that the breach is in addition to (or in conjunction with) a breach of article 23(1).
3
Background
3.1
Arrival in Australia
32.
Mr AI is a 58 year old man originally from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). He has spent almost half of his life in Australia. He first arrived in Australia on 5 August 1988 at the age of 31, holding a student visa.
33.
34.
45.
46. Mr AI was in Australia during the Tiananmen Square protests that took place in Beijing between April and June 1989. He was subsequently granted two temporary visas made available specifically for Chinese nationals. The department says that these visas ‘appear to be granted on humanitarian grounds, for PRC citizens who were in Australia during the Tiananmen Square protests’. The second of these visas purportedly expired in October 1996, however the department acknowledged in September 2014 that, as a result of deficiencies in the department’s processes for notifying visa applicants of decisions, Mr AI was still the holder of this permit. The permit finally ceased in March 2015. This issue is considered in more detail below. 47. In July 1992, Mr AI went back to China for seven days and returned to Australia with his wife Ms AL and their son Mr AJ (then three years old). Ms AL returned to China along with AJ to give birth to their second son, AK in April 1993. Ms AL and AJ returned to Australia while AK remained in China with Ms AL’s parents.
35.
Ms AL and Mr AJ were granted permanent entry permits in January 1995. Mr AI’s application for a permanent entry permit was refused on character grounds. Ms AL and Mr AJ acquired Australian citizenship in April 1999. Mr AK arrived in Australia in October 2000 as the holder of a child visa, sponsored by his mother, and was granted permanent residence.
3.2
Immigration history and criminal record
36.
Over the past 27 years, Mr AI has been convicted of four offences. Three of them resulted in him being required to pay a fine and one resulted in a sentence of imprisonment. The offences were as follows: H 0U
J 0U OL ^HZ JVU]PJ[LK VM OH]PUN WVZZLZZPVU VM QL^LSSLY` ^VY[O [OH[ ^HZ suspected of being stolen. He received a sentence of imprisonment of 5 months and 15 days (being the time that he had already spent in detention pending the hearing) and was immediately released.
3 Background 37. Mr AI has also spent more than 4 years in immigration detention. The department has acknowledged that most of this period of detention was unlawful because Mr AI had a valid visa. Mr AI has received compensation for one period of unlawful detention but it is not clear whether he has received compensation for all periods of unlawful detention.
In December 2001, Mr AI was arrested by New South Wales police after being found in WVZZLZZPVU VM QL^LSSLY` ^VY[O HUK PU JHZO [OH[ ^HZ Z\ZWLJ[LK VM ILPUN stolen. He was detained in immigration detention at VIDC for just over four and a half months and then released into police custody for a further 18 days before being issued a criminal justice stay certificate and associated visa while charges against him were pursued. In April OL ^HZ JVU]PJ[LK VM OH]PUN WVZZLZZPVU VM QL^LSSLY` ^VY[O [OH[ ^HZ Z\ZWLJ[LK of being stolen. The charges in relation to the cash located at Mr AI’s residence were withdrawn. He received a sentence of imprisonment of 5 months and 15 days (being the time that he had already spent in immigration detention and police custody) and was released. In January 2003, Mr AI applied to the AAT for an extension of time to allow him to seek a review of the 1996 decision to refuse him a permanent entry permit, but this was refused. By the time of the second AAT judgment in July 2004, Mr AI had been convicted of the possession of stolen jewellery charge. In reaching the decision not to allow an extension of time the Tribunal weighed a number of factors including the protection of the Australian community. On this point, it said: A consideration of the protection of the Australian community requires reference to the seriousness VM [OL VɈLUJLZ ^OL[OLY [OLYL PZ H YPZR VM YLWL[P[PVU HUK [OL KL[LYYLU[ LɈLJ[ VM [OL YLM\ZHS VM [OL visa. It is likely that Mr AI’s criminal history would be regarded as relatively serious, and there is a Z\NNLZ[PVU VM JVU[PU\P[` PU [OL YLWL[P[PVU VM OPZ VɈLUKPUN 9LM\ZHS VM H ]PZH PU Z\JO JPYJ\TZ[HUJLZ JV\SK OH]L H KL[LYYLU[ LɈLJ[ :LJVUKS` PU [OL ;YPI\UHSÂťZ ]PL^ P[ PZ SPRLS` [OH[ [OL (\Z[YHSPHU community would expect that a person who does not respect Australia’s law should be refused a visa.
OL ^HZ JVU]PJ[LK VM ILPUN ÂşMV\UK PU H NHTPUN OV\ZLÂť HUK ^HZ Ă„ULK
I 0U OL ^HZ JVU]PJ[LK VM WVZZLZZPUN H MHSZPĂ„LK WHZZWVY[ VM H MVYLPNU NV]LYUTLU[ HUK attempting to depart Australia with more than the permissible amount of money. He was Ă„ULK HUK MVY [OL YLZWLJ[P]L VɈLUJLZ
As noted above, Mr AI’s second temporary entry permit purportedly expired in October 1996 and an associated bridging visa ceased in December 1996. The department considered (incorrectly) that Mr AI was an unlawful non-citizen until he applied for a combined resolution of status visa in March 1998. He was granted a bridging visa in association with his application. The department refused his application for the substantive visa in May 1999, however, it failed to properly notify him of this visa refusal decision.13
48.
Appeals against this AAT decision were unsuccessful.
49.
In May 2003, Ms AL was convicted of possession of 520 ecstasy tablets and sentenced to six months imprisonment. It is not clear whether Ms AL and Mr AI were living together at the time.
50.
In November 2004, Mr AI was charged with domestic assault in relation to Mr AL. Documents from the department describe them as being estranged as this time. The charges were later withdrawn.
51.
On 19 December 2004, Mr AI was located by the New South Wales police on the basis that he was suspected of being an unlawful non-citizen. Mr AI applied for a protection visa on 21 December 2004 and an associated bridging visa. The department found that the application for the bridging visa was invalid on the same day and refused the protection visa application on 8 February 2005. Mr AI sought review of the protection visa decision in the Refugee Review Tribunal. While that review was pending, he was detained at VIDC from 22 March 2005 until 3 Background 6 May 2005 on the basis that it was believed that he was an unlawful non-citizen. However, because he had not been properly notified about the visa refusal decision in May 1999, this period of detention was unlawful. Mr AI was subsequently compensated by the Commonwealth for this period of detention.
AI v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2015] AusHRC 101 • 7 AI v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2015] AusHRC 101 • 9
38.
The background to Mr AI’s offences and his immigration history are discussed in more detail below.
39.
On 7 February 1993, Mr AI was held in immigration detention as he could not establish his identity and status in Australia. He was released on 29 March 1993 once his identity was established.
40.
In January 1994, Mr AI was apprehended at Perth airport attempting to depart Australia using a Singaporean passport in another name. He was held in immigration detention for 10 weeks. The department says that Mr AI first identified himself using a third name and that he had stowed away on a ship from China and arrived in Australia in February 1993. While the department was 54. seeking a travel document from the Chinese authorities to attempt to deport him, it says that Mr AI then identified himself using a fourth name and that he had escaped from China while serving a prison sentence for accepting bribes. Before Mr AI could be deported, the department was advised by the New South Wales police that they had an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr AI.
41.
52.
From May 2005 until July 2011, Mr AI was granted a series of bridging visas while he sought merits review and judicial review of the decision to refuse him a protection visa and the 1999 decision to refuse him a combined resolution of status visa (after he was properly notified of this decision). Mr AI’s review applications were unsuccessful.
53.
In December 2011, Mr AI was charged with possession and supply of a prohibited drug and was remanded in custody. He was granted bail on 29 February 2012 and released from custody. On the same day, he was detained under section 189 of the Migration Act and transferred to VIDC. The supply prohibited drug offence was withdrawn by the police and Burwood Local Court discharged Mr AI with no penalty.
Fingerprint checks revealed Mr AI’s identity, that he was the holder of a temporary entry permit and that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest in New South Wales. He was released from immigration detention into police custody and then extradited to New South Wales on 29 March 1994 to face charges of conspiring to supply a commercial quantity of heroin. He was held in criminal custody for a further four months before being released. The prosecution was unable to offer evidence against Mr AI on the charges against him and his case was dismissed. 55. According to the Australian Federal Police, the person they had identified as the principle witness refused to give evidence.
42.
In August 1994, Mr AI was charged and convicted for possessing a falsified passport of a foreign government and attempting to depart Australia with more than the permissible amount VM TVUL` /L ^HZ MPULK HUK MVY [OL YLZWLJ[P]L VMMLUJLZ
43.
Mr AI lodged an application for a permanent entry permit in June 1994 while he was detained by police in New South Wales. This application was ultimately refused in October 1996 on character grounds under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act). The delegate took into account Mr AI’s convictions in 1991 and 1994 which he described as ‘relatively minor’. He also considered a pattern of deceptive conduct by Mr AI over a number of years and Mr AI’s association with persons or groups which, on the balance of probabilities, were involved in criminal conduct. The delegate considered, on the balance of the evidence, 56. that Mr AI would be likely to engage in criminal conduct if he were allowed to remain in Australia and that this would represent a danger to the Australian community. As noted further below, the department acknowledged in 2014 that Mr AI was not properly notified of the review period for 57. this decision and that as a result his temporary entry permit continued in effect.
44.
8
In November 1996, Mr AI sought review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of the decision to refuse him a permanent entry permit. However, he did not attend the hearing and his application was dismissed in November 1997 without the Tribunal proceeding to a review.
10
Mr AI was detained in VIDC from 29 February 2012 until 26 September 2014. This period of detention lasted 2 years and 7 months before the department acknowledged that it was unlawful. On 26 September 2014, following a High Court application filed in August 2014, the department determined that the notification of the department’s decision in 1996 to refuse Mr AI a permanent entry permit was not legally effective because it did not correctly inform Mr AI of the time he had to apply for a review of the refusal decision. As a result, the department determined that Mr AI was still the holder of a PRC temporary entry permit. The department released Mr AI from detention on 26 September 2014 and Mr AI then consented to orders dismissing his High Court proceedings on the basis that he had already been released. It is not clear whether the Commonwealth has compensated Mr AI for this latest period of unlawful detention. On 4 October 2012, Mr AI made a second application for a protection visa. This application was initially refused as a result of the bar under section 48A of the Migration Act on making a second application for a protection visa once an initial application has been refused. However, he sought judicial review of this decision which was ultimately successful following the decision in SZGIZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 71. That case held that s 48A did not bar a second application for a protection visa made on complementary protection grounds (for example because there was a real risk that if the person were removed from Australia the person would be arbitrarily killed or suffer torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) where the first application was refused prior to those grounds being inserted into the Migration Act. Mr AI’s second protection visa application was refused and the decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. Mr AI is currently seeking judicial review of this decision. On 3 December 2014, the department purported to re-notify Mr AI of its decision to refuse him a permanent entry permit on character related grounds. His PRC temporary entry permit was taken to cease on that day and he was detained again in VIDC. On 6 March 2015, the department realised that its re-notification of its decision to refuse him a permanent entry permit was also defective, because it incorrectly informed him that he only had nine days to seek merits review. As a result, it renotified him (again) of this decision. It appears that the period of Mr AI’s detention from 3 December 2014 until 6 March 2015 was also unlawful.
58.
59.
Mr AI continues to be detained at VIDC. The period from 6 March 2015 is the first time that Mr AI has not held a valid visa since November 1991. He has outstanding court cases in relation to his second protection visa application (currently before the Federal Circuit Court) and in relation to the most recent attempts to notify him of the decision to refuse him a permanent entry permit. The total period he has been in immigration detention in Australia is more than 4 years. In April 2015, the department provided its 48 month review to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in relation to Mr AI’s detention. It appears that the majority of this period of detention has been unlawful.
3.3
Ministerial consideration of Mr AI’s status and attempts to remove him from Australia
60.
Mr AI’s case was first referred to the then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the Hon Chris Bowen MP, on 11 July 2011 (while Mr AI was living in the community) to consider whether to grant Mr AI a bridging visa under s 195A of the Migration Act pending the outcome of his judicial review applications. The department noted that the previous decisions to issue bridging visas to Mr AI were invalid as result of the decision to refuse him a permanent entry permit in 1996 on character grounds. At this stage, the department was unaware that the 1996 refusal decision was not legally effective. If it was effective, then, under s 501E of the Migration Act, Mr AI would not have been allowed to apply for another visa (other than a protection visa). However, the Minister has the discretion under s 195A to grant a visa to a person in detention whether or not the person has applied for the visa and whether or not the person satisfies the criteria for the grant of the visa.
61.
4
Release from immigration detention pending outcome of judicial proceedings
68.
The key complaint by Mr AJ and Mr AK is that Mr AI should be released into community detention pending the outcome of his legal proceedings.
4.1
Power to make residence determination and applicable guidelines
69.
Mr AI’s sons claim that it was open to the Minister for Immigration to permit Mr AI to live in the community subject to a ‘residence determination’. Section 197AB of the Migration Act permits the Minister, where he thinks that it is in the public interest to do so, to make a residence determination to allow a person to reside in a specified place instead of being detained in closed immigration detention. A ‘specified place’ may be a place in the community. The residence determination may be made subject to other conditions such as reporting requirements.
70.
On 1 September 2009, the then Minister published guidelines to explain the circumstances in which he may wish to consider exercising his powers under s 197AB to make a residence determination (guidelines).14 These guidelines were in operation when Mr AI was detained on 29 February 2012.
71.
The guidelines provided that the making of a residence determination is a decision about an immigration detention placement while the immigration status of a person is resolved.15 The guidelines provided that priority for community detention will be given to certain categories of cases including those that will take a considerable period to substantively resolve and other cases with unique or exceptional circumstances.16 Priority cases were to be assessed and a submission with a residence determination recommendation was to be provided to the Minister as soon as practicable.17 The recommendation should contain a risk assessment balancing a number of factors including character, identity and security issues, age and family composition, cooperation with immigration processes and the likelihood of compliance with residence determination conditions, and other unique or exceptional characteristics.18
72.
In assessing whether a person’s case will take a considerable period to substantively resolve, it is relevant that the guidelines indicated that the Minister would not usually consider granting a residence determination if removal is likely to occur within 3 months or where a visa is likely to be granted within 2 months.19 In the latter case, a bridging visa would be more appropriate.
73.
New guidelines were issued by the Hon Brendan O’Connor MP, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, on 30 May 2013.20 Further guidelines were issued by the Hon Scott Morrison MP, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, on 18 February 2014.21 The department has provided the Commission with an unsigned copy of guidelines apparently made by the Hon Peter Dutton MP, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, on 29 March 2015.22 Each of these new sets of guidelines provided that the Minister would not expect referral of cases where a person does not meet the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act, unless there were exceptional circumstances.
The department said in its submission that Mr AI was ‘pursuing an appropriate visa pathway’ in seeking judicial review of decisions that affected him. It noted that Mr AI was compliant with the department and was attending scheduled meetings with the department. It said: As the Department has compounded the issues regarding Mr AI’s lawfulness it is not considered appropriate to detain him while his case is resolved. As such, the Department proposes that the most appropriate management of Mr AI through this process would be on a BVE for a time frame ZWLJPĂ„LK I` `V\ ;OL +LWHY[TLU[ PZ YLJVTTLUKPUN H WLYPVK VM ZP_ TVU[OZ [V LUZ\YL [OVYV\NO consideration of the issues can be conducted and that appropriate options can be referred for your consideration. The Department also considers it appropriate to grant the BVE with work rights.
62.
The Minister did not agree to intervene under s 195A to grant a bridging visa and sought more information from the department about the character concerns that gave rise to the original decision under s 501 of the Migration Act. Mr AI’s case was not referred back to Mr Bowen under s 195A.
63.
A second submission to the Minister for consideration of the exercise of his discretionary powers was referred to Mr Bowen on 12 June 2012 (around three and a half months after Mr AI was detained). This submission dealt with the potential for the Minister to exercise his powers under ss 351 or 417 of the Migration Act to grant a permanent visa to Mr AI. The department recommended against the grant of a permanent visa, saying:
3 Background
The Department considers that intervention under section 351 or section 417 may not be appropriate in this case.
4 Release from immigration detention pending outcome of judicial proceedings AI v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2015] AusHRC 101 • 13
AI v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2015] AusHRC 101 • 11
The Department acknowledges that Mr AI’s convictions in 1994 and 2004 were relatively minor. He was not convicted of drug charges because the witness declined to give evidence and the prosecution failed to provide evidence against him.
74.
However, reports from the AFP, the NSW Crime Commission and the NSW Drug Enforcement Agency indicate that he was charged for possessing a large quantity of heroin, conspiring to supply a commercial quantity of heroin and for associating with persons or gangs involved in criminal conduct. 4VYLV]LY 4Y (0 OHZ L_OPIP[LK YLWL[P[P]L VɈLUKPUN V]LY H WYVSVUNLK WLYPVK VM [PTL ZPUJL HUK was last charged as recently as 10/12/2011 with possession and supply of a prohibited drug. The Department considers that if permitted to remain in Australia, Mr AI would represent a threat to the Australian community. The risk of recidivism appears to be high. There is nothing to indicate that if given a chance he will be an improved person or that he will not repeat his past behaviour. The Department acknowledges that his wife and children are Australian citizens/permanent residents. However, his wife has served previous sentences for possession of prohibited drugs. The Department has information that Mr AI was charged with domestic assault and malicious damage in relation to Ms AL and has no current evidence that Mr AI is in an ongoing relationship ^P[O OPZ ^PML /PZ JOPSKYLU HYL HK\S[Z HUK 4Y (0 OHZ SP]LK H^H` MYVT OPZ JOPSKYLU MVY ZPNUPĂ„JHU[ periods of time.
P JPYJ\TZ[HUJLZ [OH[ TH` IYPUN (\Z[YHSPHÂťZ VISPNH[PVUZ HZ H WHY[` [V [OL 0**79 PU[V JVUZPKLYH[PVU" and (b) the length of time the person has been present in Australia (including time spent in detention).
75.
In addition to the power to make a residence determination under s 197AB, the Minister also has a discretionary non-compellable power under s 195A to grant a visa to a person in immigration detention, again subject to any conditions necessary to take into account their specific circumstances.
4.2
Consideration of residence determination
76.
It was clear from at least October 2012 that Mr AI had outstanding legal applications which would take a significant amount of time to resolve. There was no prospect of his imminent removal from Australia. As a result, it was appropriate for the department to consider whether it was necessary to keep Mr AI in immigration detention pending the outcome of these proceedings.
77.
In response to my preliminary view in this matter, the department said:
The Department considers that Mr AI’s criminal history and disrespect for the law far outweigh the humanitarian considerations operating in his case.
64.
The Minister accepted the recommendation of his department and on 17 June 2012 decided not to exercise his powers under ss 351 or 417 of the Migration Act to grant Mr AI a permanent visa.
65.
Following this decision, as Mr AI did not have any ongoing legal proceedings, the department began making arrangements to remove him from Australia. At this time, the department was unaware that Mr AI still held a valid visa because the notification of the department’s decision in 1996 to refuse Mr AI as permanent entry permit was not legally effective. As a result, his removal from Australia would not have been lawful. Removal was scheduled for 27 July 2012. Mr AI was advised about the removal on 19 July 2012. On 20 July 2012, he commenced proceedings in the High Court seeking review of the Minister’s decision to refuse him a permanent visa. Mr AI’s case officer recorded that ‘Mr AI’s lawyer has ‌ filed an appeal with the High Court against MI. Therefore, Mr AI will remain in detention until this matter is finalised’.
66.
67.
As noted in [55] above, Mr AI made a second application for a protection visa on 4 October 2012 which was deemed to be invalid under s 48A of the Migration Act. On 10 October 2012, he sought judicial review of this decision. The department noted that Mr AI was one of around 170 people claiming that s 48A did not prevent a second application for a protection visa on complementary protection grounds where the first application was refused prior to those grounds being inserted into the Migration Act.
The phrase ‘exceptional circumstances’ is not defined in the guidelines, but the similar phrase ‘unique or exceptional circumstances’ is defined in similar guidelines relating to the Minister’s power to grant visas in the public interest.23 In those guidelines, factors that are relevant to an assessment of unique or exceptional circumstances include:
Mr AI’s case was reviewed by his departmental case manager on a monthly basis. Monthly reviews conducted between July and December 2012 concluded that Mr AI’s placement in held immigration detention was appropriate, given the circumstances of his case. Mr AI had a criminal history and no reported mental or physical health issues. As such, Mr AI’s case was not referred by his departmental manager for assessment against the s 195A or 197AB guidelines.
78.
At the same time, the department also said that there was no request from Mr AI or on Mr AI’s behalf for his case to be assessed against the s 195A or 197AB guidelines until July 2013. However, the department is not restricted in making a submission to the Minister by whether or not a request for such a submission is made by or on behalf of a person in detention.
79.
As noted above, prior to Mr AI’s detention in February 2012, the department’s view was that it was appropriate for Mr AI to be granted a bridging visa and for him to live in the community with work rights pending the resolution of his immigration status. It described Mr AI’s legal proceedings as him ‘pursuing an appropriate visa pathway’. Mr AI was compliant with the department and was attending scheduled meetings.
80.
After the unsuccessful attempts to remove Mr AI from Australia, there was a significant delay of more than a year and a half until a decision was made about whether to refer Mr AI’s case to the Minister for consideration of a community detention placement. This included almost a year from when Mr AI’s sons were first informed that an assessment was underway.
A second removal was scheduled for 7 November 2012, but this was also cancelled because of Mr AI’s outstanding judicial review proceedings.
14
81.
82.
The department informed Mr AI’s sons on 21 June 2013 that it was assessing Mr AI’s case for possible referral to the Minister under s 195A of the Act. That assessment was not completed until 4 June 2014. It appears that the assessment considered whether to refer Mr AI’s case to the Minister either under s 195A (for the grant of a visa, presumably a bridging visa) or under 97. s 197AB (for a community detention placement). The decision of the Assistant Director of the Complex Case Resolution Section on 4 June 2014 was not to refer Mr AI’s case to the Minister for consideration of either a bridging visa or community detention on the basis that Mr AI had ‘serious character issues’. 98. In assessing whether to refer Mr AI for a community detention placement, the departmental officer listed a range of factors. Three of those factors are considered in more detail below.
99.
(a)
Criminal history
83.
One of the key factors weighing against referral appears to have been Mr AI’s criminal history. 100. In the referral decision, this was described in the following way: Mr AI has an extensive criminal history, for which he has spent over two years (cumulative) in criminal custody.
84.
The first thing to note about this description is that Mr AI has only been convicted of one offence that carried a custodial sentence and this was for a period of 5 months and 15 days. While he has been convicted of four offences since first arriving in Australia in 1988, at least three of those were properly described by the department as ‘relatively minor’ and attracted MPULZ VM VY SLZZ
There was no reasonable justification for the delay of more than a year and a half in making a decision on the question of referral. I find that the failure to refer Mr AI’s case to the Minister in or around October 2012 for the Minister to consider exercising his public interest powers resulted in Mr AI’s detention being arbitrary, contrary to article 9(1) of the ICCPR.
101.
Mr AJ and Mr AK claim that Mr AI’s detention and the potential for him to be removed from Australia results in an arbitrary interference with family.
102.
As Mr AI still has a judicial review proceeding on foot relating to the decision to refuse his second protection visa application, I consider that it is premature to make any findings about his potential removal from Australia.
86.
The third thing to note is that in other contexts the department has suggested that the offence 103. for which he received a custodial sentence was not a serious offence. In the June 2012 submission to the Minister, this offence was also described by the department as ‘relatively minor’. Further, in refusing to grant Mr AI a protection visa on complementary protection 104. grounds in June 2014, another officer of the department considered the risk of Mr AI being persecuted in China on the basis of his criminal record. That officer described Mr AI’s offence in the following way:
Similar comments were made by the Refugee Review Tribunal in August 2014 in reviewing the decision to refuse Mr AI a protection visa. The Tribunal reviewed all of Mr AI’s convictions and found that they were ‘relatively low level convictions’ and crimes of a ‘minor nature’.
The department should have made a referral in or around October 2012 for the Minister to consider exercising his public interest powers. That referral should have contained a risk assessment of Mr AI balancing relevant factors in his case, along with a consideration of whether any risks could be mitigated in a community detention placement.
Interference with family
The second thing to note is that his last conviction was in 2004, more than a decade ago.
87.
In the circumstances, I consider that the failure to refer Mr AI’s case to the Minister in order for the Minister to assess whether to exercise his public interest powers in light of all of the facts, was not proportionate to the aim of either facilitating his removal from Australia or mitigating risks to the Australian community.
5
85.
0U [OL J\YYLU[ JHZL [OL HWWSPJHU[ ^HZ UV[ JVU]PJ[LK VM H KY\NZ VɈLUJL /L ^HZ JVU]PJ[LK VM harbouring stolen goods, which is highly improbable to [be] seen as a serious crime in China. ‌ Even if his case was reported in China, then it would be apparent to anyone reading the article that he was convicted of the much lesser charge of concealing stolen goods.
from Australia. As a result, there was a significant risk that his continued detention while the assessment of his claims for protection were finally determined would be protracted and could become arbitrary.
Mr AI’s immediate family in Australia comprises his wife, Ms AL and his adult sons Mr AJ and Mr AK. The material before me suggests that Mr AI may be estranged from his wife. The complaint has been made by his sons. It does not appear that Mr AI lives with his sons, but the fact that they have made an application to the Commission on his behalf indicates that they have a close connection to him. The submission said that one of the sons had self-harmed after considering the prospect that his father would be removed from Australia.
105.
In response to my preliminary view in this matter, the department noted that Mr AI’s sons have regularly visited him in detention and have requested ministerial intervention on his behalf which supports a view that they currently have a close connection.
106.
The detention of Mr AI clearly amounts to an interference with his family. The department submitted that ‘the interference with his family which flows as a result from Mr AI’s detention is reasonable in the circumstances’. This submission is based on the department’s submission that Mr AI’s detention is not arbitrary. As noted above, I have reached a different view about the nature of his detention given the failure by the department to make a submission to the Minister for the consideration by him of his public interest powers.
107.
As I have found that Mr AI’s detention was arbitrary, I find that the interference with his family was also arbitrary, contrary to articles 17(1) and 23(1) of the ICCPR.
4 Release from immigration detention pending outcome of judicial proceedings
AI v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2015] AusHRC 101 • 17
AI v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) • [2015] AusHRC 101 • 15
(b)
Character assessment
88.
A second key factor in assessing whether to refer Mr AI for a community detention placement was that he has had two visa applications refused on character grounds.
89.
These visa refusals occurred in 1996 and 1999. The basis for these visa refusals was in part the criminal convictions described by the department as ‘relatively minor’ and in part untested allegations about Mr AI’s associates.
90.
In the circumstances, particularly in light of the considerable period of time that Mr AI could anticipate being detained, these visa refusals should not have prevented a referral being made to the Minister so that the Minister could make an assessment in light of all of the facts.
(c)
Visa application status
91.
A third key factor in assessing whether to refer Mr AI for a community detention placement was that ‘Mr AI has been found not to be owed protection by the Department, and this decision has been affirmed by the RRT and courts however, he refuses to depart voluntarily’.
92.
At first glance, this statement may suggest that Mr AI’s application for a protection visa has been finally determined. However, as acknowledged later in the assessment, this is not the case. Mr AI has sought review of the decision to refuse him a protection visa on complementary protection grounds and that case is currently before the Federal Circuit Court.
(d)
Conclusion
93.
In response to my preliminary view in this matter, the department submitted that: Mr AI’s current detention is lawful and proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the Australian community given Mr AI’s criminal convictions, but also other character concerns such HZ [OL Z\NNLZ[PVU VM JVU[PU\P[` PU [OL YLWL[P[PVU VM OPZ VɈLUKPUN HZ UV[LK I` [OL (KTPUPZ[YH[P]L Appeals Tribunal (AAT)) and a pattern of deception in Mr AI’s conduct in his dealings with the Department involving the use of multiple aliases during his stay in Australia and attempted use of fraudulent passports.
94.
95.
96.
The department’s internal assessment as to whether Mr AI should be referred to the Minister for consideration of a community detention placement properly took into account his criminal history and prior visa refusals on character grounds. The mitigation of risks to the Australian community was a legitimate aim on behalf of the Commonwealth.
6
Findings and recommendations
108.
As noted above, the department first considered whether to refer Mr AI’s case to the Minister for consideration of a community detention placement in June 2014. By this time, Mr AI had already been in immigration detention for more than two years. The department decided not to refer Mr AI’s case to the Minister. The department’s internal assessment as to whether Mr AI’s case should be referred to the Minister properly took into account his criminal history and prior visa refusals on character grounds. The mitigation of risks to the Australian community was a legitimate aim on behalf of the Commonwealth.
109.
However, there was material before the department which could have led to the conclusion that the risk to the Australian community either was low or could have been mitigated by conditions placed on community detention. This material included the department’s own view that Mr AI’s previous convictions were ‘relatively minor’, the fact that he has not been convicted of any offence for more than 10 years, and its view from the time when Mr AI was living in the community that Mr AI was compliant with the department and therefore unlikely to be a flight risk. These factors did not form part of the department’s internal assessment.
110.
Further, the department’s internal assessment failed to properly take into account the fact that from at least October 2012 Mr AI had outstanding legal applications which would take a significant amount of time to resolve. There was no prospect of his imminent removal from Australia. As a result, there was a significant risk that his continued detention while the assessment of his claims for protection were finally determined would be protracted and could become arbitrary.
111.
In the circumstances, the failure to refer Mr AI’s case to the Minister in order for the Minister to assess whether to exercise his public interest powers in light of all of the facts was not proportionate to the aim of either facilitating his removal from Australia or mitigating risks to the Australian community.
112.
The department should have made a referral in or around October 2012 for the Minister to consider exercising his public interest powers. That referral should have contained a risk assessment of Mr AI balancing relevant factors in his case, along with a consideration of whether any risks could be mitigated in a community detention placement.
113.
There was no reasonable justification for the delay of more than a year and a half in making a decision on the question of referral.
114.
I find that the failure to refer Mr AI’s case to the Minister in or around October 2012 for the Minister to consider exercising his public interest powers resulted in Mr AI’s detention being arbitrary, contrary to article 9(1) of the ICCPR. For the same reason, I find that there was an arbitrary interference with Mr AI’s family, contrary to articles 17(1) and 23(1) of the ICCPR.
However, there was material before the department which could have led to the conclusion that the risk to the Australian community either was low or could have been mitigated by conditions placed on community detention. This material included the department’s own view that Mr AI’s previous convictions were ‘relatively minor’, the fact that he has not been convicted 115. of any offence for more than 10 years, and its view from the time when Mr AI was living in the community that Mr AI was compliant with the department and therefore unlikely to be a flight risk. These factors did not form part of the department’s internal assessment. Further, the department’s internal assessment failed to properly take into account the fact that from at least October 2012 Mr AI had outstanding legal applications which would take a significant amount of time to resolve. There was no prospect of his imminent removal 18
16
Where, after conducting an inquiry, the Commission finds that an act or practice engaged in by a respondent is inconsistent with or contrary to any human right, the Commission is required to serve notice on the respondent setting out its findings and reasons for those findings.24 The Commission may include in the notice any recommendation for preventing a repetition of the act or a continuation of the practice.25
Endnotes
116.
I recommend that the department promptly put a submission to the Minister for consideration of a residence determination in favour of Mr AI, subject to such reporting requirements or other conditions as may be necessary.
1 2 3
7
Department’s response
4
117.
By letter dated 30 September 2015, the department provided a response to my findings and recommendations. The response was in the following terms:
5
6
;OL +LWHY[TLU[ UV[LZ [OL Ă„UKPUNZ HUK YLJVTTLUKH[PVU VM [OL (/9* PU [OPZ JHZL
7
The Department maintains that [Mr AI]’s placement in a detention centre was appropriate, YLHZVUHISL HUK Q\Z[PÄLK PU [OL PUKP]PK\HS JPYJ\TZ[HUJLZ VM OPZ JHZL HUK [OLYLMVYL UV[ HYIP[YHY` within the meaning of article 9(1) of the ICCPR.
8 9
The Department maintains that [Mr AI]’s immigration detention was lawful and carried out in accordance with applicable statutory procedure prescribed under the Migration Act 1958. The Department also upholds that its interference with [Mr AI]’s family unity was not arbitrary given this lawfulness and that it was proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the Australian community in view of [Mr AI]’s criminal convictions and other character concerns. As the Department’s position is that interference with family unity is permissible where it is not arbitrary and where it is lawful at domestic law, the department upholds that the interference with [Mr AI]’s family is not a breach of Article 17(1) or 23(1) of the ICCPR.
10 11 12 13
On 15 September 2015, [Mr AI] was found not to meet the guidelines for referral to the Minister under section 195A and 197AB. However, given the recommendation made by the AHRC, the Department is preparing a submission to the Minister for his consideration under sections 195A and 197AB of the Act.
118.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
I report accordingly to the Attorney-General.
21 22
Gillian Triggs President Australian Human Rights Commission
23 24 25
December 2015
See Secretary, Department of Defence v HREOC, Burgess & Ors (1997) 78 FCR 208. ;OL 0**79 PZ YLMLYYLK [V PU [OL KLĂ&#x201E;UP[PVU VM ÂşO\THU YPNO[ZÂť PU Z VM [OL (/9* (J[ United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment 8 (1982), Right to liberty and security of persons (Article 9). See also A v Australia *VTT\UPJH[PVU 5V <5 +VJ **79 * + " C v Australia, Communication 5V <5 +VJ **79 * + " Baban v Australia, Communication No. 1014/2001, UN Doc CCPR/ C/78/D/1014/2001 (2003). United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment 31 (2004) at [6]. See also Joseph, Schultz and Castan â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Cases, Materials and Commentaryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (2nd ed, 2004) p 308, at [11.10]. Manga v Attorney-General [2000] 2 NZLR 65 at [40]-[42], (Hammond J). See also the views of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Van Alphen v The Netherlands *VTT\UPJH[PVU 5V <5 +VJ **79 * + " A v Australia *VTT\UPJH[PVU 5V <5 +VJ **79 * + " Spakmo v Norway, Communication No. 631/1995, UN Doc CCPR/C/67/D/631/1995 (1999). United Nations Human Rights Committee, A v Australia, Communication No. 900/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/76/D/900/1993 (1997) [OL MHJ[ [OH[ [OL H\[OVY TH` HIZJVUK PM YLSLHZLK PU[V [OL JVTT\UP[` ^HZ UV[ H Z\É&#x2030;JPLU[ YLHZVU [V Q\Z[PM` OVSKPUN [OL H\[OVY PU PTTPNYH[PVU KL[LU[PVU MVY MV\Y `LHYZ " C v Australia, Communication No. 900/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999 (2002). United Nations Human Rights Committee, Van Alphen v The Netherlands, Communication No. 305/1988, UN Doc CCPR/ C/39/D/305/1988 (1990). United Nations Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Switzerland, UN Doc CCPR/A/52/40 (1997) at [100]. United Nations Human Rights Committee, C v Australia, Communication No. 900/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999 " Shams & Ors v Australia *VTT\UPJH[PVU 5V <5 +VJ **79 * + " Baban v Australia, *VTT\UPJH[PVU 5V **79 * + " D and E v Australia, Communication No. 1050/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/87/D/1050/2002 (2006). United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment 35 (2014), Article 9: Liberty and security of person, UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/35 at [18]. ;OL 0**79 PZ YLMLYYLK [V PU [OL KLĂ&#x201E;UP[PVU VM ÂşO\THU YPNO[ZÂť PU Z VM [OL (/9* (J[ M Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights CCPR Commentary (2nd ed, 2005) 518. This issue was considered by the Federal Court in Chan Ta Srey v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous (É&#x2C6;HPYZ -*9 ;OL JHZL OLSK [OH[ H 4PNYH[PVU YLN\SH[PVU [OH[ ZWLJPĂ&#x201E;LK ^OLU H UV[PJL MYVT [OL KLWHY[TLU[ ^HZ KLLTLK [V OH]L ILLU YLJLP]LK I` H WLYZVU ^HZ PU]HSPK (Z H YLZ\S[ UV[PJLZ YLS`PUN VU [OH[ YLN\SH[PVU MVY [OLPY LÉ&#x2C6;LJ[P]LULZZ ^LYL SLNHSS` PULÉ&#x2C6;LJ[P]L ;OL *VTTVU^LHS[O 6TI\KZTHU PUX\PYLK PU[V JHZLZ VM WLVWSL HÉ&#x2C6;LJ[LK I` [OPZ KLJPZPVU HUK WYVK\JLK a report in June 2007. The Hon Chris Evans MP, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Ministerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Residence Determination under s 197AB and s 197AD of the Migration Act 1958, Guidelines, 1 September 2009. The guidelines are incorporated into the departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Procedures Advice Manual. Guidelines at [2.3.1]. Guidelines at [4.1.4]. Guidelines at [4.1.5]. Guidelines at [3.1.2] and [4.1.2]. Guidelines at [5.2.2] and [5.2.3]. The Hon Brendan Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Connor MP, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Ministerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Residence Determination Power under s 197AB and s 197AD of the Migration Act 1958, 30 May 2013. The guidelines are incorporated into the departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Procedures Advice Manual. The Hon Scott Morrison MP, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Minister for Immigration and Border Protectionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Residence Determination Power under section 197AB and section 197AD of the Migration Act 1958, 18 February 2014. The guidelines are incorporated into the departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Procedures Advice Manual. The Hon Peter Dutton MP, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Minister for Immigration and Border Protectionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Residence Determination Power under section 197AB and section 197AD of the Migration Act 1958, 29 March 2015. The guidelines are incorporated into the departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s procedures Advice Manual. The Hon Chris Bowen MP, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Ministerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s guidelines on ministerial powers (s 345, s 351, s 417 and s 501J), 24 March 2012 (reissued on 10 October 2015). The guidelines are incorporated into the departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Procedures Advice Manual. AHRC Act s 29(2)(a). AHRC Act s 29(2)(b).
Further Information 20
AI v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) â&#x20AC;˘ [2015] AusHRC 101 â&#x20AC;˘ 19
Australian Human Rights Commission Level 3, 175 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Telephone: (02) 9284 9600 Complaints Infoline: 1300 656 419 General enquiries and publications: 1300 369 711 TTY: 1800 620 241 Fax: (02) 9284 9611 Website: www.humanrights.gov.au For detailed and up to date information about the Australian Human Rights Commission visit our website at: www.humanrights.gov.au To order more publications from the Australian Human Rights Commission download a Publication Order Form at: www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/index.html or call: (02) 9284 9600 fax: (02) 9284 9611 or email: publications@humanrights.gov.au
Australian Human Rights Commission www.humanrights.gov.au
ä&#x2C6;â&#x203A;Żŕ ą ! â&#x2014;ŠŃŁă&#x2013;&#x2021; â&#x2014;ŠŃŁŕŞ&#x17E;ᾥáŁ&#x203A;ă&#x2013;&#x2021;ă&#x201E;?
www. achina.com.au
á&#x2019;ľŕŞ&#x20AC;ŕ˝&#x;Ń
૷á&#x201C;&#x2026;
A A China China Media Media
AAAA China Media $ &KLQD 0HGLD China Media China Media China Media
11.12.2015 11.03.2016 27 27
27.03.--02.04.2015 24 06.03.--12.03.2015 24 18.01.--24.01. 2013 25.01.--31.01. 2013 30 30
ᒵཟс
䈭⛯࠱ ! ◩ѣ㖇 ◩ѣઞᵡᣛ㖇ㄏ
www. achina.com.au
LIGHT UP CONCORD Ґ֊ۺཀྵ᎑Ȃܛԥࠣఽঙ౪Ȃϥя୶
ӵ֮Ȉ ŔũŰűĵĭijĺĮĵĶġőŢųųŢŮŢŵŵŢġœŰŢťġńŰůŤŰųť ႬၘĻġĺĸĵĵġĹijĺĵ ķĺĹġŭŪŨũŵġŶű
ԥӵίٚൠ՞ܼġŃŶųŸŰŰťġųŰŢťġŏŪŤũŦŴġōŢůŦ
A China Media 20.03.--26.03.2015 27
ᝄ֫⒅ޞᾞҧ ͎ࢎ⥪хĄٌ֬Ԣ֏ąᅭԨ౨વ֝
Ąࢁݣąϓ͆䨪䔄㘩⫛⟮ๆͱ喢 ᝬ䄿Ąࢁݣą喏ᅝ᭛ᠳ᭛ᏃტЄ䄣Ϧճរ䶪喏⩔БճΝⱋ⮰䉙➕ᐻ 倄㑽Ꮓ⮰ᢾहস䨬䛻㣣ं䨬䛻ᢚࣶຩ䃰।ᑁ䶪Ƞ Ꭰ ᮆц喏ࢁݣϓ ͆⮰जࡂ䓼҈ᐻ䔇ژڑу㻲䛺Ƞ϶Ꭰ݉喏䭫䛸ጠጠ䊣䃵ࢁݣजĄקᣔ㑽ą ⊵͑䛹࢝ჟጮ౦《ε⼕Ꮋ喏⁍̬ڹាĄࢁݣą䔅̬͙⩡ੲᎫͦႄ⮰⣜䆍 ᣔݜβ䷺ए⊖ᅂȠ ᰴ ᬑ喏͙じ̬ҷĄܽڑࢁݣąᵴᲙጊژᐬݐȠ
叽㞞ϓ͆ ⮪̳ݣ̯᭛ 㜟 ᆭ䱾Ꭰ
⬉ଚ߯䗴њϔ⾡ܼᮄⱘଚϮᓣˈ ད໘ᕜˈԚᅗⱘ䯂乬ԐТгᰃ⿃䞡䲒 䖨DŽ ᅕ⊶lj⦄ҷ䞥NJ䘧ˈᴹ䰓䞠 ᏈᏈᇚབԩࠊℶࠋऩ˛䰓䞠ᏈᏈᑇৄ⊏ ⧚䚼ⶹ䆚ѻᴗֱᡸᘏⲥᱎ亲㸼⼎ˈЎ ᠧߏ⊏⧚ࠋऩˈᑇৄ↣ᑈ㽕ᡩܹ ᑈ ᰮӮˈࠋऩѻϮⱘᑇ 䞣Ҏǃ⠽ˈҙ䌘䞥ᮍ䴶ህ㽕ᡩ᭄ܹ ܗ䪅˄Ϧℽጭ喏̷स˅㛑фϔᴵ ད䆘ˈϔϸगܗ㛑छϔ乫䪏ĂĂᲈ߽ⱘ ৄ࣪䖤ℷᓣ䖯ܹ݀ӫ㾚䞢DŽࠋऩ㗙䌮 गϛܗDŽ ࠋऩˈϡݡᰃձᠬ㘞䕃ӊⱘĀ␌ߏ䯳āˈ পᲈ߽ˈᤳᆇњ⬉ଚᑇৄⱘֵ䁝⍜䌍 㗠Ўᠧߏࠋऩ⑤༈ˈ ᑈ ᳜ 㗠ᰃব៤њϢℷ㾘ᑓ㔥キⳟ䍋ᴹᑊ᮴ 㗙ⱘ߽ⲞˈैϔⳈ≵᳝ফࠄ⊩ᕟᅵ߸DŽ 㟇Ҟˈ䰓䞠ᏈᏈ䜡ড়ഄᎹଚㄝᠻ⊩䚼 ᯢᰒᏂᓖⱘ㔥㒰ᑇৄDŽ ⴐϟĀࠋऩā᮴ᄨϡܹDŽ㔥ᑫ䫔 䮼ˈ䖲㓁ᶹ໘њࣙᣀᴀḜЁⱘĀڏ㔥āǃ ࣫Ҁ༂㾚ᮄ䯏䘧ˈ࣫Ҁ⍋⎔ऎᶤ 䞣ǃଚક䆘Ӌǃ令ख़⚍䆘ǃ㔥㑺䔺ৌᴎ Āᭈ⚍ᡶāǃĀ⠯ࠋࠋāㄝ Ͼࠋऩᑇ 催᷵ᬭᏜ䈁㒣ᐌ㔥Ϟф⠯ᥦDŽ᳔ ᯳㑻ĂĂ䖭ѯᴀᑨ⬅⍜䌍㗙ᇍ⬉ଚ㒣㧹 ৄঞಶӭDŽ 䖥ˈཌྷᶤൟ⬉ଚᑇৄϞⳟࠄˈ 㗙ⱘߎخ䆘Ӌˈैৃ㛑㒣䖛Āࠋऩāˈ 䖭ѯࠋऩಶӭⱘᘏḜؐ䖥 ғܗDŽ ⠛ ⱘܟĀ▇⌆ᆊᒁ㒃㧆㽓令⠯ ᅠܼবњੇDŽ 㗠䗮䖛䭓ᳳⲥ⌟ˈ䰓䞠ᏈᏈথ⦄ҡ⌏䎗 ᥦāা㽕 ˈܗӋḐ䇅ҎDŽ䈁䍋߱ ᵁᎲᶤ㔥ᑫᑫЏ䛁乪ഺ㿔ˈࠋऩ ⱘࠋऩᑇৄⳌ݇㔥キ᭄कᆊDŽ ᳝ѯ⭥㰥˖ĀԢӋ㚠ৢӮϡӮ᳝⣿㝏˛ā 㸠ϮݙᏆ㒣ϡᰃ⾬ᆚDŽ 䰸ᠧߏࠋऩಶӭˈ䰓䞠ᏈᏈᏆ䜡 ཌྷⳟᴹˈᓔ㔥ᑫབᵰϡᑓˈህ ড়ᠻ⊩䚼䮼ᇍ ᆊ⍝Ⴀࠋऩⱘଚᆊخ Ԛཌྷᶹⳟ䌁ф䆘Ӌৢথ⦄ˈ䖭ℒ⠯ᥦৃ 䇧Āད䆘བ╂āˈ᳝ Ҏ㒭ߎњ ڣᡞଚᑫᓔ⏅ቅ㗕ᵫˈḍᴀ≵乒ᅶDŽ ߎ㸠ᬓ໘㔮DŽ㗠䗮䖛ϡᮁӬ᭄࣪ᡔ ད䆘DŽ Ⳍ↨⬉ଚᑇৄ催ᯖⱘᑓ䌍⫼ˈࠋ ᴃˈ᳝ࠋऩ㸠Ўⱘଚᆊᮽᰮ䛑Ӯ㹿ᑇৄ Ѣᰃˈ䈁ϟऩ䌁фњϔӑDŽᬊࠄ ऩ៤ᴀԢǃ㾕ᬜᖿˈܗ䪅ህ㛑фϔᴵ থ⦄DŽ ⠯ᥦৢˈ䈁থ⦄݊ЁϔഫᯢᰒሲѢĀᣐ ད䆘ˈϔϸगܗህ㛑छϔ乫䪏ˈ៤Ў 䰸ᡔᴃϞⱘᦤछˈ䰓䞠ᏈᏈгࠊᅮ ⠯ᥦāˈ㗠㔥キैᦣ䗄ЎĀॳߛ⠯ᥦāDŽ ᓩ乒ᅶⱘĀ⠠āDŽ ߎϹढ़ⱘࠋऩ໘㔮㾘߭ˈଚᆊϔᮺ㹿থ 㗠Ϩ䱣ⴔ㸠Ϯⱘথሩˈ⭌ᔶⱘࠋऩ ⦄ᄬࠋऩ㸠ЎDŽ݊Ѹᯧ䞣Ӯ㹿⏙䳊ˈ ℸˈ㒣䖛⛍伾ⱘ⠯ᥦষᛳ䎳㔥ᑫᦣ䗄 ⳌᏂᕜDŽᯢᰒҹܙདⱘᣐ⠯ᥦˈ ࡳ㛑ᔎˈଚᆊϡҙৃҹ㒭㞾Ꮕࠋད䆘ˈ ࠋऩଚકӮ㹿ߴ䰸DŽ݊ᑫ䫎гӮ㹿ᶹᇕˈ ЎҔМ᳝䙷М㔥ট㒭ߎད䆘˛Āᑨ䆹 䖬ৃҹ㒭ゲѝᇍࠋᏂ䆘ˈᙊᛣᢍ咥ᇍ ᑫЏᴀҎг⽕ℶ⎬ᅱ㔥ϞᓔᑫDŽ DŽ ᰃ⺄ࠄþ؛ÿ䆘Ӌњā䈁䇈DŽ ᭄ᡔᴃ㾘߭ⱘ㒘ড়ᣇϟˈ ᑇৄϞⱘࠋऩ䍟ℷᯢᰒϟ䰡DŽ✊㗠ˈ
᱘Ѻ㻭ᩴᔗ 㵸͆ࢁݣڱጞ̹᭛⼄ჲ
Ў䚼᳝䞣ⱘࠋऩᑇৄᄬˈҡ᳝ ϡᇥଚᆊᢅⴔչᑌᖗ⧚ᇱ䆩ࠋऩˈЎℸ ᑇৄҡ䳔ᡩܹ䞣ⱘ䌘⑤⏙⋫᭄ǃᠧ ߏࠋऩDŽ Ԛᣝ✻Ⳃࠡⱘ⊩㾘ˈࠋऩᑇৄेՓ 㹿ᶹ໘ˈ᳔݊ফࠄ ϛⱘܗ໘㔮ˈ 䲒ҹϹᚽࠋऩ㒘㒛㗙DŽ 㗠䗮䖛ẇ⧚᭄कᆊܼ㔥ࠋऩಶӭ᭄ ˈ䰓䞠ᏈᏈথ⦄䖭ѯಶӭࢳⱘϞ ⱒϛৡࠋЁ ᑈ啘 㟇 ቕП 䯈ˈ䚼ߚᰃ᷵ᄺ⫳ˈ݊ᑇഛ↣ খϢ㰮؛Ѹᯧǃ㰮؛䕃ӊϟ䕑ㄝӏࡵ ԭDŽ ᱎ亲㸼⼎ˈࠋऩǃ♦ֵᰃᭈϾѦ 㘨㔥咥♄ѻϮⱘϔϾߚᬃDŽࠋऩǃ♦ ֵ㚠ৢˈᰃ咥⠽⌕ǃ䴲⊩䕃ӊǃ䋽पϾ ҎֵᙃㄝӫѦ㘨㔥咥♄ѻϮDŽ݊ॅᆇ ⱘᰃᭈϾѦ㘨㔥⼒Ӯ䆮ֵˈ㗠Ϟⱒϛ 䴦ᑈҎोܹѦ㘨㔥咥♄ѻϮЁˈ㸼ᯢЁ 䆮ֵ⼒Ӯ┰㮣ⴔᎼॅᴎDŽ Ўḍ䰸ࠋऩǃ♦ֵ↦⯸ˈ ᑈ ᳜ ᮹ˈࣙᣀ䰓䞠ᏈᏈܿⱘݙᆊ Ѧ㘨㔥݀ৌফЁথᬍྨǃᎹଚᘏሔǃ Ё༂㔥ֵࡲㄝ䚼䮼䙔䇋ˈ݅ৠ㒘ᓎњĀড ࠋऩ㘨ⲳāˈ݅ৠᠧߏ㔥㒰ࠋऩ㸠ЎDŽ ᱎ亲ҟ㒡ˈབᵰ⊩䰶ᬃᣕ䰓䞠ᏈᏈᮍ 䴶ⱘ䆝∖䇋∖ˈ䌨ٓℒӮ⫼ᴹ㒘ᓎĀড ࠋऩ䞥āˈᬃᣕܼ⼒Ӯ䞣ϔ䍋ᠧߏ Ѧ㘨㔥Ϟⱘࠋऩǃ♦ֵ㸠ЎDŽ
䭫䛸ጠጠ仂䃵ࢁݣज ㉎䊀 ̳ ͙Ą▾ࢁݣԍ ܽڑじ̬ᵴą ᰴ ᬑ̶ࡴ⊅↋ⰭᲙጊ ጮ҅ᲙࡦϦℽ∁䮎ژ ᐬ ݐ喏 ప ͦ 㷗 ॶ Ą ऺąࢁݣ㏰㏳㔱 ᱺ∁Ꮩ̶ᣑः ჍݐȠ ࡃϘȧ∁ݢᬑ៑Ȩ
ݣ䔄䰬㔯䄁喢 ϓ͆䨪Ⴘ᪠⯽ネ䯪 ϮݙҎҟ㒡ˈࠋऩᏆᔶ៤ᅠᭈ ⱘѻϮ䫒ˈথᏗ䳔∖ǃࠋऩǃൿҬ 䌘䞥ǃᖿ䗦ऩǃҷЎㅒᬊǃᅠ㒧Ѹᯧǃ ད䆘ˈּ✊Āϔᴵ啭᳡ࡵāDŽ Ўњᓘ⏙ࠋऩᑇৄⱘ䖤ᴎࠊˈ᳝ ၦԧ䆄㗙ҹĀࠋāⱘ䑿ӑˈᶤࠋऩ ᑇৄ䖯㸠њԧ偠DŽ⊼ݠ䋺োৢˈᣝ✻Āᬭ ᄺā㾚乥ˈ䆄㗙ܜĀᮄ㗗䆩Ёᖗā ᅠ៤䯂ो⌟䆩ˈᑊϔϾ⾕ҎᬃҬᅱ䋺 ো⫼ˈܗ ؐܙൿҬଚકⱘټ䞥DŽ 䖭Ͼ⦃㡖ˈᑇৄ⡍ᛣᦤ⼎ĀϹ⽕䰓 䞠ᯎᯎ㘞Ёᦤࠄᑇৄǃࠋ䪏ǃࠋऩㄝ ᖠ䆇ᄫⴐāǃĀৠϔ⎬ᅱোࠋऩֱ䆕þ᳜ ϡ䖛 ˈ਼ϡ䖛 ÿāDŽ ϮݙҎߚᵤˈ䖭ѯ᠔䇧ⱘĀᦤ ⼎āˈህᰃЎњ䒆䙓ᑇৄⲥㅵDŽ ⊼ݠӮਬৢˈህ㛑䖯ܹĀ⎬ᅱख़āˈ ⳟࠄᅲᯊথᏗⱘࠋऩӏࡵDŽ䆄㗙ᡶࠄϔ ऩৡЎĀᄷᮄℒ╂⌕⬋ⷁ㹪 7 ᘸāˈ ଚકӋḐᰃ ܗDŽӏࡵᷣᰒ⼎ˈ䳔䖯 㸠Āᯎ㘞āǃĀᑩāǃĀ䆘䇁āϝ乍 ᪡DŽ䖭ѯĀᱫ䇁āҷ㸼ⴔϡৠⱘࠋऩ ⊩˖ Āᯎ㘞āህᰃϢଚᆊᢳ䌁ф㘞ˈ
བĀ㗕ᵓˈ䖭ӊ㸷᳡᳝≵᳝ 0 ⷕⱘāǃ Āࣙ䚂৫āㄝϢѻક᳝݇ⱘᦤ䯂˗ ĀᑩāᰃҢ༈ࠄሒ⌣㾜ᅱ䋱ˈᑊ ᦤկᑩ˗ Ā䆘䇁ā߭ᰃ฿ݭ㾘ᅮད䆘ݙᆍˈ བĀ㸷᳡䋼䞣ᕜདˈこⴔ㟦䗖āDŽ ݊ҪӏࡵЁˈ㉏Ԑⱘ᪡Āᱫ䇁ā 䖬᳝Ā⌣㾜āĀᬊ㮣āĀ䋻↨āㄝ ԭ⾡DŽ ᣝ✻㽕∖ˈ䆄㗙 ߚ䩳ݙህᅠ ៤њⳌ݇᪡DŽଚᆊᅵḌᅠ↩ৢˈ ⱘܗଚકℒᕜᖿ㹿䖨䖬DŽ ĀࠋāᗢМ䌮䪅ਸ਼˛䆄㗙ᶹⳟ䋺 ᠋ৢথ⦄ˈ䖭᪡ᑇৄ༪ࢅ 䞥Ꮥˈ ⍜㗫䞥Ꮥ ˈᅲࡴ䞥Ꮥ DŽ⍜㗫 ⱘ䞥Ꮥ⫼ѢᬃҬ᠔䇧ⱘᑇৄ㓁䌍ˈ࠽ ϟⱘ䞥Ꮥৃҹ㹿ᑇৄҹ ܗϾⱘӋ ḐಲᬊDŽ᠔ҹˈ䆄㗙䖭䌮њ ܗDŽ 䰓䞠ᏈᏈ䗮䖛᭄䗑䏾ࠋⱘ㸠 Ў䆄ᔩৢথ⦄ˈᕜࠋ䛑ᰃݐ㘠ˈ᮶ ᳝ⳳᅲ䌁фᑊϨ䆘Ӌⱘ䆄ᔩˈজ᳝⭥Ԑ ࠋऩⱘ䆄ᔩˈᕜ䲒خᯢ⹂⬠ᅮDŽℸˈ ᳝ѯ㘠Ϯࠋ䖬ⲫ⫼фᆊⱘϾҎֵᙃ䖯 㸠ࠋऩˈгࡴњ䗑䏾ࠋⱘ䲒ᑺDŽ
ᑈ ᳜ ᮹ˈԈⴔϔໄ⊩ᾠ ໄડˈ⬉ଚࠋऩϔḜüü䰓䞠ᏈᏈ䍋 䆝ᵁᎲㅔϪ㔥㒰⾥ᡔ᳝䰤݀ৌḜӊᵁ Ꮂ㽓ऎҎ⇥⊩䰶ℷᓣᓔᒁDŽ ࣫Ҁ༂ᑓ㔥䘧ˈ ᑈ ᳜ࠡˈ Āڏ㔥āথᏗࣙᣀ⎬ᅱǃ⣿ⱘݙ ܼ㔥ࠋऩӏࡵDŽ ᑈ ᳜ˈ㽓ऎ Ꮦഎⲥⴷㅵ⧚ሔ䅸ᅮˈㅔϪ㔥㒰ܼ㔥ࠋ ऩ⌕∈䍙 ϛˈܗ䴲⊩㦋߽ ϛܗDŽ ݊㒘㒛ࠋऩ㸠Ў㋏ϡℷᔧゲѝˈᤳᆇ⬉ ଚᑇৄᴗⲞǃᡄх⼒Ӯ㒣⌢⾽ᑣˈߎ ᶹᇕࠋऩᑇৄǃ㔮ℒ ϛԭއⱘܗᅮDŽ ϡ䖛ˈ䰓䞠ᏈᏈⳟᴹˈ䖭 ϛܗ㔮ℒ
ᅲᰃᖂϡ䎇䘧ˈḍᴀᬍবϡњĀڏ 㔥āⱘĀ⮃⢖ࠋऩāDŽ ᳜ˈ䰓䞠Ꮘ Ꮘ⊩䰶ℷᓣ䗦Ѹ䍋䆝кˈ݊㋶䌨 ϛܗDŽ 䰓䞠ᑇৄ⊏⧚䚼Ⳍ݇䋳䋷Ҏ㸼⼎ˈ ڏ㔥㒘㒛ࠋऩ䴲⊩⠳߽ ϛˈ㗠 ⦄᳝⊩ᕟϟা㹿໘ҹ ϛᎺেⱘ㸠 ᬓ㔮ℒˈ㸠ᬓ໘㔮ᰒ✊Ꮖϡ㛑᳝ᬜᚽ㔮 ࠋऩ㸠Ўˈℸ䰓䞠ᏈᏈᇏ∖䗮䖛⇥џ 䆝䆐ˈ⊩ᕟḚᶊݙ䗑䋷ࠋऩ㒘㒛㗙DŽ 䆹䋳䋷Ҏ䖬㸼⼎ˈ䰓䞠ϔᮺ㚰䆝ˈ᠔᳝ 䌨ٓ䞥ᇚ⫼Ѣㅍᓎডࠋऩ䞥ˈ哧ࢅ ⼒Ӯ䞣⿃ᵕখϢ݊ЁDŽ
̿ტ 喝᪠⇧Ąࢁݣą䰬䲌Ą∁ą ᭄ᰃѦ㘨㔥݀ৌⱘˈ㗠ࠋऩ 䗴៤ⱘ㰮؛㐕㤷⸈ണњ᭄ⱘⳳᅲᗻˈ 䇃ᇐℎ偫њ⍜䌍㗙DŽℸˈࠋऩ⸈ണ पᆊ䆮ֵ㒣㧹݀ᑇゲѝⱘ⦃๗ˈࡴӬ 䋼᳡ࡵपᆊⱘ⫳ᄬ䲒ᑺ˗ᑇৄ⇯ೈֵ ⫼ԧ㋏г䴶Јˈߏކ䗴៤⍜䌍㗙पᆊ 咣ᗻϟ䰡DŽ ࣫Ҁ༂ᑓ㔥䘧ˈढϰᬓ⊩ᄺࡃ ᬭᥜᴼࢸ⊩䅸Ўˈଚᆊ䗮䖛ࠋऩᦤ催ֵ 䁝ᠧߏᇍˈ⸈ണњゲѝ݇㋏ˈ䖱ড њljডϡℷᔧゲѝ⊩NJˈг䖱ডњഄ ᳝݇Ꮦഎ⾽ᑣⱘ㾘ゴˈሲѢ䖱⊩㒣㧹㸠 ЎDŽ Ёᬓ⊩ᄺ䌘ᴀ䞥㵡ⷨお䰶ࡃ䰶 䭓℺䭓⍋䅸Ўˈ㔮ℒϛˈܗϡ䎇ҹᇍ ࠋऩᑇৄᔶ៤䳛ᜥDŽϔᡍࠋऩᑇৄ㹿ᶹ
໘ˈজ᳝ᮄⱘϡᮁߎ⦄DŽ⬉ଚᑇৄ⍜ 䌍㗙ϔḋˈሲѢࠋऩⱘফᆇ㗙DŽᑇৄৃ ҹᶹ໘ᶤѯࠋऩⱘ㔥ᑫˈ䖯㸠䄺⼎݇ 䯁ˈԚ≵᳝ᯢ⹂ⱘᠻ⊩ᴗDŽ Ҫ㸼⼎ˈ⬅Ѣ⬉ଚᑇৄϞᑫ䫎ǃ 㾘ᑲˈᑇৄ㛑䞛পⱘᮑᑊϡˈ 䲒ᑺᕜDŽ Ҫⳟᴹˈ⊏⧚ࠋऩ⦄䈵ˈ佪ܜ㽕 ࡴᔎ໘㔮ᑺDŽЁৃҹ׳䡈Ѹ䗮 䚼䮼ǃ㟾ぎ݀ৌⱘˈ⊩خᇍѢࠋऩĀ㾕 ϔ䍋Ϲᶹϔ䍋āˈᥝ䖱⊩ߚᄤⱘⲜ߽ ぎ䯈DŽৠᯊˈᇍѢ䱤㬑࣪ⱘࠋऩˈ㽕䖤 ⫼ᱎ࣪ⱘⲥㅵ↉ˈᅲ⦄ҹ㔥ㅵ㔥DŽ Ā⍜䰸ⲥㅵⳆऎˈ᮶䴴㔮ˈг䴴 þ⊩ÿˈ㽕ᅠ⊩ᕟ⊩㾘ˈᔶ៤ⲥㅵড় DŽā℺䭓⍋䇈DŽ
㔭Ϧ̺⠃ȧᔌ❝ᬌ㼬Ȩ
͙❴
㑦ͻⱋᗱڱᵤ
͙ߔ➕⩡ᒝ䯪ܦҟ҈
ҎϢࡼ⠽П䯈ⱘᛳᚙˈ᮴䆎ҔМᯊ ᢡ៤⬉ᕅ䛑ϡӮ䖛ᯊDŽϞϪ㑾Ѡϝक ᑈҷⱘ᮹ᴀ⾟⬄⢀Āܿ݀āˈЎ᮹᮹ ϰҀ⍽䈋キㄝЏҎᔦᴹˈЏҎএϪ ৢ䖬മᣕϡវഄㄝᕙњ ᑈˈ៤ЎĀᖴ 䓽ᬑ̶͙ᭌ⮰ᄻ᱘⩡ᒝȧᔌ❝ᬌ㼬Ȩ喏㮩♢⇍ᰵⴑह๓ᄨ⑀সᬺᭋ⑀喏 ⢀āⱘҷ㸼ˈ⍽䈋キ䖬Ўᅗลњϔᑻ䪰 ࢠܙՋᙋϦ⮰ޓᗱ㣣ᓃຩ䃰Ƞᒝ❳࣋ಷ᭛̬ѹ₷⫪㔭Ϧ̺̬ख⠃ξⰤ䮖Ѡ⮰ᩱη喏 ڣDŽ ᑈˈ᮹ᴀᢡߎњҹĀܿ݀ā Ꭰᰪ㷗ᄨ⑀䄴ͷ៹ⴙ❳喏ᙋߔᬌ㑽ℽȠᎠ䓳ࣧ喏䄴ͷា䔅͖ᩱη ᥘ̶β๓䨢ᎁ喏⁍ڹ䃕̹ᄽ㻮уĄਙݜ㑦⅓ą喏ᰵϦ⼜ͦڢĄ͙❴⮰ᔌ⟘ژڗąÿÿ Ўॳൟⱘ⬉ᕅljᖴ⢀ܿ݀⠽䇁NJˈ៤ህ ຩ㣝ಊ㏻⩡ڤᒝȧᔌ⟘⮰ژڗᩱηȨᩥ㑂㜖ᬑ᱘̬Ϧ̬⠃⮰ⱋᩱη喏㷗͙ᒝ ⼼᠓⼲䆱DŽ ᑈˈད㦅ല㗏ᢡњljᖴ ⢀ܿ݀ⱘᬙџNJˈজᏺᴹњЙ䖱ⱘᛳࡼDŽ 䔣⛋ⴑȠ ᖂֵ݀ӫোĀ9LVWD ⳟϟā䘧ˈ ̹䓳ᰵ㻮у㶔喏䄑❳䉡ⱋ喏Ѳ⪑҈ݢ᭪㇃㈅喏̺Ąᔌ⟘ژڗąⰤ℀ ЁབҞ݇Ѣࡼ⠽ⱘ⬉ᕅᕜᇥ᳝དⳟ ᬺ᭪᭛䓳㾵βȠ⩝ₐछБⰷܦ喏͙⩡ᒝ㑦ͻຩᩱηȠ ⱘˈЎ⬉ᕅᏖഎ䍞ᴹ䍞≝⒎Ѣ㢅䞠㚵 ઼ⱘǃ䴴㜌ৗ佁ⱘଚϮ⠛ˈࠊ៤ᴀ ϔञҹϞߚ㒭⠠ᯢ᯳Ꮖᰃᐌџˈ䇕Ӯ 䌍ࢆ⫼ϔᴵ⢫এ᧣⼼᠓ਸ਼˛ 䖥ᑈᴹ݇ѢҎ⢫⢫ⱘ⬉ᕅˈצᰃ ᳝ϔ䚼ljᖿФᴀ㧹NJⱘĀ㓐㡎⬉ᕅā ljᖿФࠄᆊNJˈ⠛Ё䅽ĀᖿФᆊᮣā ԡЏᣕҎᡬ㝒ϔাᇣ䌉ᆒ⢀ˈো⿄Ā⢫ ⠜lj⋄NJāDŽ㔥⇥ⳟᅠ㒋㒋ῑᬙџ ϔภ㊞⍖ǃĀܼ⠛ህ⢫ⓨᕫ᳔དāDŽ ⬉ᕅ᳔䞡㽕ⱘḌᖗ∌䖰ᰃᬙџˈࡼ ᑈˈ᳝Ҏᡞ⥝ᄺкⱘᬙџᢡ ⬉ᕅljᖴ⠅᮴㿔NJⱘࠡ䑿ᰃϔ䚼ⷁ ⠽⬉ᕅᇸ݊䳔㽕䎇ࡼҎⱘᬙџᴹᬃ ⠛ˈ䙷䚼ৡЎlj㗕ҎϢ⢫NJⱘⷁ⠛⑤㞾 ϟᴹথ㒭ၦԧˈ䖬Ϟњ䰚༂㾚ˈĀ㗕 ᩥDŽljᖴ⠅᮴㿔NJ᳔㘾ᯢⱘഄᮍˈህᰃ ϔϾⳳᅲᬙџDŽҢॳൟᬙџࠄ⬉ᕅˈ䛑 ҎϢ⢫āⱘᬙџᓔྟЎϪҎ᠔ⶹDŽℸᯊ ᠧࡼњϡᇥҎDŽ 䰾⥝ᄺк䑿䖍ⱘˈᰃҪⱘݏಯা⢫ 㓐ড়Ёᮄ㔥ǃ⌢फlj唤剕ᰮNJ Ā咥ᄤāDŽᇐⓨ䇜ᅰПⳟࠄ䘧ˈЎ 㻮ॶ៑ޓ 䘧ˈljᖴ⠅᮴㿔NJⱘॳൟᰃቅϰ㘞ජ㥬 㾺ࡼˈҪᡞ䖭Ͼᬙџᢡ៤њ ߚ䩳ⱘ ও⥟ᆼеϔԡ䞡ᑺ⯿⮾ⱘ㗕Ҏ⥝ᄺ ⷁ⠛lj㗕ҎϢ⢫NJˈ ᑈথᏗ㔥Ϟˈ кˈҪ䭓ᯊ䯈∈ⱘދބЁࡆ㡺㢛ˈ ᛳࡼњ᮴᭄㔥⇥DŽ㔥⇥থ䍋݀Ⲟᤤࡽˈ ቕህᙷϞњ݇㡖♢ˈЎ≵䪅ए⊏ˈ ᐂ⥝ᄺкᅲ⦄њĀএϔ࣫ҀāⱘᜓᳯDŽ ȧᔌ❝ᬌ㼬Ȩ⮰⑀̹᭛ᑿ㏎ᄻ⩋ 㒧ᵰথሩ៤㛧㚓䋹㸔⮛ˈ᳔㒜ᇐ㟈催ԡ 㥬ওⱘѸ䄺䖬䗕њϔ䕚ᬍ㺙䖛ⱘ⬉ࡼ ᝂĄ≭䛻ᄻ㟝ą喏౦ᮛ䔵̬ᝣᎢ̹ჸ ⯿DŽ⥝ᄺк҆টⱘᐂࡽϟࠊњϔ ϝ䕂㒭Ҫҷ᳓ᵓ䔺üüℸᯊĀ咥ᄤā 䕚ᵓ䔺ˈ䆁㒗њϔᴵ⢫Āⱑ↯āᐂҪᢝ Ꮖ㒣এϪњˈЎ㗕⥝ᢝ䔺ⱘ⢫Ꮖ㒣ᰃ 㸁⮰ۈტ喏ͧ㻾᭛̬ѹ⭗⬖Ꮆ⮰㔭Ϧ স̬㖖ᬺछ❝⮰៵ጯ៵ๆ⟘Ƞ ๆ ѨাDŽ 䔺ˈҢℸᕫҹĀ䍄āߎᆊ䮼DŽ कᑈ䖛এˈ䇜ᅰПᇚ䖭Ͼᬙџᢡ៤ ܲ䧋⮰⩡ᒝ喏Ϻ㜟ᅪࣽ⮰≿≿ܦ ⥝ᄺкҢᬊ䷇ᴎ䞠ᄺӮњׂ⬉఼ˈ Āⱑ↯āᐌᐌᢝⴔҪএ䲚ᏖϞᐂҎׂ⬉ њ⬉ᕅljᖴ⠅᮴㿔NJˈ ᳜ ᮹䰚 ో⅀ᖛ喏䉔ᱠ䌻喏ⰷᓃϦᓯ䛸␍␍ٱ ఼䪅DŽĀⱑ↯āϡԚ㛑ᢝ䔺ˈ䖬㛑໘ ݀DŽ⥝ᄺкབҞᏆᰃ ቕ催啘ˈԚĀⱑ ␍⮰ᙋߔȠ ᒝ❳⮰ᩱηڱქᒴĄ䌻ą喏ఌͦ ⧚䏃䱰ǃᙊ⢀ᔧ䘧ㄝ䯂乬DŽ᳝ϟᲈ䲼ˈ ↯āĀ咥ᄤā䛑ᮽᏆ㒣ϡҎϪDŽᕅ Ў䏃⒥ˈ㗕⥝ⱘᵓ䔺㗏צ䏃䖍≳ˈ ⠛࣫ҀВ㸠佪⼐ᯊˈ⠛ᮍᅷᏗᇚৠ ंᱼκⱋᩱηȠ⩡ᒝ͙喏⭗⬖Ꮆ⮰ Āⱑ↯ā㜅䵡ᄤ䎥ಲᆊ∖ᬥDŽ㗕⥝ ℹথ䍋Ā݇⠅ᄸᆵ㗕Ҏ⬉ᕅ⠅ᖗ䞥ā Հᑦ㔭㔭κఌͦϞ⮰䓊͂喏㙪⅀ऄ њ䪅ˈ㞾ᏅৗҔМህ㒭⢫ৗҔМˈ᳝ᯊ ⌏ࡼˈҢ乘ଂࠡϝⱘ⬉ᕅ⼼Ёᢑߎϔ ᓃᰠߌᕖᝪ喏ᄥᑋᑋ̬ტ⮰ୄჾ䬚ᯂ℗ ⢫ৗᕫ↨Ҏ䖬དDŽҎϢ⢫ᙷ䲒Ϣ݅ⱘᬙ 䚼ߚˈ⫼Ѣᐂࡽ⥝ᄺкҹঞⱘᄸᆵ ᬌࣹᏀÿÿₐᬢ㻮уᓹ̹ѻᯃᘟ喏㔭κ ᭛̹᭛̹㘩䄠䄉喢ᣑ̷ᲑЂᅂ䚤ݧ㪰 㗕ҎDŽ џˈ䗤⏤៤ЎᔧഄⱘӴ༛DŽ ఊ䄉喏ࣴ䃕Ϧᰠߌ㻵ᓃЂᕓᗱᕖ⮂Ƞ 䔅ᬢ喏Ϻ⠃㖵Ꮓ䔯⮰ܦᄻ⠃䊜䔇㔭 κ⮰͂⩸喏Ⴏᄥ㔭κ␍ٱ᩸ᘻ喏̹ᬢ⟮ ौ̬䭡Ƞᅝ䔅ᵣ喏ξⰤⰷ̹⮰̬ᄥĄې ტą喏ᐬज़βⰤѠⰤ䮻⮰ὍᐻȠ㔭κ䋠 Ꮆ̶喏ᝂ᭛⩧⩧ప㏤喏ᝂ᭛Ԛ⤲ⱬर ᄻტ⩡喞⠃⠃ᅷ㻾喏ⰷݜ㔭Ϧ ͙⮰␆㥩Ꮆ̷喏цᱦ□ាनఊ㔭 䇜ᅰП᳒ᢙӏlj㗕⚂ܓNJᇐⓨㅵ㰢 ᇥˈ≵᳝䎇ⱘҎ⠽Ң༈䆁㒗ϔা κ͙Ƞ㔭κᙫᘻস⠃ܲϗⷃ͙⮰⿉⿉ ⱘᕅ㾚݀ৌЏӏˈখϢ߯њ咘⏸Џⓨ ೳ⢫ˈা㛑䗝ᢽᏆ㒣䆁㒗དⱘᢝᏗᢝDŽ 喏䔄㐅Ⴏ䊣हĄθ䉓ą喏ᚎᚎᐬ ⱘ⬉㾚࠻lj⫳ᄬП⇥ᎹNJˈԚЎ⬉ Ⳍ↨ ᑈⱘⷁ⠛ˈ⬉ᕅ⠜≵᳝ β㉓䬙⮰ᓯ䬔Ƞ 㔭Ϧ̺ᄻ⠃݉⁍㻭䲎喏᭛̬͖丄 ᕅᇐⓨˈҪ䖬ㅫϔϾĀᮄҎāDŽҪ خᬍࡼDŽ᳔ⱘব࣪ᰃ⬋ϔোⱘĀҎ ᑈᢡlj㗕ҎϢ⢫NJⷁ⠛ᯊህᓔྟ 䆒ā˄㻾㞞䃪˅ˈ⬉ᕅ䞠ⱘ㗕Ѣϔᓔ ⱬ≿䰪⮰⌱ᮔ喏㔭κѐᓯ౼̵䒚 њ⬉ᕅ⠜ⱘ࠻ᴀ߯ˈ㗠ⷁ⠛݊ᅲгᰃ ྟᰃϔϾܙ⒵Ā䋳㛑䞣āⱘҎˈ㑾ᔩ 䒒䛸喏䔭ݗ䮖Ѡ⚓䶪㜖ጝๆᎠ⮰Ϟ喏 Ўњᓩ⬉ᕅᡩ䌘㗠ᢡⱘDŽĀ㱑✊ᰃད ⠛lj㗕ҎϢ⢫NJЁ⥝ᄺкⱘФ㾖ᔶ䈵᳝ ᄻ⠃̺݅⠃ິິژ䌛̶䋽ȠϺ๕㔸 ᬙџˈԚᰃ≵᳝ӏԩ᠔䇧ⱘଚϮܗ㋴DŽ ѯߎܹDŽ䇜ᅰП㾷䞞˖Ā㑾ᔩ⠛ᕜⷁˈ 䭹⮰㐟ᠠѻ⠃喏Ϻₐ喏㔭κসᄻ⠃ ϔԡ㗕Ҏϔᴵ⢫ˈজᰃݰᴥ៣ˈ≵᳝ ᠔ҹা㸼⦄њ㗕ҎⱘമᔎФ㾖ˈ݊ᅲ 䘩ࣧβϞ喏ᰵχस⫱Ⱔᕈ⮰ট䕿Ƞ ⳟ⚍DŽᕅ㾚ᡩ䌘Ҏϔ⊼䞡ⱘᔧ✊ᰃ㒣 㗕ҎⱘФ㾖াᰃϔᯊⱘˈг᳝᮴༜ⱘᯊ ᄻ⠃⮰ܦ⣜̺䮖Ѡ喏⍕ᯂⱬ㔭κ႐⠘⾦ ⌢ಲˈ≵᳝ଚϮܗ㋴ⱘ⬉ᕅህᛣੇⴔ DŽ៥াᛇᢡߎϔϾⳳᅲⱘᔧҷݰᴥ㗕 㮆⮰ᓯ□ȠЂ۞⠃⠃๓ࣽ㙪⅀喏๓શ๓ ≵᳝⼼᠓ˈ䌨ᴀⱘ⫳ᛣ䇕Ӯএخਸ਼˛ā Ҏˈϡᛇᡞ㗕Ҏᢡ៤þ⼲ÿDŽ䙷ḋⱘ ग⍞⇰ⱬڱᓯ⮰ࢷួ̺㠒䬣喏̬ຮ㔭 Ą๓શܦᲑ喏ᅝຩβȠą ℸˈ䇜ᅰПϡᕫϡᡞ䖭Ͼ乍Ⳃϔ⦃ ݡ๗ϟˈ㒣ग़њ䙷ḋⱘҎ⫳ഢോˈᖗ⧚ κ⮰ᑋᑋᝬ䄠喝 䊜ܦϞϦ⻧͂⮰䭠䱪ऺ喏㔭κ䛹ᠪ DŽ Ϟϡৃ㛑ᅠܼعᒋ䰇ܝDŽā ⬉ᕅ⠜㱑✊≵᳝Ā⌕䞣ᯢ᯳āˈԚ ᕅ⠛Ϟৢˈ㾖ӫϔᮍ䴶ῑ݊ࠊ ͦ㜖ጝ䕌䒒⮰ప㏤喏䛹ᠪ䊜ⰷⰷࣧܦ㨉 Џ㾦䛑ᰃ㛑ᩥᕫԣഎⱘ䌘⏅ⓨਬDŽ⥝ᄺ 䖛㉫㊭ˈԚৠᯊгᡓ䅸ᬙџᴀ䑿ⳳ ๕⮩ν⮰ԍᔡȠᠵ⚓㔭κ⩧⮰ܦప㏤喏 к⠛ЁিĀ㗕Ѣāˈᡂⓨ㗙ᰃ咥啭∳ ᅲࡼҎDŽĀljᖴ⢀ܿ݀ⱘᬙџNJljϔ ̬䒲䎘̵䒚䒒䄊⩋βȠ㔭κݜ䯲ጮ̶ ⳕ叵㽓ᏖҎ⇥㡎ᴃ࠻䰶ৡ䁝䰶䭓ǃᆊ ᴵ⢫ⱘՓੑNJ䛑䗝ᢽњ⫳⌏Ё᳔㕢ⱘ㾦 Ԛ⤲ᄻტ⩡喏ឪݜβᆊκ㜖ጝ⮰ѹ㒚স Ąθ䉓ą ϔ㑻ⓨਬ催ᔎDŽᕅ⠛Ёৡ⇨᳔ⱘⓨਬˈ ᑺˈ㗠ⳳᅲⱘ⦃๗ᑊϡᰃ໘໘䛑䙷М㕢DŽ УըȠ҈ͦЂ⮰ⰷ័সĄ䒒๗ą喏 ᰃljеᴥ⠅ᚙNJ䞠ⱘĀ䇶㛮āѢ᳜ҭˈ ljᖴ⠅᮴㿔NJ䖥ѢЁⱘ⦄ᅲˈህ ㏲ᓯ䮖Ѡ̬Ƞ䬧ݜ䯲ጮ亱亨ࣽ ཌྷᡂⓨ催ᔎⱘᓳႇDŽ থ⫳៥Ӏⱘ䑿䖍ˈ៥ӀⱘⴐࠡDŽā䇜 ⮰㒺ট喏㔭κ䃜ᓯ䛸喏ٽ⣜β̺Ąθ ⦄ᅲЁᢝ䔺ⱘᇣೳ⢫ˈ⬅ϔাᢝᏗ ᅰП⿄ˈҪϡᛇ䗮䖛ᕅ⠛Ӵ䖒㒭㾖ӫҔ 䉓ąܲय亱亨⮰䃤䄦喝Ą䔅亱亨ຩय॓喢 ᢝ⢀ᡂⓨˈৡᄫгᬍ៤њ᳝ѯ୰ᛳⱘ Мᗱᛇˈাᛇᡞ䖭Ͼᬙџ䎇ⳳᅲഄਜ 䄠ຩβ喏̬Ϧ̬ࡶ喏⇍下㼬॓Ƞą䔅 ĀѠ䋻āDŽ᳝㔥⇥ᡍ䆘ᢝᏗᢝϡབೳ ⦄ߎᴹˈ㟇Ѣ↣ϾҎҢ䖭䚼ᕅ⠛ЁԧӮ ᬢ喏Ąθ䉓ąጞͦ㔭κᒴ䛹㺭⮰᰷ࣷȠ ȧᄻ㟟Ȩ᭛㔭κ➥̬⮰⁎ૈݗ仂⁸喏 ⢫Āഄ⇨āˈԚџᅲᰃˈ࠻㒘㒣䌍 ࠄҔМˈᑊϡᰃ᳔䞡㽕ⱘDŽ
ⱋ࣋ಷ 喝
ᄻ⠃៵䒒喏䮖Ѡ₷䯈㔭Ϧ
ᄨ⑀䄴ͷ̺࣋ಷϦ➕⢵႒ΒȠ 䅲⨏㑽
ᡞᬙџᢡᕫ䎇ⳳᅲDŽℸˈेՓ᳝ѯ 㛑䕏ᯧ⣰ࠄϟϔϾ䬰༈ⱘĀ㗕ṫāˈ㾖 ӫгф䋺DŽ↨བ㗕Ѣⱘᓳᓳߎњ䔺⽌ˈ ཇজᗹ䳔ᄺᄺ䌍ˈ㗕Ѣᖡ⮯ᇚ⢫प њˈҎ⢫ߚ߿ⱘ៣ⷕ㱑✊ϡᮄ剰ˈैҡ ✊⊾ڀDŽljᖴ⠅᮴㿔NJᕜᆍᯧᓩথ݅ᚙˈ гᑨњ⠅⢫Ҏᐌ䇈ⱘ䙷হˈĀ⢫䰸њ ϡӮ䇈䆱ˈાϔ⚍ϡབҎ˛ā
ᄨ⑀ᰬ㖖ᬺͷะ喏᭛Ⱐᣑ៹Ąⱋą
⩡ᒝĄߌą
ో⠃ऄĄ∷ą 喏ͼ㻮㔭Ϧๆβ䉋㘩䛻
Ԛຩ⮰ᒁ䴟ᱦ̬᧙䔅仂⁸喏㔭κᅝцᗱ ̹㜖⺭ਨ䊣Ბ喏ఌͦ喏Ђᓯ䛸ᰵ ̬͖ᄻ㟟Ƞ㔭κ⇍㘩ፒᄻ㟟ࣧࡃϘ喏䔄 ఌͦࡶ䏗⭗⬖ᩪᐯβ❝ᗱȠЂᄥ⠃⠃䄠喝 ĄцፒҌࣧࡃϘ喏ࣧⰷ䪫Ƞą䔅ᬢ喏 Ąθ䉓ą̬ₑ̬ₑ␍㔭κᓯ͙̬ ಃ⾦㑦Ƞ ๕䭹ὖ⺤喏ͦβҰຟ⮰႒䉥ȟᑋᑋ ⮰㢛䉥喏㔭κ̹ᓃ̹ᄲĄθ䉓ą䒘Ą䔭ą 㐅ⱋᓯᘟΜ⠃⮰Ϧ喏Ą̹᭛ࢂ喏 ᭛ććą̹ⴑҁᬢ喏㔭κᎶ̶ܦ⣜β じθᑌ⚓❳喏⚓❳͙⮰Ąθ䉓ąछ❝ ᛔࣆⰷⱬ䪈喏じ̬ᑌ⚓❳ጞ∇台喏 ᭛Ꭰ䒧⮰㔭κϞসٰᑋθϦȠ Ą⠃㠑❝Ҍ喏ᅝцⅤ䔈❝Ҍ喏̹䃦 ҌֆβϬʹη喏ࣽ⩋Ϭʹη喏㏻ࢲβๆ ᄽᬢٵȠąᬿͧ⮰Ąθ䉓ą䔯⻧㜠⮰ ⠃⿉喏㜹ᢵ㒺ট⮰⠃㇚喏᱉ⱬ㔭κᲑȠ Ⴏ㷗ᖢ⟘ѐ喏䏞䖫ᶑ≊̷喏⾫ᷙ 䒒≭͙喏̬䌛䋷ᆝ⊵ⅠȠᎠηጞ倄⮰Ąθ 䉓ąᰬ㏴⺊ܦ⣜㔭κ䏗䓥喏㏴κ 䏦̶β㔭κϺ̹䃕Ⴏ❘̶ࣧ⮰ో◁Ƞ ݜᰬऺ⮰⻧ݗᬢ喏Ąθ䉓ą䔈䔈 䏞̬喏䲅䲅₧ࣧȠ䔅ᬢ㔭κᓯ ͙喏Ąθ䉓ą⮰ѹ㒚ጞ㏻䲊፤䛹㺭ȠĄθ 䉓ą㔭₧ऺ喏㔭κ⩆㜟㺭䃕ڢĄ⺂ڑಋąȠ Ą㺭䃕θ䉓⺂ڑಋȠ䮐β̹㘩䄠䄉喏 ႯসϦᰵઑ̹स喢ą 㔭κऺᲑ䔄ݜβࡃϘ喏ⰷβ䪫喏 ፒⱬĄθ䉓ą⮰٫ၼȠ㔭κ᭛Ꭴ䓼⮰喏 ЂᰵϞ⮰⫨❝ڟᔬ喏ᰵθ䉓⮰ᔌᓯⰤ 䮻喏䔄ᰵᑋᑋ̬ტϦ⮰̹⻧̹ᐯȠ㮩♢ κᰴЅ亜⑀⮰ᑋ૿䬔̹ᄻ喏㻭䃲̹Ꭻ喏 Ѳລц۲ᬢាᬕ⮰≃㙤Ⅰস̵丼䔭ݜ 㔭κ⮰ᎶȠ䔅ᵣ⮰❝̹⩔ॶĄ❝ Ҍą喏̬ᵣछБߔϦᓯȠ ⇍ᰵϦⱨ⤯⮰౦䲎喏⇍ᰵጓ䃪 㒚⮰Ჰᕉ喏ᮚ䕆Ϧ⮰ᩱηᰠᰵট䕿Ƞᰵ 䭼⮰ь߇Ꮢ喏Ѻᢾ❳⢳喏䘩䭧ᡍ̹β 㞮㞮ᨬ倄⮰ᒝ❳䃰ܲȠᰵ㑽ℽ䃰У喝Ą㔭 䄠喏䔅̹᭛̬䘔ᒴ㒺⮰⩡ᒝ喏ᅝ䔊 ⩡ᒝ⊣៑ガࢁ㇃㈅ȠѲ᭛⩡ᒝᰬ䛹㺭 ⮰ᵤᓯ䔄᭛ᩱη喏䔅䘔⩡ᒝ⮰ᩱη᭛ⱋ Ϧⱋη喏ᄨ⑀ᰬ㖖ᬺ⮰喏ᅝ᭛Ⱐᣑ ៹ĂⱋăȠą 㐨ऴ≺ࢃȧ๓уᬑ៑Ȩȟ䅲⨏㑽
ᒵཟс ᒵཟс
䈭⛯࠱ ! ◩ѣ㖇 ◩ѣઞᵡᣛ㖇ㄏ 䈭⛯࠱ ! ◩ѣ㖇 ◩ѣઞᵡᣛ㖇ㄏ
www. achina.com.au achina.com.au www.
A China Media 28.04.2017 24
ä&#x2C6;â&#x203A;Żŕ ą ! â&#x2014;ŠŃŁă&#x2013;&#x2021; â&#x2014;ŠŃŁŕŞ&#x17E;ᾥáŁ&#x203A;ă&#x2013;&#x2021;ă&#x201E;?
www. achina.com.au
á&#x2019;ľŕŞ&#x20AC;ŕ˝&#x;Ń
૷á&#x201C;&#x2026;
A A China China Media Media
AAAA China Media $ &KLQD 0HGLD China Media China Media China Media
11.12.2015 11.03.2016 27 27
27.03.--02.04.2015 24 06.03.--12.03.2015 24 18.01.--24.01. 2013 25.01.--31.01. 2013 30 30
26 行走中国
请点击 > 澳中网 - 澳中周末报网站
.www.achina.com.au
今日杭州 多姿多彩国际大都市 “2017海外华文媒体杭州行”活动5月下旬在千年 古城杭州展开。这一活动是由杭州市人民政府侨务办 公室、中共杭州市委对外宣传办公室共同举办的。来 自美国、加拿大、澳大利亚、日本、英国、德国、法 国、意大利、马来西亚、韩国、香港等世界各地近 40家华文媒体人，在杭州市江干区、富阳区、临安 市、萧山区进行了四天的参访活动，先后访问了阿里
巴巴集团、梦想小镇、清华长三角研究院杭州分院、两岸文 创产业合作实验区、杭州创意设计中心、场口镇东梓关美丽 乡村、浙派民居洞桥镇文村村、临安市家风馆、跨境电商产 业园、2016杭州G20峰会场馆等。 海外华文媒体参访团所到之处，都获得杭州市各级政府 部门的热情款待。在几天的参访活动中，大家都真切感受到 杭州已从千年前的三吴都会阔步走向国际大都市的行列。
临安市地处杭州市西郊，市域 面积3126.8平方公里，是浙江省内 陆地面积最大的县级市，常住人口 53.13万。 1996年10月，临安撤县设市，现 辖5个街道13个镇298个行政村。这
里区位条件良好，距杭州主城区仅 20分钟车程，距萧山国际机场1小 时车程，是杭州至黄山黄金旅游线 的重要节点。2016年入选长三角最 具商业发展潜力十大县市。 在临安，海外华文媒体采访团 走访了青山 湖科技城。 采访团成员 们纷纷对这 个科技城走 的智能化之 路 赞 不 绝 口。 据了解， 青山湖科技 城规划面积 115平方公
里，是浙江建设科技强省和创新型 省份的重大工程，2009年5月由浙 江省人民政府批准设立，目标是建 设国际先进、国内一流的科技资源 集聚区、技术创新源头区、高新企 业孵化区、低碳技术示范区、体制 改革试验区，引进了香港大学浙江 科学技术研究院等科研院所、高校 和企业创新载体46家，其中17个院 所项目建成投用。集聚副高职称以 上人才2100余人，其中院士15名， 国家 “千人计划”人才14名、浙 江省“千人计划”人才27名。累计 引进中电海康磁旋存储芯片等总投 资 近 400亿 元 的 高 新 产 业 项 目 。 118家规模以上企业，50家国家高 新企业，以及400余家科技型小微 企业加速成长。
左图 ：风 光秀丽 的青 山湖 浙江清华长三角研究院由浙 江省人民政府与清华大学共同 组建，于2003年创办。总部设 在嘉兴市，并分别在北京、杭 州等地设立了办事机构与分院。 2014年5月，中国国家主席习近平曾对研究院发 展作重要批示，指出：浙江清华长三角研究院10年 来的探索实践说明，省校合作是优化科技资源配 置、促进科技成果转化、实现科技与经济融合的有 效模式。研究院以清华大学的技术、人才为依托， 发挥和利用双方优势，面向国际竞争，面向浙江与 长三角地区经济社会发展需求，在先进制造、信息 技术、生物医药、生态环境保护、海洋资源开发等 领域，面向长三角地区经济社会发展需求，开展科 技创新、产业培育、科技金融、国际合作和人才培 养等工作，推动区域经济的创新发展和转型升级。
清华长三角研究院 研究院打造了创新创业全生态系统，产业链、资本 链和创新链相辅相成，人才、技术、资源交互迭 代，产业、资本、市场融合推进，孵化、投资、运 营协调发展。作为新型创新平台，研究院致力于通 过打造政产学研金介用的“七位一体”的发展模 式，构建具有实践完善、独具特色的产学研体系， 让人人皆有平台、人人皆可成长，使感情引人、服 务留人，助力区域创新发展，成为长三角地区创新 体系中具有使能型创新作用的基础设施。并以开放 思维引领发展，推进全球业务的拓展与合作，广泛 联系整合 社会各界资源，打造业内领先的专业化服 务体系。
历史文化古村落保护村”。一 批老房子回购，加上“三江两 岸”综合整治工程涉及房屋拆 迁，有数十户村民需回迁安 置。于是，选址村南，征地 25亩，以政府代建的模式，启 动了杭州地区首个“杭派民 居”示范项目。负责规划设计 的绿城建筑设计院，借鉴了吴 冠中笔下的江南民居为农民设 计房屋。温婉内敛、简约大 气，远看分明已融入乡间，近 看却丝毫没有拘泥于传统建筑 形式。 富阳在推进“三美”新农 村建设中，把东梓关作为“孙 权故里、激情场口”富春山居 精品示范线路的重要节点来打 造，让美丽风景变身美丽经 济。去年6月，一期46户村民 在村委的牵头下完成了抽签选 房，随后在8月完工交付，回 迁户只需花1376元/平方米的 建造成本价。为了攻克"乡村 空心化"问题，东梓关村接下 来还将规划300多亩地建甘蔗 产业园，还要在富春江边上发 展渔家乐和精品民宿。时尚的 咖啡吧与传统的酒作坊、古朴的许 家大院与新建的杭派民居，在这里 互不惊扰，7家知名设计院，也先 后落户东梓关的老宅大院。地、金 融机构总部基地、金融要素市场集 聚中心、离岸金融中心。建设成为 国内重要功能性金融中心核心区。 到2020年，力争金融业增加值占地 区生产总值比重达到13%以上。
富阳建设美丽乡村
临安市青山湖科技城
富阳区位于杭州市的西南 面，是一个"八山半水分半田"的 半山区，也是杭州 "旅游西进 "的 第 一 站 。 富 阳 地 处 “ 西 湖——富春江——千岛湖—— 黄山”国家级黄金旅游线的前 站，既赋山城之美，又具江城 之秀，是典型的江南山水城 市。一川如画的富春江横贯全 境，使得富阳成为一座典型的 江南山水园林文化城市和休闲 度假旅游胜地，素有“天下佳 山水，古今推富春”之盛誉。 富阳境内不乏风景名胜，有 孙权后裔聚居地龙门古镇，中 国古代造纸印刷文化村，亚太 地区第一洞厅碧云洞，度假胜 地富春桃源、钟灵毓秀的鹳 山、天钟山等。人文胜迹也很 多，罗隐碑林、黄公望结庐 处、郁达夫故居等远近闻名。 置县于公元前221年的富阳，古 称富春，至今已有2200多年历 史。不仅是东吴大帝孙权的故 里，还是现代文豪郁达夫的故 乡。元代著名画家黄公望就在 此绘就传世杰作《富春山居 图》。 富阳场口镇东梓关村，距离杭 州市中心车程不到一小时，曾出现 在作家郁达夫的笔下，"是一个恬 静、悠闲、安然、自足的江边小镇 "。隔着树林与农田，能在这个古 村落的南面，看到一片白色建筑如 画卷般立在其中，这一片建筑被人 们成为“最美乡村回迁房”。 2013年，东梓关村被列入“浙江省
富阳洞桥镇的美丽宜居村庄建设 A China Media
2014年6月，由浙江省住建厅牵 头，联合中国美院建筑学院和杭州 市富阳区政府在富阳洞桥镇试点美 丽宜居村庄建设。文村作为先行启 动区，在不改变古村落面貌的同 时，实现隐形城市化。 为了打造
不同风格的浙派民居， 设计师不 断修改设计方案，寻找新材料、探 索新方法，在夯土、抹泥等一些老 的建筑技术上不断创新。为了延续 传统村落的多样性面貌，设计师设 计了8种不同的房子，错落有致，
澳中周末报
新登镇古城墙保存完好
30.06.2017 26
新登古称新城，自古为杭州府 属 县 ， 至 1958年 撤 县 建 镇 已 有 1700多年的历史。现存有始建于唐 大顺二年，重建于明嘉靖三十四年 的条石城墙，护城河，为浙江省现 存最完整的古城墙。新登城墙用长 条石砌成，现尚存1290米，在政府 的政策扶持以及地方的自觉保护 下，城墙基本完好，具有较高的历 史意义和研究价值。 据悉，新登镇政府高度重视古 城的保护，与文物部门进行《新登
镇古城保护的规划》的编制，积极 争取上级有关部门加大对新登古城 的保护力度。在今年该镇为提升主 城区城市面貌及功能而突出的“一 绕一带三口三线三圈”11个重点 中，就有绕城河，建成1万平方米 的古城公园，基本完成护城河综合 整治工程的规划。 同时，该镇结 合“秀美城镇·洁美家园”创建活 动和“三改一拆”“五水共治”等 重点工作，将在2017年底基本完成 小城镇环境综合整治。
和谐自然，设计中考虑到了小院、 堂屋、农具室、灶屋等实用因素。 民族的审美和时代的创新在此 得到了和谐的融合，富阳在美丽宜 居村庄建设推进中，保存了连片完 好的古民居，混合以有文脉传承的 新创造，为浙江地域建筑文化特征 的重塑带来了不可估量的研究示范 价值，为保持地域乡愁的新型城市 化探索了新路。文村的新农居将与 古村落风格统一，展现两个时期的 文村村景，让新村与古居能够相互 映衬，成为文村美丽乡村建设的靓 丽风景。 2016年6月，美丽宜居村庄建设 省级综合试点项目落户富阳洞桥 镇，让洞桥以原有弄堂通道为肌 理，对古村落建筑进行翻建、改 造、修缮，打造出具有新型城镇化 特色的美丽宜居村庄，给全省乃至 全国提供新型城镇化建设样板。
东梓关村景色
27 行走中国
请点击 > 澳中网 - 澳中周末报网站
.www.achina.com.au
“EWTP”推动杭州成为“网上丝绸之路”重要战略枢纽 ——再访2016年G20峰会举办城市杭州 6月16日，UCLG亚太区“一带一路”地 方合作专委会（BRLC）正式落地西子湖 畔，并永久落户杭州。这个去年刚举办过 G20峰会的中国江南城市，正在努力打造 “网上丝绸之路”重要战略枢纽城市。 “‘一带一路’是我一生中看到过的最 重要的倡议。”17日在杭州举行的2017丝 路国际联盟大会上，国际金融论坛 (International Finance Forum)理 事 、 新 西 兰 前总理詹妮·希普莉（Jenny Shipley）如是 评价中国提出的“一带一路”愿景。她认 为，“一带一路”的重要性在于，其在全 球发展需要转型的背景下，提出了新的发 展路径，可以确保市场和民生关联在一 起，将对人类的未来发展起到非常重要的 作用。
为在东南亚非常中心的地点， 可以成为帮助本土中小企业出 口的平台。” 另一方面，同样带有杭州标 识的中国制造正在走向全球。 在德国法兰克福奥登市，当地 首条以中国企业命名的“正泰 大道”，已被居民熟记，而在 此前，仅有西门子、博世等企 业在德国获此殊荣。这项“命 名”缘起于浙江正泰集团两年 前的一次收购——正泰集团通 过资本运作和资产重组，使德 国老牌知名光伏企业Conergy旗下一家组件 厂成为当地最大的光伏组件企业，创造了 200多个就业岗位。 今年，正泰又在“一带一路”上有了自 己的新布局。两个多月前，正泰在非洲的
参访杭州诗词十二首 黃成威
憶江南
杭州 2017年5月22日
憶江南
富陽 2017年5月24日
杭州好，醉美在西湖。柳浪春堤環翡 翠，霓燈秋夜幻明珠。荷夏妙香殊。
富陽好，風物古猶新。佳日城鄉佳景 色，富春山水富人文。何幸富陽人。
七律
七絶
訪阿里巴巴集團總部
東梓關村
2017年5月23日
2017年5月25日
慕名追夢訪余杭，阿里巴巴此故鄉。 一馬騰雲驚世界，萬家淘寶著輝煌。 創新聯網通財路，立業平臺勵電商。 民族品牌揚四海，環球視野更風光。
山水人文四脈留，富春江畔富春秋。 民居古色傳杭派，東梓關村訪客稠。
七絶
臨安讚
七律
印象杭州 2017年5月24日
一池碧水秀雙山，更富人文足美顔。 綜改創優添亮色，靚城稱甲話臨安。
印象杭州夢幻城，三吳都會早蜚聲。 錢塘浩水觀潮湧，西子重湖賞月明。 宜畫宜詩迷意匠，創新創業聚精英。 古都樂在新時代，千載天堂萬籟情。
七絶
七絶
2017年5月25日
杭州夜遊古運河
洞橋古鎮
2017年5月23日
2017年5月25日
遊船夜賞彩燈堤，千古運河煙雨迷。 夢幻江南誰點染，朦朧也似畫中詩。
溪綫山泉湖畔花，洞橋古鎮萬民家。 人文底藴皆深厚，美麗鄉村日月華。
七律
七絶
樂聞杭州將辦世界休閒博覽會
臨安衣錦小學訪家風教育 2017年5月25日
美在天堂勝景間，杭州博覽尚休閒。 追求異彩優生活，放縱真情樂水山。 珍愛自然惜寶地，更從生態護芳顔。 宜遊必是佳環境，康健城鄉秀可餐。
承傳民族好家風，衣錦校園美德濃。 忠厚傳家知禮義，師生共識孝廉崇。
2017年5月24日
錢塘寶地金江幹，商賈如雲興兩岸。 智慧城區眾創新，古都新牖彰璀璨。
參觀杭州國際博覽中心 2017年5月26日
廿國集團峯會開，高朋聚首五洲來。 錢塘江畔仙宮起，西子湖濱國色偕。 博覽廳堂盈貴氣，迎賓館閣賽瑤臺。 天堂富麗今猶顯，去歲榮光此際懷。
30.06.2017 27
杭州金江幹
七律
澳中周末报
2017年5月23日
七絶
杭州奥体博览中心主体育场
首家区域工厂埃及低压开关柜合资工厂在 开罗建成投产，再次扩大了在“一带一 路”上的“朋友圈”。正泰集团董事长南 存辉表示，“一带一路”是一个包容性发 展的平台，越来越多的沿线国家分享到改 革“红利”。
A China Media
浙江省委常委、杭州市委书记赵一德表 示，杭州要持续深化跨境电商综试区建 设，加快建设具有国际竞争力的跨境电商 创业创新中心、服务中心和大数据中心， 打造全球最优跨境电商生态圈，以此打造 “网上丝绸之路”重要战略枢纽城市。 很显然，杭州已经站在“一带一路”新 征途的起点上，就像千百年前陆地和海上 两条“丝绸之路”，不断向西交流和探索 一样。以中国首个跨境电商综试区为例， 杭州在今年一季度实现跨境电子商务交易 额达18.2亿美元，其中实现跨境电商出口 13.5亿美元，同比增长21.78%；新招引跨境 电商企业106家，成为杭州外贸稳增长的重 要动能。 历史上,杭州一直围绕西湖做文章,形成 了“三面云山一面城”的城市格局。近年 来，逐步把视线转向钱塘江，提出了“拥 江发展”，让更多新兴产业和财富资本向 钱塘江两岸集聚，体现了这座城市决策者 的战略布局和发展格局。就在钱塘江南岸 的阿里巴巴园区，28岁的俄罗斯人马玉玺 已经在“速卖通俄罗斯”当了三年的“洋
小二”。他来自俄罗斯东北的一个名叫 pevek的小城，10岁时，以交换生的身份来 到长春，之后就一直在中国学习和工作。 马玉玺说，“速卖通俄罗斯”已成为俄 罗斯最火爆的电商平台，“我家乡总人口 不超2000人，过海就是美国阿拉斯加了。 现在那里的人也会在速卖通上买东西。” 像马玉玺这样的“洋小二”，阿里巴巴 滨江园区就有近百位，他们的工作就是把 数以亿计的中国商品销往全球，帮助更多 中国商家走向国际，与此同时，作为一个 覆盖“一带一路”沿线国家和地区的跨境 出口B2C新零售平台，“全球速卖通”海外 买家已经突破了1亿家。 来自杭州的电商改革和试验——这项中 国在新世纪的创举，也吸引更多国外企业 的 参 与 和 模 仿 — — Google AdWords体验中心在6月落 户杭州，该体验中心计划 在 未 来 3年 服 务 杭 州 市 近 3000家跨 境 电 商 企 业 ， 重 点培养200名跨境电子商务 专家，业内人士预测， “5年内新增文化、旅游、 外贸出口等综合服务收入 将超过 60亿美元。” 事实上，杭州如今已经 成为中国新经济最具活力 的城市之一，同时其也担 负着中国多项创新改革， 比如，与首个跨境电商试验区几乎同行的 “国家自主创新示范区”的落地，以及今 年刚刚获批的“杭州临空经济示范区”。 有关数据表明，在G20杭州峰会之后，杭州 的国际影响力达到了新水平。 除了来自官方自上而下的国家战略改 革，许多民间自发的行为也在国际上产生 共 鸣 。 去 年 G20峰 会 期 间 ， 马 云 首 提 “ eWTP” 概 念 (Electronic World Trade Platform，电子世界贸易平台)，并被写入 了G20杭州峰会公报。 这种构想迅速成为现实。今年3月，阿里 巴巴集团与马来西亚共同宣布了一项重要 合作，在该国打造中国以外的第一个 eWTP“数字中枢”，帮助马来西亚乃至整 个东南亚地区的年轻人和小企业参与全球 贸易。 马来西亚数字经济发展局（MDEC）首 席运营官黄婉冰（Huang Wanbing）拿督表 示，“可以（借助阿里巴巴）把马来西亚 的优质产品推销到国外，同时为马来西亚 人引入优质进口商品。而且，马来西亚作
25 香港专题
请点击 > 澳中网 - 澳中周末报网站
.www.achina.com.au
香港回归二十周年：携手同行 共创未来
香港与内地基金互认;2016年12月，深港通 开通;2017年5月，债券通获批。 「炒股发生了天翻地覆的变化。」香港 交易所集团行政总裁李小加对记者说， 「我们常说香港是国际金融中心，但20年 前香港只是一个区域性的金融中心」;「一 国两制」成为「香港金融业过去和未来繁 荣发展的基石」。 共创美好明天 落马洲，河套地区，一块87公顷的土地 沉默了20年。2017年1月3日，时任香港特区 政务司司长林郑月娥宣布：已与深圳市政 府签署合作备忘录，共同发展港深创新及 科技园。一个香港史上最大的创科平台开 始构建。 2017年6月1日，香港科技大学内地事务 主任施天艺博士在朋友圈里兴奋地分享了 一则消息：北京大学与香港科技大学牵头 成立的「京港大学联盟」将在一年内成 立。「缘，妙不可言;看，机遇无限。」他 给自己发的消息点了个赞。 2012年6月28日，《香港与内地高等学 校关于进一步深化交流与合作的意向书》 签署，「万人交流计划」启动。仅香港科 技大学每年就有500多名师生获此扶持到内 地60多所高校进行各种形式的学术交流、 文化考察和社会服务。「我来了，我看 到，我感受着进步的中国和中国教育。」 参与过此项目的香港大学医学院陈天恩博 士说道。 香港宣基中学学生设计的「太空养蚕」 实验随「天宫二号」飞天;16所国家重点实 验室伙伴实验室、6所国家工程技术研究中
香港回归祖国二十周年感赋 黃成威 一
四
香港回歸二十年，港人治港法為天。 特區權力中央授，兩制法規一國連。 行政核心唯主導，國家憲制必尊嚴。 莫忘香港中華土，管治國權永續延。
洋奴謬說煽蝗驚，港獨思潮欲漸成。 本土讕言吹自決，城邦蠱惑誘離聲。 殖民餘孽議堂吼，媚主廢旗暴醜擎。 諸毒合流應警惕，防微杜漸保安寧。
二
五
權復珠還國有光，初心銘記不能忘。 政行兩制唯中國，地設特區非異邦。 堅信港人能自治，豈容領土再淪亡。 繁榮安定同維護，勿讓殃民港獨狂。
基本法從九七施，還珠益耀世皆知。 特區進步規堅守，港地繁榮憲必依。 兩制共融方互利，三權對峙不相宜。 廿三條法早該立，衛國維安更莫遲。 六
駐軍香港主權彰，八一軍旗廿載揚。 正氣威嚴懷使命，雄師勇武保神疆。 愛民守土安區治，反恐懲侵固國防。 定海神針贏盛譽，香江衛士著榮光。
30.06.2017 25
三
回歸廿載逐時新，香港應知法治珍。 施政必須愛國者，任官宜選奉公人。 中央全面行監察，港府竭誠務執勤。 不損國家與民族，躬行兩制要全真。
澳中周末报
「假如特区有困难，例如在医疗物资及 防护器材的供应等需要内地协助的话，中 央一定会全力支援」，同样紧缺抗疫医药 物资的内地伸出了援手，其后「个人游」 开放了，《内地与香港关于建立更紧密经 贸关系的安排》(简称CEPA)签署了。救急 与救困、输血与造血，陷入极度困难的香 港经济短时间内硬是被拉了上来。 2008年5月12日，汶川地震。香港立时 行动起来，震后不到30分钟，香港红十字 会拨出50万元人民币驰援灾区;不到8小时， 特区政府向立法机关申请紧急拨款3亿港元 赈灾。95%的香港居民捐款，援建资金累 计达百亿港元，亲赴灾区的义工达2000人 次，8年再造、山河重整，今日挺立着的汶 川，倾注了多少香港同胞之情! 一系列的互助行动和举措共御天灾、消 弭困顿，两地的合作热情持续升温、合作 机制不断升级。 2004年10月至2015年11月，CEPA的10个 补充协议、2个子协议陆续签订。 「CEPA大大加强了香港与内地的货物 和服务贸易关系，大大促进了两地贸易及 投资便利化，共商共赢，互惠互利，前所 未有的服务贸易自由化让两地的开放与合 作达至新高度。」香港特区政府工业贸易 署署长甄美薇接受记者采访时这样评价。 因为CEPA，内地对香港开放了153个服 务贸易部门，占全部服务贸易部门的 96%;因为CEPA，香港十家律师事务所得以 在内地以合伙方式联营;香港的医疗服务提 供商在内地设立26家医疗机构;因为CEPA， 港产片不再受配额限制，香港方面可以控 股合资设立基金管理公司，港资旅行社可 以独资运营。 政策沟通，贸易畅通，合作由点及面、 由线成片，两地在深度互通互融中书写着 20年来携手走向繁荣发展的魅力篇章。 2017年6月9日，香港恒生指数再度突破 2.6万点。中环某证券公司，坐在计算机前 的资深股票经纪人刘先生轻松怡然。 「1998年我就来了香港，历经亚洲金融危 机、国际金融危机，在最困难的时候都没 有动摇过信心。香港的经济有底气，内地 的经济够蓬勃，向好的趋势不会变。」 翻阅经济的「晴雨表」，从香港金融市 场20年来的变迁之路上找寻发展的足迹， 更能清晰、直观地感受两地合作之力度。 20年 ， 港 股 市 值 由 3.2万 亿 元 增 至 28万 亿 元，增长近8倍;上市公司数目由619家增至 2000多家，增长近3.3倍;在港上市的中资企 业由83家增至1013家，占全港上市公司总 数50.4%、港股市值的63.7%。 2014年11月，沪港通开通;2015年7月，
心分中心在香港设立;每个香港的中小学生 都会得到至少一次资助到内地交流的机 会;570所学校与内地学校结为「姊妹」;每 年近4000名青年由特区政府组织到内地就 业实习，700多名公务员赴内地培训…… 人在互动，物在互通。当看到香港市场 95%的活猪、100%的活牛、100%的河鲜、 90%的蔬菜、70%以上的面粉和100%的天然 气、99.9%的石油气都是由内地供应这样的 数字时，人们不难理解两地合作关系的既 是繁荣大计，也是生活必需。 从1997年到2016年，内地赴港旅游人次 从236万暴增至4277.8万，占整体访港旅客 的 76%;而 2016香 港 往 内 地 的 游 客 总 数 达 8106万人次，达到了内地入境市场的59%。 特区政府在内地设有5个办事处、11个 联络处，内地在香港开办4000多家中资企 业，每年在香港注册的婚姻中超过30%为 香港与内地的跨境婚姻，两地法院相互认 可和执行婚姻家庭民事案件判决的安排;互 为最大的外来投资者和最大的贸易合作伙 伴之一，香港是内地的首选海外上市地， 内地是香港的最大货物供应地、最大出口 市场…… 政府、社团、民间频密互动，经济、社 会、民生协同发展，香港与内地关系从未 像今天如此紧密，早已从割不断的血缘、 地缘共同体，深化为全方位的相互支撑与 依存。 近日，谈及香港与深圳的关系，候任行 政长官林郑月娥说「譬如兄弟」;香港工商 总会首席会长江达可带着650人从贵州考察 回来，深感「大有可为」;在最近某次论坛 上，福建副省长李德金对闽港合作评价： 举足轻重。京港、沪港、鲁港、龙港…… 发生在两地之间的互动每天都在进行。 如今，「粤港澳大湾区」又来了，实力 超群、优势集群打破瓶颈、打开格局，在 领跑中开始了新的征程。 一路向前!内地与香港,合作仍在继续。 2017年5月12日，一个关于香港认缴亚 投行7651股股本的议案在香港特区立法会 获审议通过。6月13日，特区政府正式宣 布：香港已成为亚投行新的一员。 2017年5月15日，香港特区行政长官梁 振英在「一带一路」国际合作高峰论坛上 「破格」作专题发言：「最国际化的城 市」「一个十分好的伙伴」「超级联系 人」，一系列词汇的背后是对香港优势和 定位的清醒认知，是为「国家所需」发挥 「香港所长」的信心和期待。
A China Media
香港回归祖国20周年，那些携手走过 的路、一起铸就的精彩永远镌刻在我们的 记忆中。回顾来路、眺望前程，我们携手 同行，共创更加美好的明天。 梦想从脚下汇合延伸 再过几个月，一条钢筋水泥织造的「梦 幻丝带」将在伶仃洋海域轻舞飞扬。 从内地到香港，从香港到内地，就像从城 市的一边到另一边，特别是粤港澳的人 们，开始沉浸在这种「同城」的乐趣 中——昔日的想象成真，两地的血脉相连 在全新的时空图景上实体呈现。 港珠澳大桥，世界最长跨海大桥、世界 最长钢结构大桥、拥有世界最长海底隧道 的大桥,正是构筑这时空图景的重要一环。 基于合作不断加强的过去、正在深化的 现在、继续提升的未来而催生的港珠澳大 桥，既是密切合作的地理坐标和物理样 本，也恰是衡量、体现内地与香港合作再 攀高峰的标尺和标杆。 从共同组建港珠澳大桥管理局，到共同 成立三地政府联合工作委员会，紧密沟通 一以贯之。面对三地法律法规、工程标准 各异，友好协商一以贯之。「进度服从质 量」「就高不就低」，共识达成，精彩纷 至沓来。 作为首个连接粤港澳三地及由三地「共 建共管」的跨境运输基建项目，港珠澳大 桥在极险、极复杂、极具挑战性的施工环 境和要求下，创造出「海底穿针」多项工 程奇迹，打造出世界唯一深埋隧道，填补 了多个「中国空白」乃至「世界空白」。 因加深合作而成的跨境基建项目，还有 广深港高铁。一个例子饶有意味。高铁内 地段和香港段由跨境隧道连接，高铁内地 段项目隧道为「单管隧道」设计，而高铁 香港段按香港消防条例规定，南向和北向 两线必须采用「双管隧道」设计。 如何接驳?两地的工程团队坐在了一 起。头脑碰撞、智慧交响，经过多次分析 研判、多次技术会议和专家评审，一个 「双管变单管」的连接器构想成形，跨境 隧道以一端双管、一端单管自然转换、无 缝接驳的方式一体建造，高铁香港段自此 汇入国家2万多公里的高铁网。 相距2200公里的北京与香港在基建项目 上的合作同样多姿多彩。 「可以用『情投意合』来形容。」京港 地铁总经理邵信明感慨。4号线、14号线、 16号线，北京的地下世界里，一条条融合 北京元素、香港特色、国际标准的地铁线 尽显现代气质、艺术气息和人文关怀。 在深港陆路口岸，人们更是深切体会着 畅行在两地之间的便利，用匆匆步履、滚 滚车轮为20年来的演进作证。 1997年 深 圳 口 岸 年 出 入 境 人 次 仅 有 6100万，2016年增长至2.39亿人次;1997年出 入境交通运输工具仅有380万辆(架、艘)， 2016年增长至1580万(架、艘);原来通关可能 要排队一天，现在只需5分钟，跨境学童自 助通关快时只需要3秒。 繁荣在相互成就中延续 说起2003年3月10日的一则新闻，很多 香港居民仍然记忆犹新。当香港无线电视 台播报出威尔斯亲王医院有7名医生、4名 护士出现发烧、上呼吸道感染症状的消息 时，谁也不会想到一场灾难性的疫病正在 凌厉袭来。 1755人感染、296人死亡，非典的冲击 波瞬间将香港拉入恐慌中，平时喧闹的中 环成了「倒着走都不用担心碰到人」的光 景，而香港的失业率急速攀升至8.7%。
ఇ͖Ϧ喏⻧̬ᄥ喏㏿͐ᄥ善 ဤ൹∯֝ ℇ᷃ঐЍ 䗏๕ᮆ̶喏স݄ᔃ݆⻧ᐬ⩜⊕⮰ᝫᬢⱋ䄆㶔䓪βИ ⮰⺉⺻喝Ą⺉䉦ҌИᬕ⩋䉡ၼȠąÿÿ݄ᄻ㟤ڢጞ㏻ᔬႁβȠ ຮ϶И䘩Ⱔԍ䔅Тηͷऺ喏И䘩ᛮᓃβ⣹ᘈȟ䉏Чস❝喏Ϻ ₐ̹ڹ⍤Ϧ⩋Ƞ
ီᆈ㒧ᴳৢˈ䚼ߚᅶҎ䛑ᬷএњˈ া᳝Ͼᑈ䕏Ҏ䴲㽕䎳ⴔ៥⬄⌽ಲᆊ 䯍⋲᠓ϡৃˈ䖭Ё䯈᳝֓߬ᖫ߮䙷Ͼ ཇᄽDŽ 䞠 ᯊ䆌ˈ䯍⋲᠓ⱘҎ䚼ߚ ⾏ᓔњˈᮄ᠓䞠া࠽ϟ៥ǃ⬄⌽ǃ߬ᖫ ߮䙷Ͼཇᄽüüℸᯊ៥ᠡⶹ䘧ཌྷি߬ ᇣ㢌DŽ ϾҎᢅⴔ㤊ᵃ᮴䆱ৃ䇈ˈ⇨⇯᳝ ѯለሀDŽ៥佪ܜᠧ⸈≝咬ˈ䯂߬ᇣ㢌ᰃ ϡᰃ⬄⌽ҹࠡⱘཇ᳟টDŽ߬ᇣ㢌ϔˈ Ѣ↣ϔᵃ䜦䛑䅽Ҫ⋦ᥝϔञDŽᅶҎఏュ ⴐ⊾ህϟᴹњˈཌྷ䇈ཌྷᕜᢅℝ៥Ӏᮄ ⴔ䍋ઘ˖Āⳟⳟˈ䖬≵ܹ⋲᠓ਸ਼ˈᮄ䚢 ီПᴹᠧᡄ៥ӀˈৃཌྷᖡϡԣˈЎ ཌྷ⬄⌽Ңᄺᓔྟ㟇ҞᏆ㒣䇜њ ᑈ ህᡞᣕϡԣњDŽā Ң䙷ϔࠏᓔྟˈ៥さ✊ᛣ䆚ࠄ៥ᇍ ᘟ⠅ˈϔϾ᳜ࠡᠡߚˈߚॳᕜㅔ 䑿䖍䖭ϾेᇚϢ៥ৠᑞ݅ᵩϔ⫳ⱘ⬋Ҏ ऩ˖߬ᇣ㢌Ͼᯨ᮹ⱘ⬋ৠᄺࠄ䜦৻ ᑊϡњ㾷DŽϔϾ᳜ࠡˈ៥Ӏϔ㘮Ӯ ⥽ࠄ⏅ˈ⬄⌽ⶹ䘧ৢᕜϡ催݈ˈ䋷ᗾ Ϟ䅸䆚DŽञϾ᳜ࠡˈҪᓔⴔᅱ偀ˈ᤻ ཌྷϡ䆹݊Ҫ⬋ᄽএ䙷⾡ഄᮍDŽϾᗻད ᔎⱘ߬ᇣ㢌ैᣛ䋷⬄⌽ᖗⴐᇣˈ䰤ࠊ ⴔϔᴳ⥿⩄キ៥ⱘ݀ᆧὐϟ៥∖ ཌྷⱘ㞾⬅ˈᚙᗹПϟ䇈њ䖭ḋϔহ䆱˖ ီˈ䯎㳰Ӏ㡇㕵ⱘໄЁˈ៥ϟὐ Ā៥Ӏ䖬≵㒧ီਸ਼ˈ߿䇈ᰃএ䜦৻ˈ៥ 䖛⥿⩄ˈത䖯њҪⱘᅱ偀ĂĂ ህᰃ䎳݊Ҫ⬋ᄽϞᑞԴгㅵϡⴔDŽā䖭 ৢˈ៥ህ៤њҪⱘᮄDŽ៥Ⳍֵ⬄⌽ᰃ 䆱ᡞ⬄⌽ᛍ☿њˈҪᢀ㒭њཌྷϔᏈᥠDŽ ⳳᖗ୰៥ˈ៥᳝䍄䖥ᆠᆊᄤᓳⱘϔ ᘟ⠅ ᑈˈ⬄⌽Ң≵ࡼ䖛߬ᇣ㢌ϔ ߛ䌘䋼üü䭓Ⳍǃ䑿↉ǃ⇨䋼ҹঞᄺ䆚DŽ ḍᣛ༈ˈދϡϕ䖭ϔᏈᥠˈ߬ᇣ㢌 ៥Ⳍֵϔ㾕䩳ᚙ䖭⾡㓬ߚˈᑊᖗᄬᕔDŽ ফϡњˈއᅮ䖬ҹ买㡆DŽཌྷজ㑺ϞϾ ៥জᰃϔϾ催چǃ㰮㤷ⱘཇᄽˈ៥ᡓ䅸ˈ ⬋ৠᄺএ䜦৻ˈᑊ䌠⇨থⷁֵ㒭⬄⌽˖ ⬄⌽ⱘ䋶ѻǃ㛑ᇍ៥ᵘ៤њᎼ䇅ᚥ Ā៥Ӏߚ৻ˈ៥䑿䖍᳝ⱘᰃ⬋ᄽೈⴔ 䕀ˈ᳝ᴀџԴݡএᡒϔϾཇᄽᄤDŽā DŽ ⬄⌽㱑✊ᰃᆠᆊᄤᓳˈЎҎैᕜℷ ✊㗠ˈህ៥ҹЎ㞾ᏅᏆ㒣ᡒࠄ㒜 ⌒ˈᇍᛳᚙгᕜϧϔˈ⣯✊㹿߬ᇣ㢌ᇚ 䑿ᔦᆓⱘᯊˈ䖭Ͼ㥿ৡ݊ߎ⦄ီ њ䖭ϔˈݯᛳ㾝ᕜফӸˈҪ偀Ϟಲϔ ᆈϞⱘཇᄽै䕏㗠ᯧВഄߏ⸈њ៥ⱘ㞾 ᴵⷁֵ˖Āߚህߚˈ៥ᯢህᡒϾ ֵDŽ߁ⴔཇҎⱘⳈ㾝ˈ៥䅸Ўཌྷ⬄⌽ ↨Դⓖ҂ⱘཇ᳟টˈϟϾ᳜ህ㒧ီDŽā ᖗЁⱘߚ䞣ᑊϡ៥ПϟDŽ ߬ᇣ㢌ᬊࠄ䖭ᴵⷁֵৢ᳝ѯৢᙨˈԚཌྷ ៥ᔎ㺙ュ买ˈッⴔ䜦ᵃˈᤑⴔ⬄⌽ ད䴶ᄤˈϡ㚃Ԣ༈DŽ≵ᛇࠄˈ⬄⌽ⳳᡒ ϔḠϔḠᭀϟএˈकߚ䩳ᯊ䯈ˈ៥ᛳ њϾཇ᳟টĂĂ 㾝ڣ䖛њϔᑈ䙷М⓿䭓DŽᔧᭀࠄ䙷Ͼཇ ៥ⴔཌྷⱘভ䗄ˈᛳ㾝ϔ䰉䰉থދDŽ ᄽ᠔ⱘ佁Ḡᯊˈ⬄⌽Ң៥ⱘ㞖ᔃЁᢑ ៥ҹЎ⬄⌽៥∖ီᰃⳟϞњ៥ⱘᱎ ߎњ㛇㝞ˈ㸠ࡼবᕫᓖᐌ䖳㓧ˈདڣ䱣 ᯊޚ䕀䑿䗗䎥DŽৃ៥ϡϔḋˈ៥أ㽕 ӮӮཌྷʽ
়ᚭਸી ̰ওඹ;᥋ Ҟᑈ ᳜ ᮹ˈᚙҎ㡖ˈгᰃ៥ ⬄⌽୰ⱘ᮹ᄤDŽ䙷ˈキ䜦ᑫ䮼 ষ䖢ߎᐁီᆈⱘ᳟҆དটᯊˈ៥থ⦄ 䚼ߚҎ䖬≵᳝ҢᛩЁಲ䖛⼲ᴹˈ Ў៥⬄⌽ϔϾ᳜ࠡᠡ䅸䆚DŽ 䴶ᇍ҆ট䆶ⱘⳂˈܝ៥Ӏ≵ࡲ⊩ 㾷䞞ˈা᳝㋻㋻䴴ϔ䍋ˈࡾഄュⴔˈ ҹ֓䅽ҪӀⳌֵ៥Ӏ⹂ᅲᑌ⽣ഄ៤Ў ྏњDŽ ߮ᓔྟᯊˈီᆈ䖯㸠ᕫ䖬ㅫ乎߽ˈ ⒵ූᆒᅶᵃⲣѸ䫭ˈ⼱⽣ໄℸ䍋ᕐӣˈ ⳈࠄϔϾཇᄽᙘ᮴ໄᙃഄߎ⦄ီ⼐⦄ എˈ⇨⇯ᠡবᕫᖂ䍋ᴹDŽ⹂ߛഄ䇈ˈ 䖭⾡ᖂব࣪ҙᄬѢ៥ǃ⬄⌽䙷Ͼ ཇᄽП䯈DŽ ཇᄽ䭓Ⳍᑊϡߎӫˈ៥П᠔ҹ㛑Ң 䯍ઘઘⱘҎ㕸Ёϔⴐথ⦄ཌྷˈᅠܼߎѢ ཇҎⱘᬣᛳDŽཌྷ⣀തϔ䱙ˈϡӏԩҎ Ѹ⌕ˈা咬咬ഄୱ䜦ǃৗ㦰ˈӓԯᇍⴐ ࠡⱘ୰ᑚϡᛳ݈䍷DŽᇍ៥䖭Ͼ㕢Бⱘᮄ ˈཌྷᑆ㛚ⳟ䛑ϡⳟDŽ ៥ᖗЁ᳝ϔϱϡᖿˈᣛⴔཌྷˈᙘໄ 䯂⬄⌽˖ĀཌྷᰃԴӀᆊⱘᅶҎ˛āℷᖭ Ѣᭀ䜦ⱘ⬄⌽ᡁ༈ϔⳟˈ㜌㡆乓ᯊবњˈ 㜅ষ㗠ߎ˖ĀϡᰃDŽāᛇᛇজ㾝ᕫϡཹˈ Ҫ偀Ϟᬍষ˖ ĀᰃⱘĂĂ៥Ӏᆊⱘ҆DŽā 䇈ᅠˈҪ㒻㓁㒭ᅶҎᭀ䜦DŽ ϟᴹⱘᯊ䯈ˈ⬄⌽ᅠܼ䍄⼲њˈ Ҫ乥乥ᳯ䙷Ͼཇᄽˈⴐ⼲ᜠхˈҹ㟇
ݳΎᝅР̵ຏηϪআ⒀
ֽᝅڗռᚭ ฌർඹঘ། 䖭ϔḠⱘᅶҎ㾕៥Ӏッⴔ䜦ᵃ䖛 ᴹˈ㒋㒋䍋䑿ޚュ䯍ϔ⬾ˈ䙷Ͼཇᄽ гキ䍋ᴹˈϔ㜌⓴ދDŽӫҎュ䯍ᅠњˈ ཌྷ㒜ѢᓔষˈⴐⳈ㾚ⴔ⬄⌽䇈˖Ā䲒 ᗾᡞ㗕ৠᄺ䛑ᖬњˈॳᴹᰃᢅᕫ㕢Ҏᔦ ਔʽ⼱Դᮽᕫ䌉ᄤʽā⼱⬄⌽ᮽᕫ䌉ᄤˈ 䯂乬ᰃ៥⬄⌽䖬≵䍄ࠄ䙷ϔℹਸ਼ˈ᳝ ᅶҎᦦ䆱䇈˖Āݡᮽгᕫ Ͼ᳜Пৢˈ ⦄া㛑乘⼱DŽā ཇᄽދދഄ䇈˖Ā䆌Ӯᦤࠡਸ਼ʽā ៥さ✊㾝ᕫᤎྨሜˈᛇড假ཌྷϔহˈৃ ⬄⌽ैᢪⴔ៥ࣚࣚ䍄ϟϔḠDŽ ≵ᛇࠄ៥ϟϔḠコ䘛ࠄϔϾ ⱘᛣˈᕫ៥Ꮒ⚍ذℶüü៥ⱘ ࠡ⬋ট߬ᖫ߮ሙ✊䖭ϔḠϞതⴔDŽ䖭 ᰃ᳔ৢϔḠˈ⾏Џᆒᐁ䕗䖰ˈҪজϔⳈ 㚠ᇍⴔ៥ˈ᠔ҹ៥ϡⶹ䘧ҪᰃҔМᯊ 䖯ᴹⱘDŽ㾕៥⯈ਚਚഄⴔҪˈҪᰗᰗ ᙴᙴഄキ䍋ᴹˈュఏఏഄ䇈˖Āϡ䅸䆚 њ˛ᠡϔϾ᳜≵㾕䴶৻˛ā ҪᏆ㒣ୱ催њˈ㜌㑶㛪ᄤ㉫ⱘˈВ ⴔぎ䜦ᵃᇍ⬄⌽䇈˖Ā㒭હӀ⒵Ϟˈ៥ 㽕ᭀԴӀϔᵃʽā⬄⌽ⳟⳟ៥ˈজⳟⳟ ߬ᖫ߮ˈ⒵㝍⢤⭥ഄ㒭Ҫצњϔᵃ䜦ˈ ߬ᖫ߮༈ϔӄˈাĀ੩੮āϔໄˈ䜦 ᵃ֓ぎњDŽ✊ৢҪজᡞ䜦ᵃВࠄ⬄⌽䴶 ࠡ˖Ā߮ᠡϔᵃᰃᭀᵫ။ⱘˈ⼱ཌྷབᜓ
㕢䉠ˈॳᴹҪ䗑∖៥াᰃ߬ᇣ㢌 䌠⇨ʽأأ៥䖭М≵ߎᙃˈϔϟᄤህϞ 䩽њDŽ ⳟⳟϔ㿔ϡথതϔ䖍ⱘ߬ᖫ߮ˈ ៥䱋ܹ⏅ⱘৢᙨПЁDŽ ᑈᴹˈҪᇍ ៥ϡгϔḋ⫼ᚙϧϔǃᖴᖗ㘓㘓৫˛䲒 䘧⠽䋼Ϟⱘ⒵䎇ⳳⱘ↨ϔϾ⏅⠅㞾Ꮕⱘ ⬋ᄽҬߎⱘᛳᚙ䞡㽕৫˛ݡ䇈Ҫ㛑 гϡᏂਔˈᄺ↩Ϯᠡ ᑈህᔧϞ ݀ৌⱘ䚼䮼㒣⧚њˈ៥ЎҔМⳟϡࠄҪ ⱘࠡ䗨ਸ਼˛ ⬄⌽াⶹ䘧ᇍⴔ⮯ુ⌕⍩ⱘ៥߬ ᇣ㢌ϔϾࢆഄ䘧ℝüüҪгϡⶹ䘧䆹བ ԩᬊഎњDŽ എⱘ ϾҎˈଃϔ≵᳝䖛䫭ⱘህ ᰃ߬ᖫ߮ˈℸҪ᳔᳝থ㿔ᴗDŽޠ᰼ᯊ ߚˈ߬ᖫ߮㒜Ѣ䇈䆱њ˖Āᯢ៥Ӏ ϾҎϔ䍋এီ࿏ⱏ䆄໘ࡲϔϾ⾏ီ 㓁ˈࡲϸϾ㒧ီ㓁DŽā ˄͙᪳Ϧ➕ͦࡂह˅ ⋰ࢆȧ冭͙ᮔ៑Ȩ
ҹٓᡒњϾ᳝䪅ⱘ⬋ҎDŽ៥ݡᭀԴϔᵃˈ ᏠᳯԴདད⦡ᚰˈЎ៥ⶹ䘧᳝䪅ⱘ⬋ Ҏ䛑ᕜണˈఓఓDŽā⬄⌽㜌㡆᳝ѯϡད ⳟњDŽϡ䖛ˈҪ䖬ᰃ㒭߬ᖫ߮জצњϔ ᵃ䜦ˈݡĀ੩੮āϔໄПৢˈ߬ᖫ߮ জᡞぎ䜦ᵃВ䖛ᴹ˖Ā䖭ϝᵃ䜦ᭀ៥ 㞾Ꮕˈ⼱៥ᮽ᮹ׂད㾦DŽā ߬ᖫ߮Ңᴹϡୱ䜦ˈҪⱘᛣߎ⦄ 䅽៥ᜠ༅ˈབᵰݡୱњˈ䇕ⶹ䘧 ҪӮᑆߎҔМڏџᴹDŽ៥༎ϟҪⱘ䜦ᵃˈ ᢝⴔ⬄⌽䗗ЏᆒᐁDŽ ⬄⌽ैᡞ៥ᢪࠄ令ख़䴶䯂៥˖ Ā߮ ᠡᭀ䜦ⱘ䙷Ͼ⬋ҎᰃϡᰃԴҹࠡⱘ⬋᳟ ট˛ā៥ϔষ৺ᅮDŽ⬄⌽ⳃⴔ៥ⱘ㜌ⳟ њञˈさ✊ュњˈュᕫ៥↯偼᙮✊DŽ ᔦḍࠄᑩˈ៥↨Ҫᖗ㰮DŽ ञϾ᳜ࠡˈ៥߬ᖫ߮ᦤߎߚᯊˈ ≵᳝䗣䴆៥㽕এા䞠ˈԚᰃߚॳҪ ᑨ䆹ᕜ⏙Ἦˈ៥ਞ䆝Ҫˈ៥⠅Ҫˈ៥г ⶹ䘧Ҫ⠅៥ˈৃҪ㒭ϡњ៥ᛇ㽕ⱘϰ㽓ˈ 㗠⫳⌏জᰃМԧМ⦄ᅲDŽ ᔧ៥䕀䑿⾏এᯊˈⳟԐއ㒱ˈ݊ᅲ ै᳝ϡ㟡ˈ↩コҢᄺᓔྟ៥ӀᏆ 㒣⠅њ ᑈDŽ䯂乬ᰃˈ⠅㛑ᔧ佁ৗ৫˛ Ҫ⫮㟇䖲䇏ᄺᯊⱘࡽᄺ䌋ℒ䛑≵䖬 ᅠDŽ⬄⌽ህϡৠњˈҪТ㛑⒵䎇៥ϔ ߛ⠽䋼Ϟⱘ䳔㽕DŽ
ȟ๗ᙋᗱ〯Ƞڢ䔅͖ ⤲⩝ᰵχ➡ᑦ喏̳̹㺭Ⱔԍโ 䕳⩣Ϧ⮰凰冨ⱨ∖ȠЂИцា㜖 ጝ⮰྆༧⩋≧䄠ᓃ̬ఎ㈋喏⩝ₐ 㣣ंसᗱ̺䄱㼏Ƞڢᒴๆ⩣Ϧ ᬺ ᬺ ྆ ༧ 㒺 ␍喏 ტ Ꮩ Ꭴ ⺻喏 ࢠ ջ ջ㺭䊣∎ⓈȠᝬБຟϦ̳ ̹㺭㻵ᓃโ䕳खц䕳̶ݗϦ⮰㔭 ژ喏㔸㜖ጝ⮰㔭ژ᭛㐉㑄ѿȠ ȟ㜖䏗Т๋̹Ƞโ䕳᭛̬ 䶥ຎҴ⊴䉥喏̹᭛͖⩣Ϧ䘩ᰵ 䋟๋⮰䉰᱘স偱߇䃕ڢЂຟၼ⩄ ᓯᗱᙫֆじ̵㔱⮰ȠᏤ⩣Ϧ࢟ ӫ ಮ ⊺ ⁞ ␠ ख 㘩Ą 倄 ᆝ М ₎喏 ᓯऽᒬͷąȠ ȟᰵ䉨ᓯ喏⇍䉨㗲Ƞโ䕳᭛ ⦊ ท 䨢 㵸 䛸 ⮰ ̬ ䷃Ą ⺂ 㐫ą喏 ȧ֣๕䮣䭝Ȩ͙⮰∩e⥨㝘喏 䲊ᰵ㗲ᰵ䃲㔱㣗֣๕ᢎᴝȠ⁞ โ 䕳 㔱喏 ᘟ ͑ ڢ ݜ䛹 ऺ ÿÿ ⻧ၼȟ⼷ݹᅩȟ㜙ह᭙㦃ćć ᱦц᱘๖๓喏ᅝ̹ᓃ̹᱇㔸ࢠ ₑ喏᪘㔸䔈ͷȠ⤲ᮦ⩣ϦๆᆊκₐȠ ȟ叧☒Ƞโ䕳᭛ู̬͖ᱮ 㔸 ㈧ 㐋 ⮰ ⼷喏 ㏻ ≺ȟ ᩫ ⇧ȟ ᪳ ࡂ ᬌ ᝬ ̹ ࠱喏 䄺 㼬ȟ 促 ᬌ ᝬ ̹ ⩔喏 ᰵ โ 䕳 ᅝ ᥊ โ ϐ喏 ⣕ 㶍 㺭 ⣕ ᓃ ๕ 㶏 ᬌ 㑉喏 㺭 ͐ 䲎 䃔 ຩ喏 ๕⩋≧Ѓ喏ܲ䏗ͻᱛȟ ᬢ䬠ᰵ䭼喏ᓯ㘻㘲ᑝ㔱䯪ः߇ڢ喏
叧☒䔻䶢喏䔄᭛ᓃ䓳̀䓳॓Ƞ ȟᱦ䕳̹䕚Ƞโ䕳ᅝ͙ᒕ ⺔喏छ䕳㔸̹छⅮȠ࢟ӫҌᰵᬢ䬠ȟ ߇ȟ 䛽 䧝 স 偱 ߇喏 㺭 Т ⛋喏ឿ۲ᬢᱦȠछ㘩Ҍ᭛ネ͑喏 ⇍ᰵ㜖⩝喏छ㘩Ҍ⇍ᰵ䕳̶ᓯЖ 㔸ऴ䔮⮰ᄥ䆍喏ຮโ䕳ຟ⺊̹ ಮ 䱾 Ҍ喏 ̹ 㺭 ᗞ ѐȠ ᝬ 䄿Ą ۛ ਼ ᬿ 㔭喏 ᱺ Ꭻ 䯪 ᄭȠą ऐ Ϧ ๆ ᰵ ᔬ̹䕳㔱喏ๆҌ̬͖̹ๆβȠ ȟᗱᙋ㇃㈅Ƞโ䕳᭛̶ふϦ ⮰⩋≧ᗱ㞮喏᭛ᚎܦ㏲≧⮰ ηȠ ख ᰵ ܦ䏗 倄 䉡ȟ ᓯ ᕉ ㏲ 㚧 㔱 ц ᰵ ₐ ⺊ 䃵 ⅮȠ ॒ ݅喏 ̬ ᬑ ̵丼䘩̹ԉ喏ਖ䔄ᰵᓯᕉࣧโ䕳喢 ᗱᙋ㇃㈅⮰⩣Ϧৰ̬͖ຟϦ䘩 ㉛喏ਖ䔄ᰵ䬞๗ࣧ᠇᳢ڢЂ⮰ ຟϦ喢 ȟ๕㟝ᗱ㏿Ƞโ䕳ᅝܦ๕ 㟝喏 Ѳ ܦ ⇍ ܍䓳喏 ᕧ ᰵ ܦ๕ 㟝 ⮰ ࢝䮕Ƞ㔸̬ᬒܦ䓳喏ᅝᰵβៃѿ喏 ̹ڹᗏₐ⫪Ƞโ䕳᭛̬䘔ⰷ̶ࣧ ᒴ 㒺 ⮰ ⩡ ᒝ喏 ݅ 䕧 䒽 ⌣ Ν喏 ڱ ქ ܲ 㷮喏 ⺊ ㏻ Ꮑ 䛸Ƞ ᝬ Б ᰵ 䓳โ䕳⮰Ϧᬺ⮩ₐ͙ⱋ䅇Ƞ̹䓳 ₐៃѿ⮰⩋ႄᬢ䬠䪫ⴙఌϦ㔸ᐮ喏 ᰵ ⮰ ϦĄ ຩ β ѐ ⫐ ᔄ β ⫨ą喏 ᰵ ⮰ ϦĄ ̬ ᱉ 㷗 㯳 喏 Ꭰ ᕁ ρ 㐟Ƞą 仅⍛ܜܐ㑽
A China Media
31.03.2017 30
á&#x2019;ľŕŞ&#x20AC;ŕ˝&#x;Ń
ä&#x2C6;â&#x203A;Żŕ ą ! â&#x2014;ŠŃŁă&#x2013;&#x2021; â&#x2014;ŠŃŁŕŞ&#x17E;ᾥáŁ&#x203A;ă&#x2013;&#x2021;ă&#x201E;?
www. achina.com.au
4 , ($. - ,-.)( , & ( #.)*4 & -- *& -# %- 4 )&2/, .# ( # ,')& '$( . )),- . 4 $! .$' 1 ,, (.2 )( --),$ -
4 1) -&$ $(" - ! .2 '$,,), )),4 )/, , 1 ,- $( ' . & ,/(( ,- 1$.# - ! .2 -.)* 4 )/ & # ("$(" -* ( -$("& # ("$(" -* 4 )&)/, ), .$' , &))% )),- 0 $& & $! *, ! ,, $.$)( & )-.
3 1)( . . ( )( +/ &$.2 *,$ - ,0$ 5
111 -/* ,$), -$"(",)/* )' /
! & $ " & ( % ) "! ) $ ) # &'$ ) # '! ) # )( $.$)(- **&2 09.07.2015 09:58
News Corp Australia Proof Š
A China Media 31.03.2017 15
价值 $1200 AUSLINESHIPPING ᤉங๒ᤂྲ͉ḧ ࣹࢷḙງڢᒰࡉ ቡவ
ᤉடಅ๒ᤂྲ͉ḧ ʽ๒ḙງڢḙ߱ฉḙ᭟ࡴ ᒰࡉḙ࠷ܛవḙ࣋᧗ளవ ኸḙ ኸ
ѣடಅྲ͉ḧ ࡉḙ࠷ܛవḙ࣋᧗ளవ ҂ʽ๒ḙ߱ฉḙᯮມ ࡇᰴኸ
Ҭᔵڊḧ ଌՊመܸ߽ྭ 1SPKFDUᄊࢺͻЛ༌Պࢀ๒ᤂḙቇᤂḙઑ Тḙ̲ϲḙӵᢼḙடᜉḙૃኸḙщಅḙՊመྲ᧘ኸ ᆈᆃ ዮᮼ Ԕలஙᜉᓕḙࣰஙૃᓕ $#'$" $VTUPNT #SPLFST BOE 'PSXBSEFST $PVODJM PG "VTUSBMJBੇրḙបࠄԻη$$*$ᄊՌ ͻ͗ͧḙкֶ̗ḙጚᦥḙᐛዝḙऌநᄊᤉѣೝᰎ Лˇႍ ˔ࠒڎ๒ܱ̽ေḙ᫃҂᫃ʷባरҬ˗̽ڎေ௧༌ฯ ጳࣻࠒḙతͰ͉ಫḙҬᒰʽḙ˄ˊ̽δᬗḨ̲ःnjᢼnj ቪҧ˞০Ҭḙ ܹ͔
"VTMJOF 4IJQQJOH 1UZ -UE ႃភḧ ḧ ᎪባḧXXX BVTMJOFTIJQQJOH DPN BV &NBJM TBMFT!BVTMJOFTIJQQQJOH DPN BV ਲ਼ ܲ ү ཌྷ ϴ ಋ ό
ϛ!औУഭۉү
ᘹү
ӨԒऔУড়ۉ ! ڎү)ᐿড়* ! ږᙕห!ᆠࠢഝ౮!ᎷӇᆠࠢσৱӪհ!
ᑓ ү ฤ
Ӓ સ ා
Й ώ ږ ᙕ
༁ ߆ Ӵ֭; 6KRS 4XHHQV 5G +XUVWYLOOH ყਪᓢѾ ٖࠉ܁Խ-ᄇ७σୄٙൟ Ⴋၗ; ! ΜЈᕊཾ!ΰϿ ᘈՍఏΰ ᘈ!!
רঈӵ