El t~

AJA?!~I":-g.Jl:~(PIT) 2013 ~~ii+~:-g.Jl:~J~(.lffIT) 2013 if- 6 J1

ISBN: 978-986-6600-56-2

~~~~~~(Innovation & Entrepreneurship)

1ft ~ ~ 00 1& ill #Jj-ill I"~ ~;;t i:; ?~ill #Jj-ill I"~~ J& 1

~*~ t
~j.;]:]

.~t~A*t~~~1&~~~M~~ .:L~~ ~iL~1ftf,ii1t ~~ ~ t .,:; lIt * sa ~HH.-&

.:L I"

.tiNlt~~~iL~ 1ft~~i1t~~~

t '':;lIt*~Jl~ll~~

Applying the Open Innovation to SME of service industry Tony Yang Student member of CIADA USA branch Mike C. Yang Director of CIADA USA branch

10

~I*

n5ill i!11t 11ffJ ill 1ft~ ~ ~ fft- loA ~ .i~;f -ij- ilJ#Jj'BA 1f .:L I" .ti1 tLt ~ ~ ~iL,{~t :
J

~~

fi~17L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41

~~*At.~*~J&~.

13~
k it k ~ -l-f l ~ (pfj)
ISBN: 978-98G-6GOO-5G-2

2013 ~ ~ 't 1\ -f l~;~ ( J:. f!1}- )

2013 -if- 6 A

~1~~1~(Innovation& Entrepreneurship) A. J'o {;;f~fi1.1t Jli4: W :t LYJi R:JI I!I 1:- ~hff Jt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67
Jii ~ 1-' M~i"
~Lf~ k #of -f l ~

ifflk#of-fl~
T
\.l-I

~~~
IJI'.'f5J'l "T ~R-J,a.>,r ~I' /\:J -:lto

~1.H-~-1~$~a~~s~_~ J~ ;;r- g
W :.:r /'...:.:r ;tt/>T<. 1?<-'I'A.. Jll
;ttI>T<.

~ T

.1. ~\l-_~ \.l-I W :.:r /'...:.:r

-1'~~. ~~ ~

"-..'!'..:.:r iJ-

~SllB_ ~ 1?<-'I'A.. Jll J~ ;;r- g L:.:r;r'

~J'!L'tf-&.%-;ffj-i!-;J~ttof~-ljJ-~fl:f~I~jj5fJ
iB :.:-~'" El 1"~

75

.r-; ~ / ... :.:r

;M:. .i. _

1&~t

kitk

FIXED COSTS ALLOCATION PROBLEM" "." " .."." ""

103

108

~:)(~

~~M
l

~qk~~m;f!~ ~ q k.:L -l-fl

~ 114

.tt1 ilt J'o 11:.~ if ti--~), M- ~tJk ~G 7.1 Jfi 1111:. ~ 1YIJ m~~ ~OO*Atf.A.~~~. I~~ ~OO*Atf.A.~~~.

*T ~

*tt

liP-

'*- 1f tf "'*-"
Jl P'
.:L

.!:j

"

'if " ~ -

Jll:.

:~~:4f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 116

7t

~Jt rJj ~

II

t~
}dt A " ~

-t 1fJ.! $

~ (Pfj-)

2013 ~ ~

't 1\ 1fJ.! t~:I:~( J:.1ffl- )

2013 if- 6 Jj

ISBN: 978-986-6600-56-2

~~1fJ.!(Marketing & Distribution Channel) 9;of:;J! ~ t~~ -$-~~ fq E.~ h n~ 1*-Z...hff 1E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
tM"oo ~

119

t~7~*

A # A$t--H jftR.$ ~ A#A$t-ttjftR.$~

~ ~ T

.tf, k

fL oJL:Iti 1-'r""'-

A~ ~1_'<. -! ~

IHI &.4> r+1 ~ J;Jl. 19PJ ll'J4:. ~ ,'j", -vr I Ju .......................

137

;*11
ffi,gi;~

~~~ tJt ;jf~

~iL-:fj1t.gijij[A$ ~ iL-:fj1t.gijij[A$ ~ iL-:t;1t.giji j[A$ ~iL-:fj1t.gijij[A$

B*311A~.~.BOO.$~~fi~~~~.~-t9a&.~~-t9a~~
.:t..htf 1E. .
M -er :1 ~Tt AJttL

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 148
.J-. .:lJ: .J-. ./\... ~..A...'+

J.

4-~t a
0

;:c~
~

~fl ol\l:..:r m

J. ~

.t~
~}L~1:t

A#A$1f~$m~~ A#A$M;Jt1:-~~$ ~

156

167

III

2013 I@ ~ ~ 1\:g. Jt;iil:l:j (J:..1Ht) ISBN: 978-98G-6600-5()-2

~,~
*

2013 if- 6 A

~~1f~(Marketing & Distribution Channel)

~ ~ .E; b. :~~'Iiil.c!l; Z. ~ TJ!9. 1* IHl 1~ g;J -:Jizn. :f./ a f'FJ 0 T'5 3'l"'j$JX. J~ ~ '1'7 '/, '9~J "iT' ~ .'j;:<:,,~}'l1...
+A;:J 1'0 U
20>

176

'T

:tl<. "t

it.

r?

.J- jJ}. BiI fll':{. -ih .A. '-T' ~ r;f:,- li'J

.lJn '-T'

:>.'& jJ}.

e. ;r-

~~a1f
7fz;f~ f.
.j~~

~~**I@~/lij;f~*~ ~ ~ * * I@ ~ /lij;f~* ~ 182

~1t R~Ai~PJt ~.j~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~.:L~~t 3!. f **/lij *~

190

Does Macao Suffer From Dutch Disease? A Theoretical Model on Macao's Gambling Booms 196 KE, Jing Ying Jl r,.:L* rJt /lij* ~ Sports Management Information System to Reduce Failure of Sports 214 Organization Muhammad Rizky Pribadi STMIKJSTIE MDP, PALEMBANG, INDONESIA The Role of Zakat on the Country's Economy RINI APRILIA STIE MDP, PALEMBANG, INDONESIA YULIZAR KASIH STIE MDP, PALEMBANG, INDONESIA 219

A study of the relationship between managerial philosophies of a peace culture and cross-cultural ma 226

~AA~

t~.***~44~~a1t:g.~*~
!J.. .:L 'if: rJt ~ fj; ~ }J ft it rJt

Suggestive Human Resource Policies on Events of Foxconn Jump

;far 1~J4'-~ A;:5t

244

IV

*- '* *- -t ~ t" {- J.! ~ (PIT)

ISBN: 978-986-6600-56-2

EJ ~~
2 a 13 ~ ~ 't 1\ {- J.! ~:i~ ( J:.. fff}- ) 2 a 13 -fF-6 }j

xt~ifl.!(Marketing & Distribution Channel)

REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS TAX(PBB-P2) AS A REGIONAL TAX SitiKhairani, SE, Ak.,M.Si TrisnadiWijaya, SE,S.Kom TRANSFER LAND AND BUILDING 250

REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS TRANSFER LAND AND BUILDING TAX(PBB-P2) AS A REGIONAL TAX
SitiKhairani, SE, Ak.,M.Si Email: sitLkhairani@mdp.ac.id TrisnadiWijaya, SE,S.Kom Email:trisnadLwijaya@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Since the enactment of Act No. 28 year 2009 about Regional Taxes and Levies, urban and rural sectors of the PBB which had been the center of taxes transferred to local taxes. This review is just to see the positive and negative impacts of a tax when the PBB became the central and local taxes. This review using descriptive analysis techniques.The data used are secondary data such as the number of district / municipal management assigns PBB-P2 years 2011-2014. Data were obtained from the literature, websites Tax Ministry, and the Ministry of Finance website. This review have some conclusion thatthe transfer of Land and Building Tax Rural and Urban (PBB-P2) bring some positive impact and the weakness of the PBB- P2 is the transfer of the readiness and abilityof each region to facilitate the supporting infrastructure that is not the same.

1. INTRODUCTION
To conduct the general administration and development activities required considerable amount of funds. The required funds continue growing along with increased development. No state funding revenue sources derived from internal funds and external funds. For the Indonesian Government attempted to reduce external funding and continue to increase the amount of state revenue from internal sources. One source of internal funds that provide a substantial contribution IS tax. Taxes are the largest source of state revenue is used for governance, public services and national development. Approximately 70% - 80% of all state revenue from taxes and this amount is likely to increase from year to year in line with the needs of the state budget. Here is the proportion of tax revenue to the state budget in 2006 and 2010. Table 1 Proportion of State Revenue to State Budget year 2006 until 2010

No

Budget Year

r-----------~----~------~

Amount (in billion) State Budget Tax 949.66 985.73 781.35 723.06 723.06

1 2 3 4 5

2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

742.74 725.84 59l.98 509.46 416.31

Percentage of Tax to State Budget 78% 74% 76% 70% 67%

Source: www.depkeu.go.id, year 2013

250

Taxes levied by the authority can be divided into two: central tax and local taxes. Central tax is the tax collected and managed by the central government, while local taxes are withheld and managed by either local governments Government Level I / Provincial Government Level II / District and the City. Land and Building Tax (PBB) is a local tax. The legal basis is the Act No. 12 year 1985 which converted into Act No. 12 year 1994, and the last is Act No. 28 year 2009 about Regional Taxes and Levies. Land and building are two objects of the PBB, both of which are owned, earned benefits, and controlled. Earth's surface is land and water, while the building is a construction technique that embedded or attached to both land and in the waters of Indonesia. Since the enactment of Act No. 28 year 2009 about Regional Taxes and Levies, urban and rural sectors of the PBB which had been the center of taxes transferred to local taxes. And whether this transfer of authority will harm the country or reduce reception center? Directorate General of Taxation is responsible for implementing the PBB-P2 until December 31, 2013 as long as not implemented by the district / city. But starting in 2014 the PBB management is the responsibility of the district / kota. This review is just to see the positive and negative impacts of a tax when the PBB when the PBB became the central and local taxes.

2. DISCUSSION
This review usmg descriptive analysis techniques. Descriptive analysis was conducted to determine and be able to explain the characteristics of the studied variables in a given situation (Sekaran 2009, p. 158). Used in this review reference material consisting of papers, articles, and past research on the PBB ever done in Indonesia. The data used are secondary data such as the number of district / municipal management assigns PBB-P2 years 2011-2014. Data were obtained from the literature, websites Tax Ministry, and the Ministry of Finance website. The transfer of the management of Land and Building Tax Rural and Urban (PBB-P2) from the central government to local government is a form of follow-up regional autonomy and fiscal decentralization. Policy form was poured into Act No. 28 of 2009 about Regional Taxes and Levies. With the transfer of the activities of the process of data collection, assessment, determination, administration, collection / billing and service of the PBB-P2 will be held by the Local Government (District/City). Widespread implementation of regional autonomy and fiscal decentralization and its responsibility began in 2004, as outlined in Act No. 32 year 2004 aboutLocalGovernment and Act No. 33 year 2004 about Fiscal Balance between the Central Government and Local Government. Both of these laws regulate subjects of local government authority and funding for the implementation of the authority. In addition there is also the Act No. 28 year 2009 about Regional Taxes and Levies regions that regulate matters concerning the authority of the local Goverment do the collection to local communities in order to obtain funding to implement regional development. Both the principal Act and the Law on local taxes and levies are essentially linked to a basic principle which is often called the money follows function. In the framework of fiscal decentralization main instrument used is the granting of authority to local governments to levy taxes. Regional autonomy is the right, authority, and duty to regulate autonomous regions and manage their own affairs and interests of local communities appropriate legislation
251

(ActNo. 32 year 2004). While decentralization is not only the devolution of authority from central government to local governments but also devolution of some powers of government to the private sector in the form of privatization (Mardiasmo, 2009 p. 24). The central government must not allow for the very conduct and supervise all implementation of development across the region is of infinite extent. So with the implementation of fiscal decentralization is that local governments are able participate actively in national development. The principle of decentralization is also likely to be a factor in the opinion I made a policy judgment for the government to establish urban and rural sectors of the PBB to local taxes. In addition to considerations of fiscal decentralization on which to base considerations, the PBB and the revenue sharing BPHTB from central government to local governments are, in my opinion may be the reason why the transfer occurred. Here are the results of the PBB division of the central government to local governments: Funds for the outcome of the PBB acceptance by 90% with the following details: 1. 16.2% for the province and distributed to the provincial Regional Treasury Account; 2. 64.8% for district / city and distributed to the concerned Regional Treasury Account district / city; 3. 9% for collection costs; 10% of the Government revenue of PBB distributed to all districts and cities based on the realization of the PBB acceptance of the current budget year, with a proportion as follows: 1. 65% evenly distributed to all districts and cities; 2. 35% distributed as incentives to local counties and cities that the realization of the previous year to reach / exceed revenue plan certain sectors. Revenue Sharing from BPHTB at 80% with the following details: 1. 16% for the province concerned and distributed to the provincial Regional Treasury Account; 2. 64% to counties and cities producing regions and distributed to Regional Treasury Account district / city. 20% of the Government of BPHTB distributed with equal portions to all counties and cities. As can be seen in the division upon receipt of PBBfunds and BPHTB, then the PBB should not the responsibility of the central government (the process of data collection, evaluation, designation, administrating, collection / billing and service), because almost all of its acceptance is to Regional Government. As to which is the purpose of the removal of government PBB-P2 become regional taxes in accordance with Act No. 28 year 2009 is: Increase the accountability of regional autonomy. Provide new opportunities to the region to impose a new levy (add types of local taxes and levies). Give greater authority to levy taxes and by expanding the local tax base. Authorizes the county in the district tariff setting, and Submit tax functions as an instrument in the area of budgeting and setting. If we look at the meaning of the above objectives, the first of the accountability of regional autonomy, then from the point of view of the author, with PBB-P2 maketh a fully local taxes will be the responsibility region, the process of data collection, assessment, determination, administration, collection / billing and service can be more effective. The local government has full responsibility in managing the PBB as local taxes that may increase the region's autonomy in carrying out development in their respective regions without having to wait for the allocation of funds from the central
252

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

government. The PBB as local taxes can be a significant contribution to local revenue (PAD). And of course, local governments must not forget the responsibility (accountability) to the public both in terms of revenue and in terms of its use so as not to give rise to public suspicion against the local government. The second aspect of opportunities for the imposition of a new levy (add new taxes and levies) in the opinion of the author, local governments must better understand the ins and outs of both the local population, total employment, the number of investors or in other words, local governments know the exact potential region and also to know what is best for the region. Third expand the local tax base, which means that local governments can maximize revenues by looking at the possibility of expanding the local tax base by not burden the people. The fourth regional authority in setting local tax rates, this transition is not only the responsibility of management, but also given the authority in setting local tax rates. It means that the central government gives broad authority to the regions to set up autonomous regions so that local independence is getting stronger and not always rely on the central government. Here's a comparison with ofthe ActPBB to the Act PDRB: Table 2 Comparison offheAct PBB toThe Act PDRD

Description Subject

Object

Act ofPBB The person or entity that has a real right to the earth, and / or have, menguasa and / or utilize the building (Article 4 Paragraph 1) Earth and / or buildings (Article 2)

Act ofPDRD Same (Article 78 Paragraph 1 and 2)

0.5% (Article 5) 20% till 100% (Government Regulation No. 25 year 2002 IS set at 20% or 40%) N on- Taxable Sales Maximum of Rp 12 million (Article 6) Value (NJOPTKP) Payable PBB Tariff x NJKP x (NJOP-NJOPTKP) (Article 3 Paragraph 3) 0,5% x 20% x (NJOP-NJOPTKP) atau 0,5% x 40% x (NJOP-NJOPTKP) (Article 7) Source: wwwpajak.go.id, year 2013 Tariff Taxable Sales Value (NJKP)

Earth and / or buildings, except for the area used for business activities plantation, forestry, (Article and mmmg. 77 Paragraph 1) Highest 0.3% (Article 80) Not used

Least Rp 10 million Max: 0,3% (NJOP-NJOPTKP) (Article 77, Paragraph (Article 81) x 4)

As can be seen in the table above, it appears that the area has the authority to set their own rates according to PBB that there is potential in the area. With the authority is expected in terms of overall taxation services can also be better because of the good service can increase tax compliance which will ultimately increase tax revenues. Last as
253

budgeting instruments and arrangements in the region, from the point of view of PBB as a writer with the transfer tax area means PBB to be one of the components of a good budgetary revenue and expenditure side. When compared to some countries, PBB rates in Indonesia is smallest than another country in the amount of 0.3%, below 1%, which means that local governments can further maximize the PBB rates so as to increase local revenue and encourage economic growth in the region. The following comparison of PBB in Indonesia with other countries: Table 3 Comparison of Land and Building Tax Collection in Indonesia and Other Countries Tax Elements Levels of Government Basis for the Imposition Value of N on- Taxable Taiwan Province Total value the land of Japan Municipality Australia State Value of undeveloped land $ 10,000 to $ 150,000. Different each state Indonesia District I City Taxable value sale

Tax tariff

Estimated market value worth N/A Land 300 yen, Building 200,000 yen, Assets 1,500,000 yen Rated as low as 1.4% - 2.1% 1% and high as 5.5%

Minimal Rp 10.000.000

Imposition of Tax on Vacant Land

Tax 2-fold

imposed

Additional 1.4% of the land III excess of the .. mmimum size

Progressive Maximum rates, monitor 0.3% certain percentage in a range with the addition of a certain percentage. Highest rated 4% N/A Same with not an empty land

Source:Tasniwati, 2010, p.70 With the issuance of Act No. 28 year 2009 about Regional Taxes and Levies, local governments now have an additional source of local revenue (PAD) derived from local taxes, so that when this type of local taxes consists of eleven types of taxes, ieHotel Tax, Restaurant Tax, Entertainment Tax, Advertising Tax, Street Lighting Tax, Non Metallic Minerals and Rocks Tax, Parking tax, Groundwater Tax, Swallow's Nests Tax, Tax on Land and Building Rural and Urban, and the tax on Acquisition of Land and Building. Addition type Local Taxes can be seen in the following table:

254

Table4 Differences Local Tax Type According to Act No. 34 year 2000 by Act No. 28 year 2009 Act No. 34 Year 2000 Hotel Tax Restaurant Tex Entertainment Tax Advertising Tax Street Lighting Tax Parking Tax Intake of Minerals Tax Group C Act No. 28 Year 2009 Hotel Tax Restaurant Tex Entertainment Tax Advertising Tax Street Lighting Tax Parking Tax N on Metallic Minerals and Rocks Tax (N omenclature Change) Groundwater Tax (Transfer of Province) Swallow's Nest Tax (new) PBB Rural and Urban (new) Tax on Acquisition of Land and Building (new) Source: Directorate General of Taxation, year 2013 The first city receiving PBB-P2 as a local tax is the city of Surabaya. Thus it can be said that the city of Surabaya as a pioneer implementation of the transfer of the management of

revenues from PBB. Mayor of Surabaya, Tri IrRismaharini, MT stated, that in the year 2010, PAD Surabaya only Rp 1 trillion, and in 2011 the city of Surabaya revenue to Rp 2 trillion. He added the cause of the increase in revenue derived from PBB and BPHTB (Media Keuangan Vol. No. V. 40/ December 2010, p. 8). With the success of the city of Surabaya in managing PBB-P2 can be an example for permerintah districts / cities. The following stages of the transfer of the management of the PBB and BPHT. TableS Number of District / City PBB-P2Management Year 2011 - 2014 Year Number of District / City Description 2011 1 Surabaya 2012 17 Depok Bogor Palembang Bandar Lampung Gorontalo Medan, etc 2013 105 Banda Aceh Bengkulu Lampung tengah Metro Kab. Way Kanan Kab. TulangBawang, etc 2014 369 Remains Recipients

255

Source: DJP, year 2013 From the above description, it is very worthy receipts submitted to PBB-P2 region.

Thus, the task can be helped the central government and the withdrawal of PBB and BPHTB can be done optimally if the withdrawal is done by the region itself. With much reduced taxpayer must be served by the central government, it is expected that overall taxation

services also will be much better. Because of good service will increase tax compliance of taxpayers who will ultimately increase tax revenues. Because as we all know that taxes are a significant source of revenue which is almost 80% state funds sourced from various kinds of taxes that exist. In fact almost every area often difficulty in finding themselves and increase their income. So that even after 10 years of decentralization implemented, some areas still

rely receipt of central assistance in the form of block grants or special allocation fund. This happens because the level of revenue is still low. Local revenue is another source of financing for the implementation of the

decentralization

of the most significant because of the number of PAD is a symbol of a

regional self-reliance in the income does not depend on the central government to receive assistance in the form of block grants and earmarked grants. PAD dominance over local tax revenue and levies are to be authorized by a local. By Rima Adelina research entitled "Analysis of Effectiveness and Revenue

Contribution Against Land and Building Tax Revenue in Gresik regency", that the acceptance of PBB from 2007 till 2011 is very effective to reach more than 100%. By of that, with the new policy Act No. 28 year 2009 about PDRD where the transfer of authority over PBB and BPHTB from the center to the regions, is expected to provide more flexibility for local governments to implement the maximum decentralization by increasing revenue through local taxes so the government can carry out their duties more effectively and efficiently, and to help improve the development and economy of the country. So based on the above considerations, PBB-P2 as local taxes are considered it is clear that the policy of the establishment of But it still can not avoid the

very appropriate.

shortcomings and problems that occur, for example, because of the limited experience in the area of information systems development and supporting infrastructure, there are still some areas that are not yet ready to carry out this responsibility has not been prepared such as local regulations and the lack of potential sources human resources which each region. For BPHTB has been required since January 2011, it may arise losses (potential lost) due to there are some areas that are not ready and not make local regulations. But for the PBB established no later than January 2014, the local government should be able to take advantage of this transition
256

period to learn and prepare everything including local regulations and human resources in order to really be ready. Such as that conducted by the mayor of Palembang, Mr. Eddy Santana Putra, with a lot of outreach to the community is one of the goals that PBB pay diligent and obedient. To overcome this problem there are several ways that can be done such as, for example, with better coordination between central and local government. Since this is a new policy would be better if the central government more control over its implementation before the

local authorities really be ready to implement them. And for the performance issues of human resources, can be overcome by the central government often provides learning / training or socialization in each region. By taking various measures for the implementation of the policy is expected to PBB-P2 and BPHTB as local taxes can be done effectively and efficiently and the independence of the region can be realized in accordance with the expectations of the

Indonesian government.

3. CONCLUSION
From the above review, the conclusions that can be drawn between the other: 1. Transfer of Land and Building Tax Rural and Urban (PBB-P2) bring some positive impact, ie: o Creating local independence, managing their own local tax. o o o o Boosting economic growth in the region. Improve accountability to the public . Improve the capacity of local human resources. Relieve central government job as the manager ofPBB. where regions can maximize local revenue by

2. The weakness of the PBB- P2 is the transfer of the readiness and ability of each region to facilitate the supporting infrastructure that is not the same. So there could be a lack of accurate data collection so that the achievement expected. of revenue targets are not as

REFERENCES
Adelina.Rima.20 11. AnalisisEfektifitasdanKontribusiPenerimaanPajakBumidanBangunan (PBB) TerhadapPendapatanAsli Daerah di Kabupaten Gresik.UniversitasNegeri Surabaya.

257

Mokamat.2009. AnalisisFaktor yang Mempengaru hiEfekti fi tasPenerimaanPa j akBumi danB angunan di KabupatenGrobongan.UniversitasDiponegoro Semarang. Mardiasmo. 2009. AkuntansiSektorPublik. PenerbitAndi, Yogyakarta. Jakarta.

Sekaran, Uma. 2009. MetodologiPenelitianuntukBisnis.PenerbitSalembaEmpat, Tasniwati.20 1O. TinjauanPeranPajakBumidanBangunansebagaiPajak Indonesia. Undang-UndangRepublik

Daerah. Universitas

Indonesia No. No. 32 Tahun 2004 tentangPemerintahDaearah

Undang-Undang No. 33 Tahun 2004 tentangPerimbanganKeuanganantaraPemerintahPusatdanPemerintah

Daerah.

Undang-Undang No.28 Tahun 2009 tentangPajak Daerah danRetribusi Daerah

258

.g. IT A.. : .g. IT fIT :

~

*.*~~.f-J~~
168 ~

t5ttt

(04)8511888 . 3011 1tA: (04)8511382 ~ J:U:: http://ba.dyu.edu.tw/ E-Mail : ba5110@mail.dyu.edu.tw ill f,i: 2013 1f- 6 jj ;iJ) f,i ~ 1.: 600 j(.

1t

u,:

J:U:: 51591 ~1t.~*#~~Jf.t~

I 5 B N : 978-986-6600-56-2

259