Posts from the ‘紐西蘭’ Category

每天上班需經過的Fairfield Bridge – Hamilton 紐西蘭漢米爾頓

每天上班需經過的Fairfield Bridge – Hamilton 紐西蘭漢米爾頓

前面兩張是我的PS作品

Fairfield Bridge費爾菲爾德大橋是位於新西蘭Hamilton 漢密爾頓費爾菲爾德的懷卡托河上的一個連接拱橋。它是城市的六座橋樑之一.它從河東岸的河道橫跨西側的維多利亞街。

1990年8月30日,它被新西蘭歷史名勝信託登記為第一類’歷史名勝。

設計施工

這座橋長139米(457英尺),有兩個土地跨度,和三個拱門,寬70厘米(28英寸),長40米(130英尺),上方7.9米(26英尺)在他們的最高點。拱形和跨度由鋼筋混凝土製成[,由奧克蘭的斯坦利·瓊斯設計,羅斯航運於1934年8月開始建設。該橋由公共工程部長Bob Semple於1937年4月開放。這是新西蘭的第四個大型鋼筋混凝土連拱橋,懷卡托河第二大。

當提出在費爾菲爾德郊區建造一座橋樑時,很多人覺得很少使用。六十五年後,2002年,每天大約有兩萬輛車穿過大橋。

*****************************************************

「hamilton nz art」的圖片搜尋結果

 

Fairfield Bridge, Hamilton by NZ Artist, Sam Lewry

 

 

「hamilton nz art」的圖片搜尋結果

 

「hamilton nz art」的圖片搜尋結果

「hamilton nz art」的圖片搜尋結果

 

「hamilton nz art」的圖片搜尋結果

Fairfield Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fairfield Bridge is a tied-arch bridge on the Waikato River in Fairfield, Hamilton, New Zealand. It is one of six bridges in the city.[1] It spans from River Road, on the east bank of the river, to Victoria Street, on the west side.[2]

It was registered as a Category I ‘Historic Place’ with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust on 30 August 1990.[3] The Great Race starts just north of the bridge, with the rowers passing under it during the race.[4]

There were days when drovers would drive stock over the main Fairfield Bridge to Frankton saleyeards.[5]

Design and construction

The bridge is 139 metres (457 ft) long, and has two land spans,[6] and three arches which are 70 centimetres (28 in) wide, 40 metres (130 ft) long and 7.9 metres (26 ft) above the road at their highest point.[7][8] The arches and spans are made from reinforced concrete.[6] It was designed by Stanley Jones of Auckland, and Roose Shipping started construction in August 1934.[6] The bridge was opened in April 1937 by the Minister of Public Works Bob Semple.[6] It was the fourth large reinforced concrete tied-arch bridge in New Zealand, and the second over the Waikato River.[8]

When the building of a bridge in the Fairfield suburb was proposed, many people felt that it would seldom be used.[6] Sixty-five years later, in 2002, there were about 20,000 vehicles travelling across the bridge each day.[9]

During the building of foundations for the bridges, an excavator came across a burial cave in the bank of the river. The preserved heads of several Māori were found in it.[10] In 1991 a reconstruction project costing NZ$1.1 million took place, as the bridge was suffering the effects of concrete cancer,[6] discovered in 1980.[11]

During January 2011, the bridge was closed for three weeks for maintenance.[12]

Motorcycle stunt

Fairfield Bridge at night

In 2009 Jonathan Bennett of the Mormon Few Stunt Crew was charged, and in 2010 was convicted,[13] for dangerous driving for riding a motorcycle on the arches of Fairfield Bridge.[14][15]The stunt was filmed and subsequently posted on YouTube.[16]

References

  1. Jump up^ “Hamilton’s bridges". Hamilton City Council. Retrieved 1 December 2015.
  2. Jump up^ “Fairfield Bridge, Waikato". Google Maps. Retrieved 11 June 2010.
  3. Jump up^ “Fairfield Bridge". New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Retrieved 7 June 2010.
  4. Jump up^ Anderson, Ian (28 September 2009). “Waikato hold out Oxford". Waikato Times. Stuff.co.nz. Archived from the original on 8 June 2010. Retrieved 8 June 2010.
  5. Jump up^ Neville Grinter (December 1976). Hamilton and the Waikato. A. H. & A. W. Reed. ISBN 9780589009717.
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f “Fairfield Bridge". Hamilton City Libraries. Archived from the original on 23 October 2009. Retrieved 7 June 2010.
  7. Jump up^ Neems, Jeff (5 September 2009). “Daredevil stunt rider takes the high road". Waikato Times. Stuff.co.nz. Archived from the original on 8 June 2010. Retrieved 8 June 2010.
  8. ^ Jump up to:a b Henshall, F. P. (10 April 1948). “The Fairfield Bridge, Hamilton". New Zealand Engineering. 3 (4): 387–389. ISSN 0028-808X.
  9. Jump up^ “Water levels may affect Hamilton bridge". The New Zealand Herald. 13 November 2002. Retrieved 8 June 2010.
  10. Jump up^ “Wintec – A History of the Land on Which Our City Campus Sits" (PDF). Waikato Institute of Technology. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 June 2010. Retrieved 9 June 2010.
  11. Jump up^ Swarbrick, Nancy (26 May 2010). “Waikato places – Hamilton east of the river". Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Retrieved 10 June 2010.
  12. Jump up^ “Road works and the impact on traffic". Hamilton City Council. Retrieved 19 January 2011.
  13. Jump up^ Leaman, Aaron (3 April 2010). “Bike stunt a bridge too far". Waikato Times. Stuff.co.nz. Archived from the original on 8 June 2010. Retrieved 8 June 2010.
  14. Jump up^ “Stunt rider charged over driving". The New Zealand Herald. 29 September 2009. Retrieved 8 June 2010.
  15. Jump up^ Brennan, Nicola (13 February 2010). “Judge shocked at biker’s bridge stunt". Waikato Times. Stuff.co.nz. Archived from the original on 8 June 2010. Retrieved 8 June 2010.
  16. Jump up^ “The stunt that landed a prankster in court". Close Up. Television New Zealand. 1 April 2010. Archived from the original on 8 June 2010. Retrieved 8 June 2010.

面对令人不安的治安现状,华人社区当重视从治标与治本两个方面加强自身安全。

来自当事人的建议:华裔被袭层出不穷,气愤之余我们能做什么
原创 2017-03-14 毛 芃 Kiwi毛传媒
新西兰总体来说是一个美好平和的国家。但像任何社会一样,新西兰也有各种社会问题,华人社区感受最痛切的,恐怕就是社会治安问题。 如何保护好自己,是我们每个人都应特别注意的问题。

今天的NZ Herald(新西兰先驱报)报道了一个令人痛心的案子。27岁的华裔青年、梅西大学大学生Rui Shu 今年1月3日晚,在离他家几步之遥的地方被两个毛利或岛裔青年抢劫和殴打,两个歹徒用螺丝刀和锤子攻击他,给他身心造成严重创伤。两个多月过去了,他还生活在恐惧之中, 每天都要紧闭门窗,拉上窗帘。 他的父亲认为Rui Shu 患上了PTSD (创伤后压力症候群)。
图为受伤的 Rui Shu

而两名歹徒,至今逍遥法外。

这条消息让我想起2012年汉密尔顿市发生的一个案子,想起当事人张先生曾经说过的一席话。

那是2012年5月14日,汉弥尔顿一家华人经营的小百货店被歹徒抢劫,店主张先生和他的太太还遭到歹徒殴打。当地警方倒是迅速逮捕了肇事歹徒,歹徒也得到了相应的法律处罚。

同年7月5日,我陪同国家党议员杨健博士到汉弥尔顿探望张先生夫妇,并对张先生进行了采访。随后,张先生给我写来一份信,就华人社区如何保护自己、如何让新西兰治安有所改善,提出了建设性意见。

下面是张先生的话。

1华人移民、自雇小业主是偷、抢犯罪的主要目标

华人移民、特别是自雇小业主,因为语言因素、对本土社会了解不深等原因,已经成为偷、抢犯罪的主要袭击目标,从多年前一位家中屡次被盗的华人移民要求 “与小偷享有同等权利”到面包店店主王剑女士为追回被抢劫的包包在抢劫犯车轮下香消玉殒,即是明证。此类罪犯大多为毛利人、太平洋岛人以及无业白人。

这些年来,我的店里平均每二三天即有偷窃行为发生,年龄最小的三岁,最大的六十多岁。

2现行法律缺乏管束力

部分毛利人的偷窃与抢劫是一个不容忽视的社会问题,现行法律对此缺乏管束力,这实际起到一种怂恿的作用。这不仅对受害者没有好处、对毛利人本身亦没有好处。广东人有句话”向政府收粮(指吃救济)发不了财“,靠偷与抢也不可能真正改善生活状况。

3人身安全第一

遇到抢劫,华人移民应当首先考虑的是自已的人身安全。坦率地说,此类犯罪者大多头脑简单,容易冲动。他们虽然大多没有杀人的预谋,但当偷抢被发现时为了不被警察抓住,动手会不顾轻重,加之我们的法律对此类犯罪过于宽容,他们不会把受害者生命当回事。

我认识一位华人女士因为要从抢劫者中夺回包,结果自己的腿断了。

4治标与治本

面对令人不安的治安现状,华人社区当重视从治标与治本两个方面加强自身安全。

治 标

时刻加强自己、家人及个人财产的安全管理,不给犯罪者留下机会;
个人小生意尽可能地安装摄像机,在易犯罪的公共地区合资安装摄像机;
尽可能地了解当地相关法律及司法程序;
遇到犯罪或可疑情况尽可能地保存与备好证据,包括人证与物证;
相信、积极配合执法者与执法机构;
治 本

通过民意及媒体力量影响政府修改相关法律、通过法律手段减少此类犯罪。
要求严惩惯犯,屡犯者和因打劫伤人者应重判;
对此类犯罪者加以经济制裁,如扣除20%福利费作受害者的赔偿,对16岁以下的青少年罪犯的监护人也给予一定程度的经济处罚,作为给受害人的赔偿;
对常常酗酒者减少福利,以逼其停止酗酒;
学校应当加强学生道德教育,鼓励学生经常反省自己的品行;
以经济制裁与行政约束的方式要求此类青少年一定要完成初中以内的教育

治安问题,切关华人利益,治安问题也是华人长久关注的焦点问题。政府今年初宣布加大警力对付犯罪。大选年里,政府和各个政党都更乐于倾听选民的声音,要想社会治安有改善,我们要通过各个层面、各个渠道发出社区的心声。民主社会,给了我们每个人这一权力,选票,是选民手中最有力的武器。

全球繁荣指数排名出炉 新西兰第5名 中国第55名

全球繁荣指数排名出炉 新西兰第5名 中国第55名

 日期:2012-10-31 09:53:01 阅读: 4296 来源:天维网编辑部

  天维网 10月31日 报道,援引 中央社 消息,英国智库列格坦研究所(Legatum Institute)当地时间29日公布2012年“全球繁荣指数”调查报告中,澳大利亚和新西兰分别位于榜单的第4、第5位。

  据报道,“全球繁荣指数”调查时使用经济、创业与机会、政府治理、教育、健康、安全、个人自由,社会资本(指民众参与慈善活动,社会和谐等)共8个指标进行评判,今年调查对象共有142个国家。

  报告显示,繁荣指数名列前20名的国家和地区依次是:挪威、丹麦、瑞典、澳大利亚、新西兰、加拿大、芬兰、荷兰、瑞士、爱尔兰、卢森堡、美国、英国、德国、冰岛、奥地利、比利时、香港、新加坡和台湾。

  具体到细节,新西兰今年的政府治理排名第2、教育方面第1、个人自由方面第2。

  中国今年总排名从去年的第52滑落至第55名,经济排名和社会资本排名则分别列第11和第29名,表现较佳。负责繁荣指数调查的负责任内森·甘斯特对此称,中国的经济指标排名较高“并不令人意外”,如果中国总排名要提高,必须改善“个人自由问题”。

  此外,库莱加研究所总裁兼执行长杰弗里·吉德敏说,美国在繁荣指数的排名下跌至12名,显示传统的“美国梦”正受到威胁。在政府治理方面,奥巴马政府的支持率从去年的42%跌到今年的39%,也是造成总排名下跌的原因之一,是这项调查进行6年以来最差的成绩。

  相关新闻:

  2011年《如果感到幸福你就拍拍手 全球繁荣指数新西兰第四

  历年排名:

http://news.skykiwi.com/na/zh/2012-10-31/149637.shtml

2010年全球清廉指數: 丹麥、紐西蘭和新加坡並列世界第1,台灣 33,中國78.

 

2010年全球清廉指數:  丹麥、紐西蘭和新加坡並列世界第1,台灣 33,中國78.  

  


國際透明組織26日公布「2010年貪腐印象指數」報告,台灣在世界排名第33。(圖取自國際透明組織網頁www.transparency.org

透明國際(Transparency International)成立於1993年,總部立於德國柏林,是一個旨在反對貪污腐敗的國際非政府組織。從1995年起制定公佈清廉指數。

(中央社台北26日電)國際透明組織(Transparency International)今天公布「2010年貪腐印象指數」報告,在178個國家或地區當中,台灣在世界排名第33,比去年進步4名,而在亞太地區的排名則是第6。

台灣今年的分數是5.8分,在亞太地區次於紐西蘭(9.3)、新加坡(9.3)、澳洲(8.7)、香港(8.4)和日本(7.8)五個國家或地區。中國以3.5分排名世界第78,以及亞太地區第14。

這項貪腐印象指數是針對企業界人士和專家對於各國國家公共部門有關貪腐程度的綜合評分,0表示最腐敗,10表示最清廉。一般來說,3以下表示貪腐風氣嚴重,7分以上被認為是廉潔社會。

丹麥、紐西蘭和新加坡在今年的調查中並列世界第1,芬蘭和瑞典並列第4,第6至10名分別是加拿大、荷蘭、澳洲(8)、瑞士(8)和挪威。北歐國家占了前10名中的4席,亞太地區也占了3席。

今年的最後一名是索馬利亞,僅獲1.1分,緬甸和阿富汗並列倒數第2,伊拉克倒數第4,蘇丹、土庫曼和烏茲別克則並列倒數第5

Results

Transparency and Accountability are critical to restoring trust and turning back the tide of corruption

With governments committing huge sums to tackle the world’s most pressing problems, from the instability of financial markets to climate change and poverty, corruption remains an obstacle to achieving much needed progress. The 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index shows that nearly three quarters of the 178 countries in the index score below five, on a scale from 10 (highly clean) to 0 (highly corrupt). These results indicate a serious corruption problem.

To address these challenges, governments need to integrate anti-corruption measures in all spheres, from their responses to the financial crisis and climate change to commitments by the international community to eradicate poverty. Transparency International advocates stricter implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption, the only global initiative that provides a framework for putting an end to corruption. Denmark, New Zealand and Singapore are tied at the top of the list with a score of 9.3, followed closely by Finland and Sweden at 9.2. Bringing up the rear is Somalia with a score of 1.1, slightly trailing Myanmar and Afghanistan at 1.4 and Iraq at 1.5.

Notable among decliners over the past year are some of the countries most affected by a financial crisis precipitated by transparency and integrity deficits. Among those improving in the past year, the general absence of OECD states underlines the fact that all nations need to bolster their good governance mechanisms. The message is clear: across the globe, transparency and accountability are critical to restoring trust and turning back the tide of corruption. Without them, global policy solutions to many global crises are at risk.

About the table

About this table
Click the column headings to sort the table by rank or country.

Surveys used
The 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index is based on 13 independent surveys. However, not all surveys include all countries. The ‘Surveys Used’ column indicates how many surveys were relied upon to determine the score for that country.

Confidence range
The confidence range indicates the reliability of the country scores and tells us that allowing for a margin of error we can be 90 per cent confident that the true score for this country lies within this range.

全球慈善指數報告: 澳紐並列世界第一,中國排在147位險墊底

全球慈善指數報告: 澳紐並列世界第一,中國排在147位險墊底

 

樂善好施澳紐並列世界第一 中國險墊底

【大紀元9月10日訊】(大紀元時報記者袁麗綜合報導)

(http://www.dajiyuan.com)

根據總部設在英國的慈善援助基金會(Charities Aid Fundation)2010年9月8日的「2010年世界給予指數」調查報告"World Giving Index 2010″ (WGI 2010) report顯示,在被調查的153個國家中,澳洲和紐西蘭人願意捐款和花時間用於慈善行為、以及幫助陌生人方面的綜合指數排名世界並列第一。中國排名僅高於馬達加斯加,列為倒數第二。

在報告中,從捐款、做義工、幫助陌生人三個評估項目上,澳洲和紐西蘭的平均綜合指數達到百分之五十七,列居首位,其次是加拿大和冰島,平均綜合指數達到百分之五十六,美國和瑞士緊隨其後,平均綜合指數達到百分之五十五。

在慈善援助基金會的報告中顯示,根據報告前一個月的調查,目前,在世界各地人們的慈善行為出現了顯著變化。例如,在用於慈善方面捐款上,立陶宛只有百分之四的人們願意捐錢,相比之下,在馬爾他有百分之八十三的人為慈善捐錢。在土克曼斯坦,有百分之六十一的人們熱心於做義工,而在柬埔寨卻只有百分之二的人願意做義工。利比里亞人是最願意幫助陌生人的國家。在西非的利比里亞,高達百分之七十六的利比里亞人願意為陌生人提供幫助。

同時,根據調查,世界人口較多的國家排名幾乎接近底線。印度排名137位,俄國排名138位,世界人口最多的國家中國排在147位,列居倒數第二位。只有百分之四的中國人捐錢給慈善機構,而在俄羅斯,也只有百分之六的人捐錢。

在澳洲,百分之七十的人捐過錢,百分之三十八的人做過義工,百分之六十四的人幫助過陌生人。在紐西蘭,百分之六十八的人捐過錢,百分之四十一的人做過義工,百分之六十三的人幫助過陌生人。

「世界給予指數」報告使用了「蓋洛普」對153個國家人們的慈善行為所作的調查,而這些國家代表了全世界百分之九十五的人口數。通過研究發現,快樂的人比有錢人更有可能捐錢給慈善機構。

慈善援助基金會研究部主任理查德‧哈里森(Richard Harrison)說:「捐錢給慈善機構傳統上被認為是由於一個人富有才會做的事。然而,很明顯的是,在影響人們是否給予樂施上,快樂才是起到了重要的作用。」哈里森表示調查結果表明,當一個人為慈善付出後,慈善機構會提升了受捐助人的幸福感,捐助人也會更加願意付出,這就形成了一種良性循環。

在大多數國家的調查中,都是通過電話採訪和面對面的採訪方式,有一千個問題被問到。通過對這些國家的調研,慈善援助基金會發現快樂和給予之間的聯繫比財富和給予之間的聯繫更緊密。

Charities Aid Foundation Report: U.S. Tied For Fifth Place in New ‘World Giving Index’ Ranking Charitable Behavior in 153 Countries

 WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 –

WGI 2010 Measures Charitable Behavior of World in Three Major Categories:  Personal Giving, Volunteering Time and Number of People Willing to Help a Complete Stranger 

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The United States ties for fifth place with Switzerland in a new “World Giving Index 2010″ (WGI 2010) report issued today by the Charities Aid Foundation America (CAFAmerica), a member organization of the United Kingdom-based Charities Aid Foundation international network of offices.  The review of the state of giving in 153 countries representing 95 percent of the globe’s population is the most ambitious study of its kind to have ever been attempted.

The U.S. posted impressive numbers in all three WGI 2010 categories – with 60 percent in the U.S. giving to an organization, 39 percent volunteering time and 65 percent willing to help a complete stranger.  The Index ranked Australia and New Zealand as the most charitable nations in the world, followed by Ireland and Canada in third and fourth place respectively.

The World Giving Index is the first survey on a large scale to capture information about charitable behavior in 153 countries, including many nations that have not been included in previous surveys on giving.  The Index, compiled from data from an ongoing international Gallup survey, ranked the U.S. along with other countries in three categories:  what percentage of the population donated to a charity; what percentage of the population volunteered time to an organization; and what percentage of the population helped a complete stranger or someone who they didn’t know needed help.  

First place ranks in the individual categories of the World Giving Index went to Malta with 83 percent of its population giving money, Turkmenistan with 61 percent volunteering time to a charity, and Liberia with 76 percent of its population willing to help a stranger.

“The World Giving Index is a broad-based survey and it provides a unique overview of global philanthropy.  It will give many governments a means to set benchmarks for giving and define areas where improvement is needed," said CAFAmerica CEO Susan Saxon-Harrold.  “Many countries at the bottom of the list benefit enormously from U.S. philanthropy.  Our organization is helping U.S. donors give to some of those countries and it’s important that Americans continue to build-up indigenous philanthropy in countries such as China, Russia and India."

CAF Director of Research Richard Harrison said: “The World Giving Index is the first time that the world has been able to have a view about how generous it is and the first time we can see truly global patterns of charitable behaviour.  We hope that the Index can be used to progress philanthropy world wide, providing a benchmark for Governments to compare their country with peers and as act as a tool to aid the development of civil society in countries where a culture of giving is not well developed."

CAFAmerica President Janet Boyd said:   “When it comes to philanthropy, Americans do a lot … and can always do more.   This survey highlights the need to engage workers in volunteering via the corporate sector, young people by new social media channels, and older Americans by means that are both comfortable and familiar to them.  In my view, no one should take a critical view of the U.S. fifth place rank in this report for a variety of reasons, but that also does not mean that we should be complacent as a nation when there is so much more that can be done."

The overall index score for each country was calculated by adding the percentages of all three charitable acts together and dividing by three.  Very few countries demonstrated low scores in all three charitable behaviors covered by the survey.

[Omitted here:  Ranking of nations available in full text of news release at http://www.cafamerica.org.]

(http://www.dajiyuan.com)

全球和平指數(Global Peace Index,亦稱和平指數)簡介—-紐西蘭連續兩年蟬聯榜首

全球和平指數(Global Peace Index,亦稱和平指數)簡介—-紐西蘭連續兩年蟬聯榜首

 
   

全球最和平的地方在哪?答案是紐西蘭。據8日公布的「2010年全球和平指數」(Global Peace Indix for 2010,GPI)報告,紐西蘭再度蟬聯榜首,冰島、日本則分居2、3名。台灣則從2009年的37名爬升到35名;最不和平的地方則是伊拉克。

GPI這項評比是針對全世界149個國家,評估各國的國內和國際衝突、安全與社會治安以及軍事化等指標。結果發現,全球在去年顯得不太和平,多項指數均上揚,包括暴力示威趨勢與犯罪觀感等。

紐西蘭連續2年成為全球最和平的國家,第2、第3名則分別為冰島和日本。報告提到,小而安定的民主國家持續獲得較高排名;前20名國家有15個是西歐或中歐國家。

台灣在這次GPI的評比中,從2009年的第37名上升至第35名。至於對岸中國,報告中指出,中國由於社會動盪風險上升,以及國防支出大幅增加約15%,不利排名,從2009年的第74名下滑至2010年的第80名。

全球表現在差的地方,報告指出,自2007年以來一直是南亞,包括發生在斯里蘭卡、巴基斯坦和印度的衝突,其中阿富汗排名倒數第3(147)、巴基斯坦排名倒數第5(145),伊拉克則是最後1名(149)。

美國則以高軍費支出,約佔全球軍費總支出的54%,以及伊拉克和阿富汗戰爭等因素,排名第85。

GPI是由澳洲企業家及慈善家基利亞(SteveKillelea)所創立,隸屬新成立的國際智庫「經濟與和平研究所」(Institute for Economics and Peace),目的在探討經濟發展、商業與和平之間的關係。

全球和平指數簡介

全球和平指數Global Peace Index,亦稱和平指數)是一套用作測量指定國家或地區的和平程度的指標,該指數由名為英國經濟學人智庫(Economist Intelligence Unit)的專家小組所維持和公布,而該專家小組的成員主要來自和平學系、智庫、以及澳洲悉尼大學和平及衝突學中心(the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies)所組成。指數引用聯合國以及國際組織的資料,包括國家軍費、國家因組織性衝突死亡人數、聯合國派遣人員的數目等數據,對全球121個國家及地區的和平程度及生活穩定程度作出評分以及排名。首個排名於2007年5月30日公布。2010年排名紐西蘭連續兩年蟬聯第一。

目的及目標

據全球和平指數主席Clyde McConaghy所指,全球和平指數的目標是摒除以往單以戰爭作為粗陋的指標,有系統地量度和平的結構,而指數為和平程度提供量化的指標,可作跨時間及地域的比較,並且期望指數能引發及影響國際領袖,使他們能就和平問題作出反應。

排名和得分

排名依順序排列,排名數字越小(排名越高),代表該國家或地區較排名數字為大(排名較低)的國家或地區更為和平。得分方面,是以24項指標以1-5分作評分基準,以1分最佳。

國家↓ 2010 排名↓ 2010 得分↓ 2009 排名↓ 2009 得分↓ 2008 排名↓ 2008 得分↓ 2007 排名↓ 2007 得分↓
阿富汗 (Afghanistan) 147 3.252 143 3.285 137 3.126    
阿爾巴尼亞 (Albania) 65 1.925 75 1.925 79 2.044    
白俄羅斯 (Belarus) 105 2.204 98 2.103 94 2.194    
布吉納法索 (Burkina Faso) 57 1.852 71 1.905 81 2.062    
中非共和國 (Central African Republic) 136 2.753 133 2.733 134 2.857    
乍得 (Chad) 141 2.964 138 2.88 135 3.007    
剛果民主共和國 (Democratic Republic of the Congo) 140 2.925 139 2.888 128 2.707    
海地 (Haiti) 114 2.27 116 2.33 109 2.362    
冰島 (Iceland) 2 1.212 4 1.225 1 1.176    
寮國 (Laos) 34 1.661 45 1.701 51 1.81    
盧森堡 (Luxembourg) 7 1.341 13 1.341 9 1.446    
馬利共和國 (Mali) 109 2.24 96 2.086 99 2.238    
茅利塔尼亞 (Mauritania) 123 2.389 124 2.478 120 2.435    
蒙古國 (Mongolia) 92 2.101 89 2.04 88 2.155    
朝鮮民主主義人民共和國 (North Korea) 139 2.855 131 2.717 133 2.85    
剛果共和國 (Republic of the Congo) 140 2.925 106 2.202 117 2.417    
盧安達 (Rwanda) 75 2.012 86 2.027 76 2.03    
索馬利亞 (Somalia) 148 3.39 142 3.257 139 3.293    
土庫曼 (Turkmenistan) 117 2.295 101 2.11 102 2.302    
英國 (United Kingdom) 31 1.631 35 1.647 49 1.801    
挪威 (Norway) 5 1.322 2 1.217 3 1.343 1 1.357
紐西蘭 (New Zealand) 1 1.188 1 1.202 4 1.35 2 1.363
丹麥 (Denmark) 7 1.341 2 1.217 2 1.343 3 1.377
愛爾蘭 (Ireland) 6 1.337 12 1.333 6 1.41 4 1.396
日本 (Japan) 3 1.247 7 1.272 5 1.358 5 1.413
芬蘭 (Finland) 9 1.352 9 1.322 8 1.432 6 1.447
瑞典 (Sweden) 10 1.354 6 1.269 13 1.468 7 1.478
加拿大 (Canada) 14 1.392 8 1.311 11 1.451 8 1.481
葡萄牙 (Portugal) 13 1.366 14 1.348 7 1.412 9 1.481
奧地利 (Austria) 4 1.29 5 1.252 10 1.449 10 1.483
比利時 (Belgium) 17 1.4 15 1.359 15 1.485 11 1.498
德國 (Germany) 16 1.398 16 1.392 14 1.475 12 1.523
捷克共和國 (Czech Republic) 12 1.36 11 1.328 17 1.501 13 1.524
瑞士 (Switzerland) 18 1.424 18 1.393 12 1.465 14 1.526
斯洛維尼亞共和國 (Slovenia) 11 1.358 9 1.322 16 1.491 15 1.539
智利 (Chile) 28 1.616 20 1.481 19 1.576 16 1.568
斯洛伐克 (Slovakia) 21 1.536 24 1.539 20 1.576 17 1.571
匈牙利 (Hungary) 20 1.495 27 1.575 18 1.576 18 1.575
不丹 (Bhutan) 36 1.665 40 1.667 26 1.616 19 1.611
荷蘭 (Netherlands) 27 1.61 22 1.531 22 1.607 20 1.62
西班牙 (Spain) 25 1.588 28 1.577 30 1.683 21 1.633
阿曼 (Oman) 23 1.561 21 1.52 25 1.612 22 1.641
烏拉圭 (Uruguay) 24 1.568 25 1.557 21 1.606 24 1.661
澳大利亞 (Australia) 19 1.467 19 1.476 27 1.652 25 1.664
羅馬尼亞 (Romania) 45 1.749 31 1.591 24 1.611 26 1.682
波蘭 (Poland) 29 1.618 32 1.599 31 1.687 27 1.683
愛沙尼亞 (Estonia) 46 1.751 38 1.661 35 1.702 28 1.684
新加坡 (Singapore) 30 1.624 23 1.533 29 1.673 29 1.692
卡塔尔 (Qatar) 15 1.394 16 1.392 33 1.694 30 1.702
哥斯大黎加 (Costa Rica) 26 1.59 29 1.578 34 1.701 31 1.702
南韓 (South Korea) 43 1.715 33 1.627 32 1.691 32 1.719
義大利 (Italy) 40 1.701 36 1.648 28 1.653 33 1.724
法國 (France) 32 1.636 30 1.579 36 1.707 34 1.729
越南 (Vietnam) 38 1.691 39 1.664 37 1.72 35 1.729
台灣 (Taiwan) 35 1.664 37 1.652 44 1.779 36 1.731
馬來西亞 (Malaysia) 22 1.539 26 1.561 37 1.721 37 1.744
阿拉伯聯合大公國 (United Arab Emirates) 44 1.739 40 1.667 42 1.745 38 1.747
突尼西亞 (Tunisia) 37 1.678 44 1.698 47 1.797 39 1.762
迦納 (Ghana) 48 1.781 52 1.761 40 1.723 40 1.765
馬達加斯加 (Madagascar) 77 2.019 72 1.912 43 1.77 41 1.766
博茨瓦納 (Botswana) 33 1.641 34 1.643 46 1.792 42 1.786
立陶宛 (Lithuania) 42 1.713 43 1.687 41 1.723 43 1.788
希臘 (Greece) 62 1.887 57 1.778 54 1.867 44 1.791
巴拿馬 (Panama) 61 1.878 59 1.798 48 1.797 45 1.798
科威特 (Kuwait) 39 1.693 42 1.68 45 1.786 46 1.818
拉脫維亞 (Latvia) 54 1.827 54 1.773 39 1.723 47 1.848
摩洛哥 (Morocco) 58 1.861 63 1.811 63 1.954 48 1.893
莫三比克 (Mozambique) 47 1.779 53 1.765 50 1.803 50 1.909
塞普勒斯 (Cyprus) 76 2.013 48 1.737 52 1.847 51 1.915
阿根廷 (Argentina) 71 1.962 66 1.851 56 1.895 52 1.923
尚比亞 (Zambia) 51 1.813 58 1.779 53 1.856 53 1.93
保加利亞 (Bulgaria) 50 1.785 56 1.775 57 1.903 54 1.936
巴拉圭 (Paraguay) 77 2.019 73 1.916 70 1.997 55 1.946
加彭 (Gabon) 74 1.981 51 1.758 55 1.878 56 1.952
坦尚尼亞 (Tanzania) 55 1.832 59 1.796 58 1.919 57 1.966
利比亞 (Libya) 56 1.839 46 1.71 61 1.927 58 1.967
古巴 (Cuba) 72 1.964 68 1.856 62 1.954 59 1.968
中華人民共和國 (China) 80 2.034 74 1.921 67 1.981 60 1.98
哈薩克 (Kazakhstan) 95 2.113 84 2.018 72 2.018 61 1.995
巴林 (Bahrain) 70 1.956 69 1.881 74 2.025 62 1.995
約旦 (Jordan) 68 1.948 64 1.832 65 1.969 63 1.997
那米比亞 (Namibia) 59 1.864 65 1.841 77 2.042 64 2.003
塞內加爾 (Senegal) 79 2.031 80 1.984 71 2.011 65 2.017
尼加拉瓜 (Nicaragua) 64 1.924 61 1.801 59 1.919 66 2.02
克羅埃西亞共和國 (Croatia) 41 1.707 49 1.741 60 1.926 67 2.03
馬拉威 (Malawi) 51 1.813 47 1.711 73 2.024 68 2.038
玻利維亞 (Bolivia) 81 2.037 81 1.99 78 2.043 69 2.052
秘魯 (Peru) 89 2.067 79 1.972 80 2.046 70 2.056
幾內亞 (Equatorial Guinea) 68 1.948 61 1.801 64 1.964 71 2.059
摩爾多瓦共和國 (Moldova) 66 1.938 75 1.925 83 2.091 72 2.059
埃及 (Egypt) 49 1.784 54 1.773 69 1.987 73 2.068
多明尼加共和國 (Dominican Republic) 93 2.103 70 1.89 82 2.069 74 2.071
波斯尼亞和黑塞哥維那 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) 60 1.873 50 1.755 66 1.974 75 2.089
喀麥隆 (Cameroon) 106 2.21 95 2.073 92 2.182 76 2.093
敘利亞 (Syria) 115 2.274 92 2.049 75 2.027 77 2.106
印尼 (Indonesia) 67 1.946 67 1.853 68 1.983 78 2.111
墨西哥 (Mexico) 107 2.216 108 2.209 93 2.191 79 2.125
烏克蘭 (Ukraine) 97 2.115 82 2.01 84 2.096 80 2.15
牙買加 (Jamaica) 98 2.138 102 2.111 96 2.226 81 2.164
馬其頓 (Republic of Macedonia) 83 2.048 88 2.039 87 2.119 82 2.17
巴西 (Brazil) 83 2.048 85 2.022 90 2.168 83 2.173
塞爾維亞 (Serbia) 90 2.071 78 1.951 85 2.11 84 2.181
柬埔寨 (Cambodia) 111 2.252 105 2.179 91 2.179 85 2.197
孟加拉共和國 (Bangladesh) 87 2.058 90 2.045 86 2.118 86 2.219
厄瓜多爾 (Ecuador) 101 2.185 109 2.211 100 2.274 87 2.219
巴布亞新幾內亞 (Papua New Guinea) 95 2.113 93 2.059 95 2.224 88 2.223
薩爾瓦多 (El Salvador) 103 2.195 94 2.068 89 2.163 89 2.244
沙地阿拉伯 (Saudi Arabia) 107 2.216 104 2.167 108 2.357 90 2.246
肯亞 (Kenya) 120 2.369 113 2.266 119 2.429 91 2.258
土耳其 (Turkey) 126 2.42 121 2.389 115 2.403 92 2.272
瓜地馬拉 (Guatemala) 112 2.258 111 2.218 103 2.328 93 2.285
千里達托貝哥 (Trinidad and Tobago) 94 2.107 87 2.035 98 2.23 94 2.286
也門 (Yemen) 129 2.573 119 2.363 106 2.352 95 2.309
美國 (United States of America) 85 2.056 83 2.015 97 2.227 96 2.317
伊朗 (Iran) 104 2.202 99 2.104 105 2.341 97 2.32
宏都拉斯 (Honduras) 125 2.395 112 2.265 104 2.335 98 2.39
南非 (South Africa) 121 2.38 123 2.437 116 2.412 99 2.399
菲律賓 (Philippines) 130 2.574 114 2.327 113 2.385 100 2.428
亞塞拜然 (Azerbaijan) 119 2.367 114 2.327 101 2.287 101 2.448
委內瑞拉 (Venezuela) 122 2.387 120 2.381 123 2.505 102 2.453
衣索比亞 (Ethiopia) 127 2.444 128 2.551 121 2.439 103 2.479
烏干達 (Uganda) 100 2.165 103 2.14 114 2.391 104 2.489
泰國 (Thailand) 124 2.393 118 2.353 118 2.424 105 2.491
辛巴威 (Zimbabwe) 135 2.678 134 2.736 124 2.513 106 2.495
阿爾及利亞 (Algeria) 116 2.277 110 2.212 112 2.378 107 2.503
緬甸 (Myanmar) 132 2.58 126 2.501 126 2.59 108 2.524
印度 (India) 128 2.516 122 2.433 107 2.355 109 2.53
烏茲別克斯坦 (Uzbekistan) 110 2.242 106 2.202 111 2.377 110 2.542
斯里蘭卡 (Sri Lanka) 133 2.621 125 2.485 125 2.584 111 2.575
安哥拉 (Angola) 86 2.057 100 2.105 110 2.364 112 2.587
科特迪瓦 (Cote d’Ivoire) 118 2.297 117 2.342 122 2.451 113 2.638
黎巴嫩 (Lebanon) 134 2.639 132 2.718 132 2.84 114 2.662
巴基斯坦 (Pakistan) 145 3.05 137 2.859 127 2.694 115 2.697
哥倫比亞 (Colombia) 138 2.787 130 2.645 130 2.757 116 2.77
奈及利亞 (Nigeria) 137 2.756 129 2.602 129 2.724 117 2.898
俄羅斯 (Russia) 143 3.013 136 2.75 131 2.777 118 2.903
以色列 (Israel) 144 3.019 141 3.035 136 3.052 119 3.033
蘇丹 (Sudan) 146 3.125 140 2.922 138 3.189 120 3.182
伊拉克 (Iraq) 149 3.406 144 3.341 140 3.514 121 3.437

 

#
↓
Indicator
↓
Source
↓
Year(s)
↓
Coding
↓
1 Number of external and internal wars fought UCDP 2000 to 2005 Total number
2 Estimated deaths due to external wars UCDP 2004 to 2005 Total number
3 Estimated deaths due to internal wars UCDP 2004 to 2005 Total number
4 Level of organized internal conflict EIU 2007 Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
5 Relations with neighbouring countries EIU 2007 Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
6 Level of distrust in other citizens EIU 2007 Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
7 Number of displaced persons as percentage of population World Bank 2003 Refugee population by percentage of the origin country’s population
8 Political instability EIU 2007 Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
9 Level of respect for human rights (political terror scale) Amnesty International 2005 Qualitative measure
10 Potential for terrorist acts EIU 2007 Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
11 Number of homicides UNSCT 2004 and 2002 Intentional homicides, including infanticide, per 100,000 people
12 Level of violent crime EIU 2007 Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
13 Likelihood of violent demonstrations EIU 2007 Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
14 Number of jailed persons ICPS 2006 Persons incarcerated per 100,000 people
15 Number of police and security officers UNSCT 2002 and 2000 Civil security officers per 100,000 people
16 Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP IISS 2004 Cash outlays for armed forces, as a percentage of GDP
17 Number of armed services personnel IISS 2004 Full-time military personnel per 100,000 people
18 Imports of major conventional weapons SIPRI 2001 to 2005 Imports of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people
19 Exports of major conventional weapons SIPRI 2001 to 2005 Exports of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people
20 United Nations deployments IISS 2006 to 2007 Total number
21 Non-United Nations deployments IISS 2006 to 2007 Total number
22 Number of heavy weapons BICC 2003 Weapons per 100,000 people
23 Ease of access to small arms and light weapons EIU 2007 Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
24 Military capability or sophistication EIU 2007 Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5

Indicators not already ranked on a 1 to 5 scale were converted by using the following formula: x=(x-Min(x))/(Max(x)-Min(x)) where Max(x) and Min(x) are the highest and lowest values for that indicator of the countries ranked in the index. The 0 to 1 scores that resulted were then converted to the 1 to 5 scale. Individual indicators were then weighted according to the research team’s judgment of their importance. The scores were then tabulated into two weighted sub-indices: internal peace, weighted at 60% of a country’s final score, and external peace, weighted at 40% of a country’s final score.

參考文獻資  :

 

  1. 維基百科,全球和平指數
  2. , 新頭殼newtalk 2010.06.09 林禾寧/綜合報導

在紐西蘭, 有關的各種活動的法定年齡The legal ages in New Zealand

 

在紐西蘭, 有關的各種活動的法定年齡,如下:

年齡                      活動
5                              開學(最早的年齡)
6                             開學(最晚的年齡)
7                             開學(最晚的年齡,如果孩子去學校要步行3公里以上)
14                           保姆的最低年齡
14                           把孩子獨自留在家裡
15                           得到一個限制駕駛執照
16                           離開學校(最早的年齡)
16                           與伴侶同居生活
16                           對性的同意
16                           得到一個紋身
16                           結婚或具有公民聯盟(父母的允許)
17                          獲得正式駕駛執照
18                           購買酒精
18                           購買香煙
18                           結婚或具有公民聯盟(無父母許可)
18                          借錢
18                          加入警隊
19                          有權免費教育終止

Legal Ages

A range of age limits apply to different activities under New Zealand law. For instance, it is illegal to leave a child alone at home under the age of 14, and you must be 18 before you are legally allowed to purchase cigarettes and alcohol.

The legal ages for various activities in New Zealand are:

Age Activity
5 starting school (earliest age)
6 starting school (latest age)
7 starting school (latest age if the child must walk more than 3 km to school)
14 a babysitter’s minimum age
14 leaving a child alone in your house
15 getting a restricted driving licence
16 leaving school (earliest age)
16 living with a partner
16 age of consent for sex
16 getting a tattoo
16 getting married or having a civil union (with parents’ permission)
17 getting a full driving licence
18 buying alcohol
18 buying cigarettes
18 getting married or having a civil union (without parents’ permission)
18 borrowing money
18 joining the Police force
19 the right to free education ends

參考/Ref: http://www.wellington.govt.nz/move/innovative/law.html