Chen Ching-chih (
Chen's answer, however, is disappointing. He cites Samsung's lackluster image in the late 1990s; if so, how could the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government in Taiwan be blamed for the obscurity of otherwise successful Taiwanese firms? The Democratic Progressive Party has ruled for five years now, but Chen cites no examples of the government following in the KMT's footsteps by tying the hands of companies.
The real answer may provoke less intrigue. LG, for example, won a spot on Interbrand's short list. The company, which used to go by the decidedly unsexy name of Lucky Goldstar, spent hundreds of millions of dollars to reinvent their brand in the mid-1990s. They are now merely enjoying the fruit of their investment. Acer, for its part, has all but retreated from the US market. When it had an opportunity to expand into consumer electronics, it instead spun off a new company with a new name, fracturing its brand identity.
Meanwhile, stellar international successes -- companies such as Quanta, Asustek and Taiwan Semiconductor -- all make money manufacturing products for consumer companies. Since the end product doesn't bear their names (indeed, firms that produce consumer products often switch suppliers anyway), no one should expect these "brands" to generate much revenue of their own accord. It should be no wonder, then, that companies like Formosa Plastics Group never make it onto lists of big global brands.
Andy Wang
Los Angeles, California
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers