Tsai Zheng-jia's (
First, there is the Taiwanese psyche. In my experience, many Taiwanese companies have looked to original equipment manufacturing (OEM) as a soft option for developing their companies. It is a minimalist approach which ensures minimum profits and often a loss of control of the company's direction as its total operation is often governed by the customer, who may in fact have input most of the research and development -- and certainly all the marketing effort. I believe one of the major reasons for this is the perceived temporary nature of Taiwan and the political instability caused by the relationship with China.
Second, is the perception of "marketing" in Taiwan. A majority of Taiwanese associate the word "marketing" with the word "cheating" This is a result of some confusion between the meaning of the words "marketing" and "sales" To my mind, selling is the direct act of convincing a potential customer to buy certain goods or services, whilst marketing is the matching of the manufacture's abilities to produce with the requirements of the market. The marketing department effectively controls the company.
Because of often-dubious selling practices in the past in many sectors, and the confusion between "sales"and "marketing," marketing is considered a dubious profession by many Taiwanese and is therefore not a profession of choice, often not attracting the quality people it requires. This will be a severe obstacle to any branding ambitions of many companies.
Third, there is the inability of company presidents to delegate. In many Taiwanese companies, with the notable exception of some multinationals, the chief executive officer is totally incapable of delegating responsibility. This would also be a major stumbling block.
Fourth, there is the lack of local talent. There are few experienced marketers. Another way the government could assist is in encouraging individuals to enter the profession by way of grants and other inducements. In the short term it may be appropriate to look overseas for the necessary experience.
Tony Goodwin
Banciao
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing