How Taiwan can boost your startup in unexpected ways
Taiwan attractions have become an open secret in terms of its location, low operating expenses, and affordable top tier IT talent.
Startups (not limited to Taiwanese) may receive initial funding up to US$650,000 followed by US$3.3 million in subsequent rounds, from government’s new direct investment program.
“Taiwan’s National Development Fund (NDF) may now invest up to NT$20 million in any new startup versus a prior ceiling of NT$5 million, thereby emphasizing an equity stake rather than a grant that must be repaid.”
“The program has also been expanded to US$66 million. As of now, 57 companies have received a total of around US$25 million in funding, meaning US$40 million remains available.”
Entrepreneur visa program that was introduced in 2015, just made it easier for international founders to come to Taiwan.
“Employment Gold Card” as well as tax and retirement benefits for foreign professionals.
Last, AppWorks, the region’s largest startup accelerator and founder community would love to help the startups to land in Taiwan.
AppWorks is now accepting applications for our next AI/blockchain only batch. Be sure to apply before the final deadline of December 16, 2019 >>> http://bit.ly/2XXfWqh
To read more >> https://e27.co/emerging-funding-opportunities-in-taiwan-20191122/?fbclid=IwAR2cDczVa-fbd-xW5sgbZcFk9Ga4-Ptfzo-XGm31I0j17BpLziX6JBQjM5s
By Izza Lin,
Recruiting Master
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「in employment meaning」的推薦目錄:
in employment meaning 在 黃傑龍 Simon - 窮富翁 好人好事 Facebook 的最佳貼文
以下係我已經喺WhatsApp收咗三次嘅前高等法院英女王御用大律師,Henry Litton (列顕倫)* QC ;給香港市民的一封信:~ (裏便了無新意, 不過有兩個好處. 1) 洋人寫係唔同啲, 仲要係有名望嘅大法官, 特別有說服力 2)啲英文寫得好靚, 仲有中文翻譯可以學習英文。
Henry Litton (列顕倫)* QC was the Judge of the highest Court in Hong Kong. He retired in 2015.
英女皇御用大律師列顕倫(亨利·利頓)QC,是香港最高法院的法官。他於2015年退休。
The following is what he’s written...
以下是他寫的。
There are few certainties in life. One of them is this: The common law system underpinning Hong Kong’s “core values” is destined to expire in 27 years’ time. The One Country Two Systems formula was designed to last for 50 years and no more. Hence Article 5 of the Basic Law. There is no mechanism in the Basic Law for the system to continue beyond 30 June 2047.
生活中很少有確定性。其中之一是:支撐香港“核心價值”的普通法制度將在27年後失效。一國兩制方案的設計時限是50年,之後,再也沒有了。因此,“基本法”第五條清楚指出。2047年6月30日以後,“基本法”中沒有任何機制讓這制度繼續下去。
All the calls for Freedom, Democracy etc have no meaning if the common law crumbles.
如果普通法崩潰,所有要求“自由、民主”等的呼籲都是沒有意義。
If the protesters truly value their professed aims, *their focus should be on demonstrating to Beijing and to the rest of the world that the One Country Two Systems formula works, and to promote an atmosphere in which Beijing feels comfortable with the system – and when the time comes, to extend the Basic Law for another 50 years, 100 years*. Then liberal democratic norms and values might have a chance to flourish.
如果抗議者真的誠心誠意的重視他們宣稱的目標,*他們的重點、重心,應該是向北京和世界其他地方展示“一國兩制”的方案是有效的,並推展“一國兩制”的成功實施。令北京對這一制度感到寛心舒泰的環境下 - 當時機成熟時,說服北京將“基本法”再延長50年,100年*。那麼,自由、民主的模式、準則和價值觀還可能有延續蓬勃、活躍的機會。
Crunch time is not 27 years away. It is just round the corner. For Hong Kong to continue as one of the world’s greatest financial and trading centres, planning for the future must necessarily look 20 -30 years ahead. So the hard question will soon be asked: is the common law system to continue beyond June 2047 ? The answer lies in Beijing and nowhere else.
擔心不安的時刻不是27年後的事。就在拐角處。要使香港繼續成為世界上最大的金融和貿易中心之一,對未來的規劃必須著眼於未來20-30年。因此,我們很快便會提出一個棘手的問題:普通法制度是否會延續至2047年6月以後?答案就在北京,而不是其他任何地方。
The last time this issue arose – back in 1982 – Hong Kong had the backing of Great Britain. This time Hong Kong stands alone. And, up to this point, Hong Kong has demonstrated for all the world to see that the One Country Two Systems formula is extremely fragile: and, if the unrest continues, it would surely fracture beyond any hope of recall.
回顧1982年,上一次被問到這個問題的時候,當時香港是得到了大英帝國的支持。而這一次,香港只能孤掌難鳴。到目前為止,香港已經向全世界展示了“一國兩制”這方案是極其脆弱的:如果動亂繼續下去,它肯定會褫奪,無望地被撤銷。
It is beyond the power of the Hong Kong SAR government to devise the governing model for the future. Pressing the Hong Kong government to promote greater democracy is futile. Rightly or wrongly, that power lies in Beijing. Nowhere else. Hong Kong enjoys freedoms found nowhere else in China. To think that unlawful assemblies and demonstrations, and violence in the streets, would soften Beijing’s attitude towards Hong Kong is absurd. Common sense suggests it would have the opposite effect.
為未來設計治理模式,是超出了香港特別行政區政府的權力範圍。要迫使香港政府促進更大的民主是徒勞的。不管是你喜歡也好。不喜歡也好。權力就是在北京。沒有別的地方了。香港現在享有中國其他地方沒有的自由。認為非法集會示威和街頭暴力會軟化北京的對香港的態度是荒謬的。常識表明,它只會產生相反的效果。
But there are deep social issues which the SAR government can redress, having regard in particular to the huge foreign currency reserves it holds:USD425 billion – by far the largest in the world, enough to guarantee public servants’ pensions hundreds of times over. And yet Hong Kong’s social services are crumbling, hospitals are understaffed, public education is poor, teachers are ill-paid, young people cannot afford to rent even the most substandard apartment, the gap between rich and poor is ever-widening.
但是,有一些深層次的社會問題是特區政府可以解決的,特別是考慮到特區政府擁有世界上最龐大的外匯儲備:4,250億美元 - 是政府公務員的長俸所需要的保證金額的數以百倍。然而,香港的社會服務卻每況愈下,醫院人手不足,全民所需的教育不論在質素及資源都極差,教師薪酬偏低。年輕人怎都難以負擔租用即使是最不合標準的居所,社會上,貧富差距在不斷拉大。
The laissez-faire policy of the colonial government has been carried to extremes by the SAR government in the past 20-odd years. The rich have prospered in the meanwhile whilst the bulk of the people suffered. The influx of Mainlanders under the One-Way Permit system has caused great strain on all services. The people’s needs have been neglected. The young see little prospect of a fulfilling future and even university graduates find difficulty in meaningful employment.
大英帝國殖民地政府的自由放任政策在過去二十多年來一直被特區政府極端化。與此同時,大多數富人們卻在此期間更加繁榮昌盛、更加富裕起來,而相反普通市民却受苦了。在單程證制度下,內地人士大量湧入,對所有服務造成更大壓力。市民的需求、需要被忽視。年輕人看不出有向上游、向上流的任何富圖的希望。甚至大學畢業生也很難找到有合識、合意的工作。
These, I suggest, are the deep-seated ills which sustain the fire of discontent in the wider community, and bring hundreds of thousands to march in the streets. These are not matters which a commission of inquiry can resolve.
我認為,這些水深火熱的社會問題及弊病,這些憤懣之火已經廣泛地蔓延在整個社會,並促使數以十萬人走上街頭。這些都不是一個所謂諮詢委員會可以解決。
The media here is full of Hong Kong stories, and of course footage of the riotous behaviour on the streets: what empty slogans, meaningless rhetoric the protesters display ……….In watching these events I am reminded of the prayer attributed to Saint Francis:
今天的媒體充斥著不同形式的香港事件,當然有街頭暴力行為的鏡頭:抗議者們展示的空洞口號和毫無意義的粗言穢語。…當我在觀看這些事件時,‘我想起聖弗朗西斯的禱告:
Pray God give me the courage to change the things I can change, the fortitude to bear the things I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference.
願上帝賜給我勇氣去改變我能改變的事情,給我勇氣去承受那些我無法改變的事情,給我智慧去分辨其中的黑白。
I arrive in Hong Kong Thursday 24 October, staying for one month.
我在今年的10月24日星期四抵達香港,逗留一個月。
As ever
如常,祝願香港
H
列顕倫
PS Please feel free to convey these observations to anyone you chose ………….They are *not confidential*.
歡迎隨時將我這些意見傳達給你所選擇的任何人.此文是*不保密的*。
in employment meaning 在 翻譯這檔事 Facebook 的最讚貼文
Taipei Times 英文臺北時報今刊出讀者投書致賴揆:
官方一直示範菜英文,還想列英文為第二官語?
舉例之一:交通部觀光局行之五年的「借問站」計劃英文宣傳名稱「Taiwan Ask Me」是「菜英文」。無誤!
繼之前的菜英文「Taiwan Touch Your Heart」之後,不意外。
最後這一段切中要害:
// Finally, Premier Lai, how can Taiwan effectively pursue the valuable and challenging goal of making English an official language of this country if the ROC government’s own ministries are not even able to correctly compose a simple advertisement in English? //
猜測作者 Xue Meng-ren 很可能是薛孟仁(Dr. Bruce G. Shapiro),逢甲大學外國語文學系副教授。
謝謝薛教授用專業的聲音告誡政府勿失策。
以下全文轉錄投書內容,連結見留言。
-----------------------------------------------------------
An open letter to Premier William Lai
By Xue Meng-ren
Wed, Oct 24, 2018
Dear Premier William Lai (賴清德):
You have admirably and lately led Taiwan in an ongoing discussion about whether to make English a second “official” language. Many articles have appeared defending both sides of this argument.
As it stands, Taiwan uses the traditional style of Mandarin Chinese for all official government, legal and business documents. However, the Taiwanese government frequently uses English in a non-official capacity to facilitate outreach initiatives and better communication with non-Chinese-speaking residents and tourists.
“Taiwan Ask Me” is one such governmental initiative, which the Ministry of Transportation and Communications initiated five years ago.
As a Cabinet-level governmental body charged with communications, the ministry’s standard of English should be a model of English usage for the rest of the nation, particularly the tourism industry, which the ministry also officially administers.
Unfortunately, the ministry has demonstrated that its use of English is both inept and even — albeit inadvertently — insulting.
On the Republic of China’s National Day, on page 5 of the Taipei Times, the ministry’s Tourism Bureau published an announcement about the fifth anniversary of the “Taiwan Ask Me” initiative. This announcement features not only elementary grammatical errors, but also incorrect English usage that renders it meaningless and embarrassing.
To begin, in English, the phrase “Taiwan Ask Me” is nonsense, that is, it has no meaning. It must at least have some defining punctuation, such as, “Taiwan? Ask Me” or “Taiwan, Ask Me.”
The service is supposed to be for tourists in need of answers to questions about traveling around Taiwan, but the phrase “Taiwan Ask Me” absurdly means that Taiwan should ask someone, “me,” something about itself.
And, who does this “me” refer to? Certainly, the initiative does not limit itself to employing a single individual, but rather a team of individuals. Therefore, the phrase should be “Taiwan, Ask Us” not “me.”
This type of error, along with the rest of the advertisement, not only demonstrates poor English usage, but more importantly, it suggests a lack of awareness about what service to others actually means.
It suggests that the initiative “Taiwan Ask Me” is merely paying lip service to a valuable concept of a democratic government that it does not truly value or even understand. This poorly written advertisement reveals that it is more interested in celebrating its own anniversary than it is in providing the service for which it is lauding itself.
The announcement states that the ministry “launched the ‘Taiwan Ask Me’ friendly travel information service” five years ago, and now has 450 Information Stations “that prove warm and friendly services.”
Obviously, the Information Services must provide not “prove” their services. “Prove” is the incorrect English word, unless the intention is for the ministry to pat itself on the back by saying that over the past five years the service has “proved its services are warm and friendly,” but then the grammar is still incorrect.
Furthermore, the use of both “warm” and “friendly” is repetitive, since the words are synonymous in this context. Using repetitive words in this way is a feature of the elementary English usage quite common in Taiwan, but governmental English has no excuse for being elementary.
In addition to offering “domestic and foreign tourists the warmest greetings,” through the Taiwan Ask Me Information Stations, “the service further incorporates rich travel elements.” The phrase “rich travel elements” is verbal nonsense. It correctly connects words that have no discernible meaning. The article does not define or elaborate upon them.
In the following run-on sentence, the article connects these “rich travel elements” with “five unique features,” the first of which is “local gourmets.” Why would a tourist want to meet a gourmet? And what kind of a gourmet?
The ministry probably means “local food” or perhaps “local delicacies,” whereas a “gourmet” is a food connoisseur, that is, a lover of good food. “Gourmets” is an example of another English error common in Taiwan, which is to use the incorrect English word to say something related to that word.
Using Google Translate often helps Taiwanese students make these ridiculous English errors. Unfortunately, government ministers are no longer students. Thus, one expects them to have a better grasp of English, certainly as it pertains to their own special purpose or field of employment.
Together, the “five unique features” mentioned in the article are supposed to “form [a] synergistic local economy of tourism,” whatever that is. Thus, the advertisement uses yet another nonsensical phrase, the meaning of which even the necessary grammatical insertion of “a” does not clarify.
The tourist economy in Taiwan is definitely important, and it is possibly important to connect different aspects of the tourist economy into a unified plan for development. However, linking the so-called five unique features does not create an economic synergy.
Taiwan Ask Me is a free information service. It does not make money or use money to link things together to form economic relationships. Even a government minister should recognize that specious phrases reveal fake values.
For the fifth anniversary event, “Eunice LIN,” (which should be “Eunice Lin,”) “is invited to be the tour guide, and experience the friendliness of ‘Taiwan Ask Me.” This sentence means that Ms Lin is going act as a tourist guide and experience for herself the friendly services of the Information Stations. More absurd nonsense, for why would she be both the tourist guide and the tourist?
Furthermore, the ministry should take responsibility for inviting Ms Lin. Instead of writing “Eunice LIN, a popular TV personality, is invited,” the correct sentence would be: “The MOTC has invited Eunice Lin, a popular TV personality, to be a tour guide.”
Finally, Ms Lin may be a local celebrity, but she is a Taiwanese film and television actor, not a TV personality. The latter is someone who appears on TV as herself, perhaps as the host of a variety show, but not someone who appears as characters in films or a TV series. (“Actor” refers to either male or female, the distinction “actress” being no longer necessary.)
The next sentence in the article is so riddled with grammatical errors, it would take several more paragraphs to explain them all. Suffice it to say that much of what the sentence tries to say means the opposite of what it must intend, which is the major problem with the article in question, especially its conclusion.
The advertisement closes with an egregious insult to all foreign residents and tourists.
Setting aside the grammatical errors and confusing phrasing, the advertisement announces the “Hi Taiwan! Give Me 5 Point Collection Campaign,” which started on Oct. 1.
However, this campaign is only for “all citizens of Taiwan [who] are invited to visit Information Stations and get a taste of the warm and friendly services of ‘Taiwan Ask Me.’”
Apparently, foreign tourists are not allowed to “experience in-depth local travels” and only “citizens will also get an opportunity to win lovely prizes!”
Who in the world is this advertisement for? It would seem to be for foreign tourists and residents since it is in English and appears in the only English print newspaper published in Taiwan. And what citizen of Taiwan needs to read an English advertisement? Surely, any citizen of Taiwan can read all about “Taiwan Ask Me” in Chinese. And yet, this advertisement about a tourism service concludes by disinviting the foreign residents and tourists who are not only most likely to read the advertisement, but also most likely to benefit from the Taiwan Ask Me initiative.
With this appalling advertisement, the ministry makes a mockery of not only the government’s attempts to use English effectively but also its own ministerial responsibility over communication and tourism in Taiwan.
If the Taiwanese government does have the personnel to compose articles in correct English that do not insult English readers and tourists and perhaps visiting foreign dignitaries, then it should hire copy editors with the skills to do it for them. It is certainly worth the expense when compared to the embarrassing cost of losing face, which means so much to Taiwanese society.
Finally, Premier Lai, how can Taiwan effectively pursue the valuable and challenging goal of making English an official language of this country if the ROC government’s own ministries are not even able to correctly compose a simple advertisement in English?
What a conundrum, and where does one begin to solve it?
Respectfully yours,
Xue Meng-ren
Taichung