❗️ #รายงานโควิดวันนี้ (20 ก.ย. 64)
🇭🇰 [HK] ติดเชื้อใหม่ทั้งหมด +5, ติดในท้องถิ่น “ไม่มี”
🇸🇬 [SG] ติดเชื้อใหม่ทั้งหมด +1,012, ติดในท้องถิ่น +1,009
🇹🇭 [TH] ติดเชื้อใหม่ในท้องถิ่น +12,698, เสียชีวิต +106
.
====================
#ไฮไลท์
====================
🇭🇰 #ฮ่องกง
- สธ เปิดโครงการ same day ticket หรือ วอล์คอินฉีดวัคซีนโควิด ให้กับทุกกลุ่มที่สามารถฉีดวัคซีนได้แล้ว
.
🇸🇬 #สิงคโปร์
- ผู้ติดเชื้อที่รักษาตัวใน รพ มีจำนวน 873 คน (เพิ่มขึ้น 10 คน หรือ 1%) ป่วยหนัก(ต้องการอ็อกซิเจน) 118 คน (เพิ่มขึ้น 13 คน หรือ 12%) อยู่ใน ICU 21 คน (เพิ่มขึ้น 3 คน หรือ 17%)
- อาการของผู้ติดเชื้อ(ในช่วง 28 วันที่ผ่านมา): 98.1% ไม่มีอาการหรือมีอาการเล็กน้อย, 1.7% ต้องการอ็อกซิเจน, 0.2% อยู่ใน ICU, 0.04% เสียชีวิต
- คลัสเตอร์ใหญ่ที่มีการรายงาน
(1) Toa Payoh Lorong 8 Market and Food Centre (+2) รวม 41 คน
(2) Woodlands Care Home (+9) รวม 12 คน
(3) Windsor Convalescent Home (+8) รวม 10 คน
(4) My Little Campus (Yishun) (+7) รวม 11 คน
(5) Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (+3) รวม 29 คน
(6) NSL OilChem (+1) รวม 30 คน
(7) Sembcorp Marine Admiralty Yard (+3) รวม 55 คน
(8) Blue Stars Dormitory (+1) รวม 110 คน
(9) Avery Lodge Dormitory (+12) รวม 113 คน
(10) Chinatown Complex (+5) รวม 281 คน
(11) Boon Lay Bus Interchange staff (+5) รวม 242 คน
(12) All Saints Home Jurong East (+1) รวม 15 คน
(13) Punggol Bus Interchange staff (+3) รวม 70 คน
(14) Tampines Bus Interchange staff (+9) รวม 162 คน
(15) DHL Supply Chain Advanced Regional Centre (1 Greenwich Drive) (+2) รวม 92 คน
(16) Jamiyah Nursing Home (+1) รวม 15 คน
.
====================
🕰 #สถานการณ์ประจำวัน
====================
🇭🇰 #ฮ่องกง
- วันนี้ ไม่พบเคสในท้องถิ่น ติดต่อกันเป็นวันที่ 34
- พบเคส import 5 คน มาจาก
(1) พม่า
(2-3) สหรัฐอเมริกา (ฉีดไฟเซอร์จากฮ่องกงครบ 2 เข็มแล้วในเดือน พ.ค. คนนึงมีอาการ ทั้งคู่มีผลตรวจภูมิเดือน สค)
(4) ฟิลิปปินส์ (ฉีดซิโนแวคจากฟิลิปปินส์ครบ 2 เข็มแล้วในเดือน กค ไม่มีอาการ)
(5) เคนย่า (ฉีดซิโนฟาร์มจากปากีสถานครบ 2 เข็มแล้วในเดือน กค มีอาการ)
.
🇸🇬 #สิงคโปร์
- พบเคส local เพิ่มขึ้นทั้งหมด 1,009 คน, ติดในหอพักคนงาน 90 คน, เคส import เพิ่มขึ้น 3 คน
.
🇹🇭 #ไทย
- วันนี้ ผู้ติดเชื้อในท้องถิ่นจำนวน 12,698 ราย แบ่งเป็น พบจากระบบเฝ้าระวังและบริการ ฯลฯ 10,962 ราย, พบในเรือนจำ 858 ราย, ตรวจเชิงรุกในชุมชน 878 ราย; มาจากต่างประเทศ 11 คน (อิสราเอล สหรัฐอเมริกา พม่า กัมพูชา)
.
=================
💉 #สถิติฉีดวัคซีนโควิด
=================
🇭🇰 #ฮ่องกง (ณ วันที่ 19 กย 64)
#Daily
Sinovac (เข็มแรก) ~ 1,100 คน
SinoVac (เข็มที่ 2) ~ 3,900 คน
BioNTech (เข็มแรก) ~ 5,100 คน
BioNTech (เข็มที่ 2) ~ 13,400 คน
รวมฉีดทั้งสิ้น ~ 23,500 โดส
.
#Total (ตั้งแต่เริ่มโครงการในวันที่ 26 กพ 64)
Sinovac (เข็มแรก) ~ 1,597,100 คน
BioNTech (เข็มแรก) ~ 2,808,000 คน
รวม (เข็มแรก) ~ 4,405,100 คน
(~ 58% ของจำนวนประชากรทั้งหมด)
.
SinoVac (เข็มที่ 2) ~ 1,448,700 คน
BioNTech (เข็มที่2) ~ 2,526,300 คน
รวม (เข็มที่ 2) ~ 3,975,000 คน
(~ 53% ของจำนวนประชากรทั้งหมด)
.
รวมทั้งสิ้น 8,380,100 โดส แบ่งเป็น
- SinoVac 3,045,800 โดส (36%)
- BioNTech 5,334,300 โดส (64%)
.
🇸🇬 #สิงคโปร์ (ณ วันที่ 18 กย 64)
*จำนวนผู้ได้รับวัคซีนอย่างน้อย 1 เข็ม
4,574,522
*จำนวนผู้ได้รับวัคซีนครบ 2 เข็มแล้ว
4,449,437
*รวมวัคซีนที่ฉีดทั้งหมด
8,944,060 โดส
(* เฉพาะ Pfizer และ Moderna)
.
วัคซีนอื่นๆ (SinoVac Sinopharm)
ฉีดไปแล้ว 183,202 โดส ครอบคลุม 87,054 คน
.
อัตราการฉีดวัคซีนต่อจำนวนประชากร
84% อย่างน้อย 1 เข็ม
82% ครบ 2 เข็มแล้ว
.
🇹🇭 #ไทย (ณ วันที่ 19 กย 64)(เริ่มฉีด 28 กพ 64)
จำนวนผู้ได้รับวัคซีนเข็มแรกแล้ว
(ประจำวัน) 109,439 ราย
(ทั้งหมด) 29,002,572 ราย
(~ 41% ของจำนวนประชากรทั้งหมด)
.
จำนวนผู้ได้รับวัคซีนเข็มที่ 2 แล้ว
(ประจำวัน) 146,698 ราย
(ทั้งหมด) 15,118,015 ราย
(~ 22% ของจำนวนประชากรทั้งหมด)
.
จำนวนผู้ได้รับวัคซีนเข็มที่ 3 แล้ว (เริ่มฉีด 6 สค 64)
(ประจำวัน) 225 ราย
(ทั้งหมด) 621,462 ราย
.
รวมวัคซีนที่ฉีด
(ประจำวัน) 256,392 โดส
(ทั้งหมด) 44,742,049 โดส
.
================
📊 #สรุปตัวเลข
================
🇭🇰 #ฮ่องกง
ติดเชื้อสะสมทั้งหมด 12,166 (+5)
เสียชีวิต 213 (1.75%)
รักษาหาย 11,874 (97.60%)
.
🇸🇬 #สิงคโปร์
ติดเชื้อสะสมทั้งหมด 76,792 (+1,009)
เสียชีวิต 60 (0.08%)
รักษาหาย - สธ หยุดเปิดเผยข้อมูลตั้งแต่วันที่ 11 กย 64
.
🇹🇭 #ไทย
ติดเชื้อสะสมทั้งหมด 1,489,186 (+12,709)
เสียชีวิต 15,469 (+106)(1.04%)
รักษาหาย 1,341,144 (+11,125)(90.06%)
.
🌎 #ทั่วโลก
ติดเชื้อสะสมทั้งหมด 229,350,549 (+286,970)
เสียชีวิต 4,706,669 (2.05%)
รักษาหาย 206,003,925 (89.82%)
.
(หมายเหตุ: ข้อมูลของสิงคโปร์ 🇸🇬 เป็นข้อมูลของเมื่อวานนี้ เนื่องจากรายงานประจำวันของ สธ เปลี่ยนมาประกาศราวเที่ยงคืน)
🇭🇰 #covid19hongkong
🇸🇬 #covid19singapore
🇹🇭 #covid19thailand
#EatwithPalLi #พี่แป๋วพากินเที่ยวสิงคโปร์ฮ่องกง 🇸🇬🇭🇰
同時也有16部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過1萬的網紅PATCY.PATCY,也在其Youtube影片中提到,Happy Mother's Day ค่ะทุกคน ?? ของขวัญวันแม่ที่ดีที่สุดคือ การดูแลสายตาให้ท่านมองชัดในทุกๆ วัน ? ใครกำลังมองหาร้านตัดแว่นดีๆ พัชแนะนำที่นี่เลยค่ะ Fa...
「day care centre」的推薦目錄:
- 關於day care centre 在 Eat with Pal Li - พี่แป๋วพากินเที่ยวสิงคโปร์ฮ่องกง Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於day care centre 在 DJ荳子 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於day care centre 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於day care centre 在 PATCY.PATCY Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於day care centre 在 LADIES FIRST Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於day care centre 在 LADIES FIRST Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於day care centre 在 Bethel Day Care Centre 伯特利日间托儿中心 的評價
day care centre 在 DJ荳子 Facebook 的最佳解答
跟著孩子)停課不停學不停吃(哼)
6月節目歌單【好事自在Latte】
06/30星期三
14:04:04拉拉隊/徐佳瑩
14:07:59Green Light/少女時代
14:10:53無畏的明天/Bii畢書盡
14:16:00如果還有明天/賴銘偉
14:20:40Let It Go/Idina Menzel
14:24:29別弄花我的妝/關詩敏/Karencic
14:31:01Dr. Jolin/蔡依林
14:34:48DJ Got Us Falling In Love/Usher/Pitbull
14:38:48離開後/白安
14:45:22很好/孫燕姿
14:49:34小情歌/倖田來未
14:55:12主打歌/屁孩/Ryan/rgry
15:04:15批/蘇明淵
15:08:53阿峰今天沒有來/萬芳
15:13:57Whole World Around/Daniel Powter
15:20:53浪費時間/9m88
15:25:06那我先/孫盛希/呂士軒
15:29:14Send My Love/Adele
15:35:52Heartbreak Anthem/Galantis/David Guta/Little Mix
15:38:53愛人錯過/告五人
15:43:35走樣/張宇
15:50:16Flower/尹美萊
15:55:13這個時代/Suming
16:04:03快樂的感覺永遠一樣/小虎隊
16:08:28喜歡你怎麼辦/王心凌
16:12:45Wrapped Up/Olly Murs/Travi
16:17:24我還是一個人/黃偉晉
16:21:42我美麗的愛情/許慧欣
16:26:32Stand Out Fit In/ONE OK ROCK
16:33:55觸/SUPER JUNIOR-D&E
16:37:16你懂個屁/李玖哲/Flowsik
16:40:45擁抱你/劉思涵
16:47:10我愛夏卡爾/江美琪
16:50:53Snow Dance/Dreams Come True
16:55:12沒感覺/宇宙人
06/29星期二
14:04:00What The Hell/Avril Lavigne
14:08:34百年孤寂/胖虎樂團
14:13:12給自己的歌/小男孩樂團
14:18:215排12座/郁可唯
14:22:40哭笑不得/柯有倫
14:27:18South of the Border/Ed Sheeran
14:32:33EVERYDAY/WINNER
14:35:55ROMANLESS/婁峻碩
14:40:15秘密/藍又時
14:47:11在我們的星球眼淚不超過三秒鐘/鄧福如
14:50:35打哈欠的貓/羊毛與千葉花
14:54:45Clocks/Coldplay
15:04:12一世人的代誌/浩子
15:08:10愛你在每一天/李玟
15:12:30Get The Party Started/P!nk
15:18:04愛上陌生人/廖柏雅
15:21:54I Love You/Axwell
15:29:26Don't fight the feeling/EXO
15:33:24祝我生日快樂/溫嵐
15:37:39好不容易/方大同
15:43:41Get Over/Dream
15:48:51天亮以後說分手/信樂團
15:53:56告白/嚴正嵐
16:04:05為你我受冷風吹/林憶蓮
16:08:27When I Was Your Man/Bruno Mars
16:11:54Changing/王艷薇/高爾宣
16:16:28AY BY DAY/Wanna One
16:19:38一杯起/葛仲珊
16:24:08High咖/張惠妹
16:29:52水母、流星/大塚 愛
16:34:40微光/曹楊
16:39:11真世界/伍佰
16:45:22愛不愛我/大嘴巴
16:48:56kiss you feat. L.O.W.D./EXILE 放浪兄弟
16:54:51Faded/Alan Walker
06/28星期一
14:04:04Save Your Tears/The Weeknd/Ariana Grunda
14:07:51糖衣/Matzka/Karencic
14:11:38穿越時空愛上你/自由發揮
14:17:35飄洋過海來看你/梁靜茹/艾怡良
14:22:15愛你3000/潘瑋柏/黃旭,肖恩恩
14:26:32First Love/EXO
14:33:52New York City Boy/Pet Shop Boys
14:37:10Party All Night/N2O
14:41:03因為你愛我/王若琳
14:48:26DIRTY OLD MAN~再見夏天~/南方之星
14:53:52節日快樂/楊丞琳
15:04:15為愛做憨人/蕭煌奇
15:08:36自己照顧自己/萬芳
15:12:40If We Ever Meet Again/Timbaland/Katy Perry
15:20:26Sway/Pussycat Dolls
15:23:40哈你歌/庾澄慶/小S
15:27:52塞車恰恰/旺福
15:34:59婦女新知 2021/莫文蔚
15:38:54我想你了/Bii畢書盡
15:43:28女人心事/陶晶瑩
15:49:43Your Man/Shinhwa
15:53:36華麗的冒險/陳綺貞
16:04:03明天會更好/大合唱
16:09:42Heal The World/Michael Jackson
16:15:24攝焦距離/李芷婷
16:20:01I saw her standing there/The Beatles
16:23:10小護士/五月天
16:25:56Party Days/魏如昀
16:33:14如果能幸福/周興哲
16:37:32無賴/戴佩妮
16:42:40Genie/少女時代
16:49:07You Are My Only One/袁婭維/小宇-宋念宇
16:53:40Take You Dancing/Jason Derulo
16:57:07Ko So Ko So/倖田來未
06/25星期五
14:04:00靜止/楊乃文
14:07:33SKYWALKER /怕胖團
14:11:54In Your Arms/Backstreet Boys
14:16:58好好(想把你寫成一首歌)/五月天
14:20:08其實我一直想對你說/莫文蔚
14:24:31100 Years /Five For Fight
14:32:12Swimming Pool/Red Velvet
14:35:28Go/吳映潔
14:39:51一起吃苦的幸福/周華健
14:46:00低潮期/丁世光/葉喜兒
14:50:06Dear Future Husband/Meghan Trainor
14:53:27今天是情人節/莊鵑瑛
15:04:12麻糬Match/黃品源/萬芳
15:08:06怪物/星野 源
15:10:47環遊世界/旺福
15:16:47今天我生日/劉若英
15:20:49全部都給你/吳克群
15:24:57Anything But Ordinary/Avril Lavigne
15:32:45Woosa Woosa/王心凌
15:35:59All night/少女時代
15:39:59不缺/光良
15:46:09So Good To Me/瘦子E.SO
15:48:46Where's your love/Craig David
15:53:02替身/周蕙
16:04:05你把我灌醉/黃大煒
16:09:06離開我的依賴/王艷薇
16:13:03Wrecking Ball/Miley Cyrus
16:18:26小人國/小人
16:21:46Flamingo/米津玄師
16:25:13自成一派/鄧福如
16:31:46凌晨三點鐘/張智成
16:36:35我們沒有愛錯/潘嘉麗
16:42:11Yeah/Usher
16:49:35賣花的人/魏如萱/鮮于貞娥
16:54:12Everything To Lose/Dido
06/24星期四
14:03:57約定/李洪基
14:08:03在我們之間/蘇打綠
14:11:37Happy Hours/蘇慧倫
14:17:38皆可/田馥甄
14:21:58他一定很愛你/阿杜
14:25:25Tell me a lie/One Direction
14:32:38ATTENTION/Charlie Puth
14:36:01Pray For Me/盧栗莉/BRAD
14:39:55給你/陳奕迅
14:47:00跟你借的幸福/蔡健雅
14:52:45戀人/氣志團
15:04:22那種感覺/陳嘉唯
15:07:51Come On Get Up/Janet Jackson
15:12:40我要給你/庾澄慶/吳莫愁
15:19:30抱歉 我不抱歉/A-Lin
15:23:45一千個傷心的理由/張學友
15:28:16Something/東方神起
15:37:00美好的夢/YONA YONA WEEKENDERS
15:42:23你就是吃定我/楊乃文
15:46:58沒有傘的人/楊永聰
15:52:2534+35/Ariana Grande/Doja Cat/Meghen the stallion
15:56:23哄我入睡/品冠
16:03:57永遠不回頭/張雨生/王傑/邰正宵/苗可傑
16:09:06We Will Rock You/Queen
16:11:05無限大/孫燕姿
16:16:55因為你/杜德偉/林凡
16:20:45I Turn To You/Christina Aguilera
16:25:09黑白灰/方大同
16:32:49不管他嗑了什麼都給我來一點/J.Sheon/BCW
16:36:14Finesse/Bruno Mars/CardB
16:40:44水藍色眼淚/張惠妹
16:48:59我的菜/魏如萱/影子計劃
16:52:46Up&Up/Coldplay
06/23星期三
14:04:07Hot In Here/Nelly
14:08:14渴望/SUPER JUNIOR
14:11:57女力/溫嵐
14:16:10城裡的月光/許美靜
14:21:09唯一/告五人
14:25:56As Long As You Love Me/Justin Bieber
14:33:25別再問我怎麼辦/關詩敏
14:36:15Bootylicious/Destiny's Child
14:40:43似曾相識/陶吉吉
14:47:12你懂我說的嗎/呂薔
14:53:39TAWAWA HitParade/久保田利伸
15:04:05謝謝再聯絡/謝金燕
15:08:08你的男人/東方神起
15:11:14No More Cryin'/李玖哲
15:17:52You Are/于文文
15:22:52某年某月某一天/Energy
15:26:55Xscape/Michael Jackson
15:35:40Marry The Night/Kylie Minogue
15:40:11心跳/弦子
15:43:58半島鐵盒/周杰倫
15:50:40Sky High/Orange Range
15:56:01Love is Love/楊丞琳
16:04:12故事/紅孩兒
16:08:39我們 仍舊/V6
16:13:24沒什麼不能愛/曾沛慈
16:19:01留下/林芯儀
16:23:21演員/薛之謙
16:27:47Where You Stand/Travis
16:35:00約嗎/KIMBERLEY 陳芳語
16:38:06What U Workin' With?/Gwen Stefani
16:41:48小時候/五月天
16:50:12奶奶/魏如萱
16:55:40執著/酷懶之味
06/22星期二
14:03:57怎麼辦/S.H.E
14:07:55Hit That Drum/Red Velvet
14:11:24飯隨愛人/邱鋒澤
14:15:57戀曲 L.A./袁惟仁
14:20:12Luka/Suzanne Vega
14:23:15愛的數學家/蔣卓嘉
14:29:07Con Calma/Daddy Yankee
14:32:06暢一首歌/鄭元暢
14:35:47心酸的浪漫/那英
14:42:36不換/熊天平
14:47:59天機/MP 魔幻力量
14:52:48Do It Again/濱崎步
15:04:22鹹汫/曹雅雯
15:08:54Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word/Mary J. Blige
15:12:39通勤打理/呂士軒
15:17:28讓我感受這夜晚/唐貓
15:21:02Turn Off The Light/Nelly Furtado
15:24:52我的Fu/羅時豐
15:33:26Where Are We Now/MAMAMOO
15:37:03孤獨患者/陳奕迅
15:42:07DAYA/王艷薇
15:46:34魚/陳綺貞
15:51:26一直都要微笑著/Mr.Children
15:55:02一起出發吧/郭靜/曾靜玟
16:03:57說你愛我/陳淑樺
16:08:02I Swear /All 4 one
16:12:19孔雀魚/傅健穎
16:17:43No New Friends/LSD
16:20:46假高潮/Spark/Karencici
16:23:44Rock Ur Body/VIXX
16:31:14你不在/王力宏
16:35:46急不來的,就讓它慢吧/蔡佩軒
16:40:42不需要翅膀/AKB48
16:48:24四月是適合說謊的日子/魏如萱/裘德
16:53:36Woman/Maroon 5
06/21星期一
14:04:079453/玖壹壹
14:08:18野蠻遊戲/蔡依林
14:12:26Get Over You/Sophie Ellis
14:16:45離開你以後/周興哲
14:21:37忘了我也不錯/王心凌
14:26:10灑向世界的愛/Team Never Stop
14:32:59I Wanna Holiday /五堅情
14:36:09Lay Me Down/Avicii
14:39:49眷戀/順子
14:47:34U/劉以豪
14:50:42半生熟/品冠/戴佩妮
14:55:12ONE TIME/SoulJa
15:04:05爸爸/李千娜
15:08:47急不來的,就讓它慢吧/蔡佩軒
15:12:18Hey Whatever/Westlife
15:18:59Crying In The Rain /Carole King
15:21:36一起去跑步/宇宙人
15:26:53Twenty-three/IU
15:34:40一切都是為了與你相遇/棉花糖
15:39:09葉子/庾澄慶
15:43:14Fire/Babyface
15:48:24I Want Love/Jessie J
15:51:43愛得起/安心亞
15:56:02你好嗎/周杰倫
16:04:12一想到你呀/張惠妹
16:08:49無價快樂/李玖哲/Melody
16:12:33Show Me What You've Got/安室奈美惠
16:17:10餘額/孫燕姿
16:20:28如果我變成回憶/TANK
16:25:01Peer Pressure/James Bay
16:31:47Quando Quando Quando/Engel
16:35:38愛琴海/李玟
16:38:57等著等著就老了/李榮浩
16:46:11HAVE A NICE DAY/魏如萱
16:50:47老實情人/鼓鼓
16:55:17Love Fiction/ULALA SESSION
06/18星期五
14:03:57Beautiful days/Love Psychedelico
14:07:57愛自由/游智淇
14:10:55山頂黑狗兄/庾澄慶
14:16:44太傻/丁噹
14:21:07輸給你/張立昂
14:25:05My Dilemma/Selena Gomez
14:31:54煮愛/大淵/阿部瑪利亞
14:35:04Party Rock Anthem/LMFAO/Lauren
14:40:08愛的牧羊人/伍思凱
14:46:08如果可以/9m88
14:50:28Just the way you are/Julee Karan
14:55:41Love Fiction/ULALA SESSION
15:04:22今晚我要唱歌/江蕙/任賢齊
15:08:28沙發裡有沙發Radio/魚丁糸
15:12:10No Excuses/Meghan Trainor
15:17:42累格/戴愛玲
15:22:23如果這首是遺言/麋先生Mixer
15:26:38Talk To Me/ZAYN 贊恩
15:31:52小幸運/田馥甄
15:36:05給妹妹/Lulu黃路梓茵
15:40:38O -正.反.合./東方神起
15:46:40開心餐廳/盧廣仲
15:50:16彩虹金剛/孫燕姿
15:54:26Can You Keep A Secret/宇多田 光
16:03:57今晚我是你的DJ/鄺美雲
16:08:29I'm your dog/平井堅
16:11:27荷里活/曹格
16:16:16Please Me/Cardi B/Bruno Mars
16:19:44Trash Talk/蔡詩芸/瘦子E.SO
16:22:44一直都愛著你/小宇-宋念宇
16:29:48讓每個人都心碎/張惠妹
16:34:49怎麼了/周興哲
16:40:38Queen/Shawn Mendes
16:46:04女大田力小/蔡旻佑/天心
16:49:25Wanna Be (My Baby)/Wanna One
16:53:02Live Your Life/T.I
06/17星期四
14:04:00Act My Age/One Direction
14:07:28好時代/任賢齊
14:11:18Runaway/伊蕾莎樂團
14:17:22我的愛人/柏霖
14:21:22淚崩了/亦帆
14:26:37量力的人/堂本剛
14:36:00Candy Boy/TWICE
14:38:40來追我男友吧/安心亞
14:42:49放我的真心在你的手心/張智成
14:48:35Breathe Again/Toni Braxton
14:53:07後遺症/黃美珍
14:56:49原來/四分衛
15:04:12代誌大條囉/黃妃
15:08:31Wow! Wow!! Wow!!!/SUPER JUNIOR
15:11:51嫁給我好嗎/Y.I.Y.O
15:18:07寫給明天的情書/閻奕格
15:22:09來不及/林宥嘉
15:27:54take you away/Michael Buble
15:35:20ALL ABOUT TONIGHT/THE RAMPAGE from放浪兄弟
15:39:13一支獨秀/羅志祥
15:42:49錯的人/蕭亞軒
15:49:28It Girl/Pharrell Williams
15:54:25倒影/程依禾/小無
16:04:05小薇/黃品源
16:07:26莎呦娜啦/桑田佳祐
16:12:07飛向你飛向我/小旺福
16:17:54愛我還是他/陶吉吉
16:22:45別吃到我的口紅/呂薔
16:26:10My Way/Calvin Harris
16:32:06It Must Have Been Love/Roxette
16:36:20愛情遊戲/MOJO
16:40:03也許/林憶蓮
16:47:32If You Had My Love/Jennifer Lopez
16:51:51愛已死/J.Sheon
16:56:14U Got Me/GOT7
06/16星期三
14:04:04甩/徐若瑄
14:07:33Virgin Cat/土屋安娜
14:11:07I Don't Care/Ed Sheeran
14:15:56半生緣/莫文蔚
14:20:50天堂/光良
14:24:13What About Us/P!nk
14:32:21Check On It/Beyonce
14:35:4980/婁峻碩/高爾宣
14:38:57這樣你還要愛我嗎/張惠妹
14:46:49OAOA/五月天
14:52:41No Ordinary Love/Sade
15:04:15港都/浪花兄弟 Darren
15:08:07Kids/Robbie Williams
15:12:15新世界/告五人/阿爆(阿仍仍)
15:19:06瑜珈/林采欣
15:23:49在凌晨/張震嶽
15:29:11I Will Be With You/Love Psychedelico
15:36:17Call me Cruella/Florence + The Machine
15:38:35我愛你/蕭賀碩
15:42:39最好的我/龔芝怡/房祖名
15:49:06喜歡寂寞/蘇打綠
15:54:13Love & Soul/Clon 酷龍
16:04:04RAIN/范曉萱
16:08:48台北紐約/馬念先
16:13:25Rehab/Amy Winehouse
16:18:43母老虎/MC HotDog
16:23:04That's My Girl/Fifth Harmony
16:26:31How You Like That/BLACKPINK
16:33:02若你真的有想過/白安
16:37:36第二順位/潘瑋柏
16:42:21Won't Go Home Without You/Maroon 5
16:48:08出去走走/黃明志
16:52:15Free/Lenka
16:55:47OLA!!/柚子
06/15星期二
14:04:00Moves/Olly Murs
14:07:26舞林正傳/郭富城
14:11:09怦然心動/AOA
14:15:46因為是你/韋禮安
14:19:18小小/戴佩妮
14:23:03Chasing Cars/Snow Patrol
14:29:29Bloom/Troye Sivan
14:33:08Go/吳映潔
14:37:34我多麼羨慕你/江美琪
14:44:21 陽光照耀的地方/MISIA
14:49:36甩啦甩啦/蕭亞軒
14:54:21鬥牛/華晨宇
15:04:12寶島有神/浩子/臭寶
15:08:11I Drove All Night/Celine Dion
15:12:05Party Time/李玟
15:17:22最笨的人是我/方炯鑌
15:22:19兩全/艾薇Ivy
15:26:18Can't Fight The Moonligh/LeAnn Rimes
15:34:31HAPPEN/Heize
15:37:41不用大腦/宇宙人
15:42:14安靜/周杰倫
15:49:17在我身邊/德永英明
15:56:18朋友朋友/leo王
16:04:05愛我/柯以敏
16:08:21Wait/B1A4
16:12:34愛不需要裝乖/謝和弦/王詩安
16:18:09丁達爾的光/吳克群
16:22:09Lush Life/Zara Larsson
16:25:33廣角美女/溫嵐
16:30:46倒帶人生/陳奕迅
16:36:13I Miss You/Adele
16:42:24我還年輕 我還年輕/老王樂隊
16:50:09Kiss Me/MONKEY MAJIK
16:55:21Suger Suger_多情會有問題/馬毓芬
06/14星期一
14:04:04超能力/鄧紫棋
14:08:12Mama/Jonas Blue
14:11:28Fly Tonight/袁詠琳
14:15:43年輪說/吳青峰
14:20:16愛了就懂了/蘇慧倫
14:24:28Knock Knock/N.Flying
14:31:30回到現在/來吧!焙焙!
14:35:37Rock Dj/Robbie Williams
14:40:16不愛了/李玖哲
14:46:55終於了解自由/周興哲
14:52:36Say The World/安室奈美惠
15:04:15上水的輪迴/黃妃
15:08:40Born To Be My Baby/Bon Jovi
15:13:20給自己的歌/小男孩樂團
15:20:27我瘋你/伍家輝
15:24:07SOMEONE SINGING ALONG/James Blunt
15:27:38吉他手/陳綺貞
15:33:46不想努力了/安婕希
15:37:26我愛的人/林宥嘉
15:41:57U (Rearranged)/SUPER JUNIOR
15:48:28Monster/Lady Gaga
15:53:18大不了就分手/李英宏
16:04:04情敵貝多芬/王力宏
16:08:00滿滿的都是愛/梁靜茹
16:11:50Happy/少女時代-太妍
16:16:57Can I Get a Moment?/Jessica Mauboy
16:20:25Troubling You, Troubling Me/王艷薇
16:23:16附心漢/周湯豪
16:30:19遊牧民族/梁詠琪
16:35:26暗戀/張智成
16:40:18LOVE TRIP/AKB48
16:47:50Hand In My Pocket/Alanis Morisset
16:52:13淺色的那條/Tizzy Bac
06/11星期五
14:04:00Who's Laughing Now/Ava Max
14:07:17要我怎麼辦/李榮浩
14:11:09天地一鬥/周杰倫/Kobe Bryan
14:15:36不完美的完美/朱俐靜
14:20:06太美麗/陶吉吉
14:24:57Everytime/EXO-CHEN/PUNCH
14:31:53偶爾偷懶/Lulu黃路梓茵
14:35:46牽牛花/錦繡二重唱/阿牛
14:39:53人魚/柴崎幸
14:45:45非法入境/汪佩蓉
14:50:44Dancing With A Stranger/Sam Smith
14:54:14不如先慶祝能在一起/蕭亞軒
15:04:12寫乎你的歌/許富凱
15:08:34幸福了 然後呢/A-Lin
15:13:41Try/P!nk 紅粉佳人
15:20:46Matches/Britney Spears/Backstreet Boys
15:23:43夠了/羅志祥
15:27:40國王皇后/大嘴巴
15:34:34茶葉蛋/小男孩樂團
15:38:40我的愛/周元
15:43:12鬼打牆/黃鴻升
15:51:23嶄新的每一天/手島 葵
15:55:23皇后之歌/B.A.D
16:03:56手牽手/大合唱
16:09:23在懂愛之前/Aimyon 愛繆
16:13:50光芒/F.I.R.飛兒樂團
16:18:51Without You/Avicii/Sandro
16:21:50名人錄/林凡
16:25:40感覺犯/MP 魔幻力量
16:33:30出界/鄭秀文
16:37:47再見的方式/Super Junior-圭賢
16:43:23妳是我的花朵/伍佰
16:49:34Like A Prayer/Madonna
16:55:31壞女孩/Tension
06/10星期四
14:03:57Know Your Enemy/Green Day
14:07:28加油加油/NEWS
14:11:23綠光/孫燕姿
14:16:16裹著心的光/林俊傑
14:21:01還剩下什麼/蘇慧倫/羽泉
14:25:05Tell Me If You Wanna Go/Keira Knightley
14:32:45CUPID/蔡佩軒
14:36:2324K Magic/Bruno Mars
14:40:52懼高症/徐佳瑩
14:50:59首爾這裡/ROY KIM
14:56:06句號/鄧紫棋
15:04:22呵咾甲會喋舌/豬哥亮
15:07:14You've Got A Friend In Me/Michael Buble
15:10:54Hello Bye Bye/9m88
15:16:43不屑紀念/吳克群
15:21:20無人知曉/田馥甄
15:25:59Unfinished Songs/Celine Dion
15:34:36不思議/星野源
15:39:58如果你愛我/艾怡良
15:43:52走散/曹楊
15:49:37Oh!/少女時代
15:54:06迷途羔羊/兄弟本色
16:03:57從前情人好嗎/古巨基
16:07:17Scream/安溥
16:10:33Bye Babe/10CM/EXO-CHEN
16:15:25不想讓你知道/周蕙
16:19:46A Whole New World/ZAYN/Zhavi Ward
16:23:39要不要/于文文
16:31:07香火/小春Kenzy/李英宏
16:35:31Our Song/Anne-Marie/Nial Horance
16:38:47白色婚禮/許哲珮
16:47:00溫度/929
16:53:52Happy Song/Mr.Children
06/09星期三
14:04:07甜秘密/蔡依林
14:08:00Sweet Impact/BoA
14:13:22翻白眼/八三夭
14:18:00果不其然/吳柏蒼
14:21:56百年孤寂/王菲
14:27:19Move Your Body/Sia
14:34:57漂亮女孩/小宇-宋念宇
14:38:10Crush on You/IZ
14:41:53你存在/梁文音
14:48:29秋鄉/魏如昀
14:53:37I Feel For You/Chaka Khan
15:04:05爽到你艱苦到我/蔡秋鳳
15:08:28Million Dollar Bill/Whitney Houston
15:11:53無所謂/5566
15:19:08變成陌生人/王心凌
15:23:32愛上哀傷/蔣卓嘉
15:27:13CROOKED/G-DRAGON
15:35:57Broken Heart of Gold/ONE OK ROCK
15:40:34紙飛機/林憶蓮
15:44:23想你/范曉萱
15:51:40在我成為井井有條的大人之前/郭采潔
15:55:45Beautiful World/V6
16:04:03對你愛不完/郭富城
16:08:52突然/Zard
16:13:31匆忙人生/楊丞琳
16:18:07絕美/艾薇Ivy
16:22:21天高地厚/信樂團
16:27:14Forever Medley/Take Tha
16:36:03蘇菲阿姨/大淵
16:38:44Flashing Lights/Kanye West
16:43:04當我們一起走過/蘇打綠
16:49:45幸福彩虹/Under Lover
16:53:38Kingdom of The Pretty/Bonnie Bailey
06/08星期二
14:03:57好想放假/蔡健雅
14:07:51Stay with me/島谷瞳
14:13:10Vacation/G.R.L.
14:18:12想自由/林宥嘉
14:22:41我不需要/邱振哲
14:26:59I Got You/Leona Lewis
14:34:34MR.RIGHT/潘瑋柏
14:37:59Turn Up The Radio/Madonna
14:41:51可惜你不在/戴愛玲
14:49:46容光/容祖兒
14:54:44Dancing King/EXO/劉在錫
15:04:22我愛的就是你/蕭煌奇
15:08:29愛情遊戲/MOJO
15:11:52Love In The First Degree/Bananarama
15:16:51反方向/光良
15:21:22難以說出口/柚子
15:26:09滿滿的都是愛/梁靜茹
15:34:24Advice/泰民
15:37:37得獎的是/自由發揮
15:41:12不自由/家家
15:48:42滿座/李榮浩
15:54:30TAKE ME AWAY/Janet Jackson
16:03:57花雨夜/張清芳
16:08:41Love Is/CNBLUE
16:12:43Dear Life/郁可唯
16:17:21U sTuPiD/Karencici/OZI
16:20:01別像個男人/劉家凱/Matzka
16:24:58Beautiful Girls/Sean Kingston
16:32:26顯微鏡下的愛情/黃義達
16:37:24流星/中島美嘉
16:43:45KEY/婁峻碩
16:51:07愈慢愈美麗/蔡依林
16:54:34Kingdom of The Pretty/Bonnie Bailey
06/07星期一
14:04:07Cake By The Ocean/DNCE
14:08:08甜蜜病症/椎名林檎
14:12:31大睡之歌/旺福
14:18:41洋蔥/楊宗緯
14:22:59千千萬萬個你/周蕙
14:27:31Stand by me/Freedom Orchest
14:35:04I'm Not A Little Girl/李芷婷
14:38:35What You Need/Britney Spears
14:42:21其實不想走/周華健
14:49:20為了我道別/DIA
14:54:19我不壞你不愛/鼓鼓
15:04:05寶島曼波/洪榮宏/阿信
15:07:23Te Aviso Te Anuncio /Shakira
15:11:04時尚狗/伍佰
15:18:55給妳們/萬芳
15:22:37I Believe/范逸臣
15:27:33Sweet Room/BEAST
15:36:24如佼似漆/黃子佼
15:39:32酸甜/S.H.E/飛輪海
15:43:19Push The Button/Sugababes
15:52:18你是我最愛的人/王菀之
15:56:21Don't remind me/w-inds.
16:04:03淚海/許茹芸
16:08:52ris/Ronan Keating
16:12:59D逃/吳汶芳
16:19:03愛她沒的救/杜德偉/品冠/曹格/阿牛
16:22:58愛情有你/陳漢典
16:26:13Hot Stuff/Donna Summer
16:33:32鯨落/林采欣
16:37:43她說/林俊傑
16:43:26聽到這首歌就回來/2PM
16:48:50Lights Up/方大同
16:53:44Kiss Me/MONKEY MAJIK
06/04星期五
14:04:04Beat Of My Heart/Hilary Duff
14:07:23呼呼/安心亞
14:10:42WuHa/潘瑋柏
14:15:55去海邊/鄭興
14:20:08留不住的故事/張清芳
14:24:40Hot Stuff/DAVICHI
14:32:11I Wanna Holiday/五堅情
14:35:13Let's Get Loud/Jennifer Lopez
14:39:39又不是這樣就不孤獨/嚴爵
14:48:40開始總是下著雨/堂本剛
14:54:02猴籠/蕭敬騰
15:04:13風吹沙/黃乙玲 feat. 陳盈潔
15:09:00呼吸/J.Sheon
15:12:28Vanessa/M-Flo
15:19:35沒那種命/陳小春
15:24:12為你幸福過的我/戴愛玲
15:28:36青春 tell me what it is/SF9
15:34:32說實話/彭佳慧
15:39:24You Should Be Dancing/Bee Gees
15:43:37一路順風/草蜢
15:52:54美妙生活/林宥嘉
15:57:02Bizarre Love Triangle/Frente
16:04:03悶/王菲
16:08:05Better Dayz/頑童MJ116/張惠妹
16:12:27The Centre Of The Heart/Roxette
16:17:06How can I love the heart that the one I love/AKMU
16:21:42練習/劉德華
16:26:04偷偷愛/方炯鑌
16:33:35Jalebi Baby/ Tesher/Jason Derluro
16:36:38嘿/杜德偉
16:40:23我等你/劉若英
16:48:05愛情你比我想的閣較偉大/茄子蛋
16:51:56Dangerous/Michael Jackson
06/03星期四
14:04:07心情High翻天/mihimaru GT 大和美姬丸
14:08:12請你嫁給我/韋禮安
14:11:48漂亮女孩/小宇-宋念宇
14:16:37別對我說以後/邱鋒澤
14:20:24Last One/Youme/Joosuc
14:24:11Angeline/陶吉吉
14:32:48Lifestlye/Jason Derulo
14:35:23管他啦/Matzka
14:39:53我要的幸福/孫燕姿
14:48:54彩虹/動力火車
14:53:29Try It/回聲樂團
14:56:47Candyman/Christina Aguilera
15:04:05愛情限時批/伍佰/萬芳
15:07:53Nobody Wants To Be Lonely/Ricky Martin
15:11:55猜猜/張語噥/Barry Chan
15:17:20青春有你2021/蔡佩軒
15:21:18她愛了我好久/蘇永康
15:26:21Girls Like You/Maroon 5
15:34:46更好的日子/絢香
15:38:48 我是幸福的/梁靜茹
15:45:06The Sign/Ace Of Base
15:51:14不是你的錯/丁噹
15:55:35我就是了不起/泫雅/BTOB-鄭鎰
16:04:12放一顆心/杜德偉
16:08:50唯一/告五人
16:13:07Because we can/Bon Jovi
16:18:40Don't Wanna Lie/派偉俊/8lak,
16:21:36狂想.曲/蕭亞軒
16:25:17Angel In Your Eyes/LSD
16:32:21May I Love You/張智成
16:36:47想見你想見你想見你/八三夭
16:41:32Zimzalabim/Red Velvet
16:46:38Joyful/倖田來未
16:51:29Fly Away/F.I.R.飛兒樂團
16:56:00Teeth/5 Seconds Of Summer
06/02星期三
14:03:57廚房/星野 源
14:08:35健身房男孩/自然捲
14:12:12Kung Fu Fighting/The Vamps
14:16:32美麗的時刻/閻奕格
14:18:38戀上另一個人/游鴻明
14:23:41Something Great/One Direction
14:31:19對愛入座/蔡佩軒/屁孩
14:34:43ANY SONG/ZICO
14:39:21模特/李榮浩
14:47:38六月/陳昇
14:54:14WE STARTED NOTHING/聽聽樂團
15:04:22噶瑪蘭的風吹飛懸懸/楊肅浩
15:08:53故鄉普悠瑪/陳建年
15:15:16紀念日/moumoon
15:23:32超完美地獄/郭采潔
15:27:26Mr. Almost/Meghan Trainor
15:30:39China Reggaeton/黃明志/黃秋生
15:38:43Run/One Republic
15:42:06不要愛我/莫文蔚
15:48:57第三人稱/蔡依林
15:54:29Paparazzi/FTISLAND
16:03:56流浪的小孩/伊能靜
16:08:58愛情血型ABO/NEWS
16:13:41愛之船/馬念先
16:18:34沒資格難過/張信哲
16:22:44無賴/戴佩妮
16:27:33Ur My Radio/Daniel Powter
16:34:52WAIT/瘦子E.SO
16:37:59Get Ur Freak On/Missy Elliott
16:42:21失落沙洲/徐佳瑩
16:50:40Is She Really Going Out/Sugar Ray
16:54:46妳, 這個小東西/小男孩樂團
06/01星期二
14:04:07Waterfalls/TLC
14:09:18Over The Moon/KIMBERLEY 陳芳語
14:13:11給你抱抱/李玖哲
14:17:36難題/巴奈
14:21:35Ordinary People/John Legend
14:26:43最想念的季節/品冠
14:34:59Backseat Driver/TobyMac/Hollyn
14:38:30心電心/王心凌
14:42:36天真有邪/林宥嘉
14:49:51Moving On/BTS
14:55:21曖昧/楊丞琳
15:04:05紅帖仔/黃妃
15:08:14Flower/尹美萊
15:12:21狂熱/蘇打綠
15:17:16Ring Ring Ring/S.H.E
15:21:01Answer The Phone/Sugar Ray
15:25:12喂,再看我一遍/麋先生Mixer
15:33:31Closed Ending/SHAUN
15:37:52戀戀真言/蘇慧倫
15:41:57搖落/兄弟本色
15:49:44閃爍的愛/小田和正
15:54:58就讓我像個孩子一樣/白安
16:04:12最後一夜/蔡琴
16:08:54完美遺憾/動力火車
16:12:29Mr. Blue Sky/Lily Allen
16:17:42Growl/EXO
16:21:06大特醉/呂士軒
16:24:10一杯起/葛仲珊
16:32:17愛到站了/李千娜
16:35:55淚光閃閃/黃品源
16:41:01Week End/星野 源
16:50:09Run/One Republic
16:53:09無樂不作/范逸臣
16:56:00Viva La Megababes/hampoo
#蛋糕 #飯後甜點
#歌單 #好事989BESTRADIO
#DoMyBest #宅在家我可以
day care centre 在 江魔的魔界(Kong Keen Yung 江健勇) Facebook 的最佳貼文
這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。(加拿大法院鏈接在此:https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8)
這位法王的桃色事件,我是幾年前才聽到。但,藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞,我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過,也有一些活佛跟她表白。(這不只是她,其他地方我也聽過不少)
這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。
很多時候發生這種事情,信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇,或者說她們也精神病,或者說她們撒謊。
我不排除有這種可能性,但,多過一位,甚至多位出來指證的時候,我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。
大寶法王的桃色事件,最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒,第二位是香港的女出家人,現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。
對大寶法王信徒來說,這一次的比較麻煩,因為是有孩子的。(關於有孩子的,我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時,就有聽聞)
如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA,這對法王和他的信徒來說,會很尷尬和矛盾,因為做或不做,都死。
你若問我,我覺得『人數是有力量的』,同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來,是不出奇的。
我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒,如果你們真的愛佛教,先別說批判,但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議,你是間接害了佛教。
(下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容,當中有很多細節。)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
F. Delay / Prejudice
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).
[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.
[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.
[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.
[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.
BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.
[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.
[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.
[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.
[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.
[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.
[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.
[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.
[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.
[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.
[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.
[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.
[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:
a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;
b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;
c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;
d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.
[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.
[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.
[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.
[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:
I will definitely find a way to meet her
And you
Remember to take care of yourself if something happens
[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.
[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.
[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.
[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.
[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.
[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:
3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person
(a) is married to another person, or
(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and
(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.
[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).
[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.
[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.
[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.
[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.
[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.
[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.
[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.
[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.
[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.
[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.
[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:
[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.
[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:
1. Shelter:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?
2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?
3. Services:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals;
(b) washing and mending clothes;
(c) shopping;
(d) household maintenance; and
(e) any other domestic services?
4. Social:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?
(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?
5. Societal:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?
6. Support (economic):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?
7. Children:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?
[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).
[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:
[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.
[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.
[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.
[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:
[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.
[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:
a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.
b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.
c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.
d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.
e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.
f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.
g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.
[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.
[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.
[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.
[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).
[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.
[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.
[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.
[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.
[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.
[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.
[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.
[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:
[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.
[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.
[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.
[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:
[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.
[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:
[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …
[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.
[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.
F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.
[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.
[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.
[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.
[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.
[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.
[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.
[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.
[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.
CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.
[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.
[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.
“Master Elwood”
day care centre 在 PATCY.PATCY Youtube 的精選貼文
Happy Mother's Day ค่ะทุกคน ??
ของขวัญวันแม่ที่ดีที่สุดคือ การดูแลสายตาให้ท่านมองชัดในทุกๆ วัน ?
ใครกำลังมองหาร้านตัดแว่นดีๆ พัชแนะนำที่นี่เลยค่ะ Family eye care และ Progressive Lens Centre ที่ร้าน Optical 88 สาขาเซ็นทรัลปิ่นเกล้า
ที่นี่ดูแลสายตาได้ทั้งครอบครัว คราวนี้พัชพาคุณพ่อมาตัดด้วย
เขามีเครื่องมือทันสมัย เจ้าหน้าผู้เชี่ยวชาญแว่นตาแบรนด์เนมคุณภาพ และต้องเลือกเลนส์แบรนด์ดังอย่าง Hoya เป็นของขวัญที่ดีมากๆ เลย ??
เพื่อนๆ คนไหนสนใจอยากดูแลสายตาคุณแม่ พัชแนะนำร้าน Optical 88 ทุกสาขาเลยนะคะ ?
#optical88 #optical88th #optical88progressivelenscentre #progressive #hoyaprogressivelens #hoya
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b2bc7/b2bc7d9ff6ca28bd267697d5c0e8f5314a647cfe" alt="post-title"
day care centre 在 LADIES FIRST Youtube 的最讚貼文
UPDATE: We're almost at 300k Subscribers! Help us hit this milestone ❤️❤️❤️
Hey guys! In this episode, we've got Cheryl Chin showing you how she spends a day in her life in quarantine! She's currently studying in Melbourne and can't go back to her family in KL just yet. In the mean time, she's looking after herself, doing her essentials shopping and baking some delicious treats! Which country do you want to travel to?
Here's a glimpse of 24h in her life! Whose vlog do you want to see next?
#StayHomeWithTitan
#WithMe
Follow our host:
Cheryl - https://www.instagram.com/cheryl.chin/
If you've read this far into the description, use the secret code: "WINTER IS COMING” so we know you are a super fan ;)
You can now send us cards, letters and gifts to our P.O. Box:
Titan Digital Media Pte Ltd
Singapore Post Centre
PO Box 680
Singapore 914023
Merch:
teamtitanstore.com
Follow us:
https://www.instagram.com/ladiesfirsttv/
ladiesfirst@titandigitalmedia.com
http://www.titandigitalmedia.com
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1e635/1e6351811839e501c64e96341a90b16b46070825" alt="post-title"
day care centre 在 LADIES FIRST Youtube 的精選貼文
It's been almost 2 months of quarantine, and in this episode, we've got June showing you how she spends a day in her life in quarantine with her pet cat barley! She's really creative and she loves drawing, animating and even making the cutest miniature food earrings! What's your favourite food?
Here's a glimpse of 24h in her life! Whose vlog do you want to see next?
#StayHomeWithTitan
#WithMe
Follow our host:
June - https://www.instagram.com/thejunemonth/
If you've read this far into the description, use the secret code: "DO YOU LOVE ME?” so we know you are a super fan ;)
You can now send us cards, letters and gifts to our P.O. Box:
Titan Digital Media Pte Ltd
Singapore Post Centre
PO Box 680
Singapore 914023
Merch:
teamtitanstore.com
Follow us:
https://www.instagram.com/ladiesfirsttv/
ladiesfirst@titandigitalmedia.com
http://www.titandigitalmedia.com
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5d33d/5d33dd4904c439b48775441d3929389ecd5f82f3" alt="post-title"
day care centre 在 Bethel Day Care Centre 伯特利日间托儿中心 的必吃
Bethel Day Care Centre is a Christian-based childcare centre. Our mission is to reach out to the... 12 Jalan Lateh, 359110. ... <看更多>