People always say companies in different countries have different cultures. I didn't agree at the first time: with the fast developing of Internet, the earth seems now to be a global village, then how come the difference?
But now I agree after seeing the difference between two companies who do same business. The two are Google.com and Baidu.com(claimed to be China's google)
Google's founders-Sergey Brin and Larry Page- were awarded the title "Men of the Year" by Financial Times (FT)
Baidu's founder Li Yanhong was awarded "Men of the year" by CCTV, the largest TV station in China.
Looks the same, right? But no.
Baidu put the news on its frontpage(attention, the front searching engine page), and opened a special column to praise its boss.
Google didn't say anything on its "corporate news" section(though it could do that), not even to say the frontpage.
In the corporate culture, Chinese companies always put the leaders in the highest postion, so there are many examples on how companies go bankrupted without their founders. But the good operations are depending on the structure and regulations, not on personals.
Here, I saw the difference.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Media_what is happening?
What is happening in media these days? Many of the global media organization has fallen into the embarassing situation. Wall Street Journal may close its Asian edition and use the reporter from the Dow Jones Newswires in the future; Businessweek may close its Asian and Europe edition in order to save money; and so do many other big media once famous for their brands. So what's happening?
Internet is one the most important factors to affect those media. No one could control Internet right now. The content of the traditional media could freely, or partly freely, spead on the net, while people could read them without affording anything. But that will affect people's creativity at last. Many reporters, who used to produce more high-quality works, now have to increase their speed to produce lower quarlity stories. Google's suceess is based on the suffer of many people working in the traditional media.
Today, Google has compromised with Microsoft on a case of its employee Lee Kaifu. It doesn't need to inform media. All it does is to publish a piece on its blog. Traditional media has lost its basic value. What it should do in the future?
Internet is one the most important factors to affect those media. No one could control Internet right now. The content of the traditional media could freely, or partly freely, spead on the net, while people could read them without affording anything. But that will affect people's creativity at last. Many reporters, who used to produce more high-quality works, now have to increase their speed to produce lower quarlity stories. Google's suceess is based on the suffer of many people working in the traditional media.
Today, Google has compromised with Microsoft on a case of its employee Lee Kaifu. It doesn't need to inform media. All it does is to publish a piece on its blog. Traditional media has lost its basic value. What it should do in the future?
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Law_Bank regulator via Court
Could you imagine one day SEC, the U.S. denominate banking regulator, asked the court to reconsider the ruling on the bank it regulated? You could be laugh on that, coz it will never happen.
But, that's happening in China. CBRC, China Banking Regualtory Commission, sent a formal letter to the high court, asking to revise the court's ruling related with Agricultural Bank of China.
In 2001, a poor farm applied for the 2-million-yuan loan from a branch of ABC, but it claimed that it hasn't got the reply "in time", which has brought huge loses on its business. The high court, when the farm sued the second time, ruled that the ABC branch should pay for the farm's loss.
ABC,the long-history government money firm, was angry and then filed to its regulator, CSRC, to ask for the explanation on the loan regulation. CSRC, then, sent a formal letter with four reasons to ask the high court to renew its ruling.
The point is not on who should win, but on who should decide how to implement the law. Does CSRC, though as the one who helps making the loan law before, have the right to ask the judges, who implement the law, to revise the already-made decision? CSRC is powerful, of course, but that doesn't mean it could have the rights to be the judges. It may have the right to not agree on the ruling, and it could ask the revision on the regulation to make it more clear. The right process is to revise the law first via the normal law-making procedure. Currently, it has to obey the court, however decision judges make.
The most important factor for a balanced and open society is the power restrictment on each social body. Not a single body could have unlimited power. That's what law means to the people in the society. But here, we see, some bad example.
But, that's happening in China. CBRC, China Banking Regualtory Commission, sent a formal letter to the high court, asking to revise the court's ruling related with Agricultural Bank of China.
In 2001, a poor farm applied for the 2-million-yuan loan from a branch of ABC, but it claimed that it hasn't got the reply "in time", which has brought huge loses on its business. The high court, when the farm sued the second time, ruled that the ABC branch should pay for the farm's loss.
ABC,the long-history government money firm, was angry and then filed to its regulator, CSRC, to ask for the explanation on the loan regulation. CSRC, then, sent a formal letter with four reasons to ask the high court to renew its ruling.
The point is not on who should win, but on who should decide how to implement the law. Does CSRC, though as the one who helps making the loan law before, have the right to ask the judges, who implement the law, to revise the already-made decision? CSRC is powerful, of course, but that doesn't mean it could have the rights to be the judges. It may have the right to not agree on the ruling, and it could ask the revision on the regulation to make it more clear. The right process is to revise the law first via the normal law-making procedure. Currently, it has to obey the court, however decision judges make.
The most important factor for a balanced and open society is the power restrictment on each social body. Not a single body could have unlimited power. That's what law means to the people in the society. But here, we see, some bad example.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
WTO_last day, but no end yet
It is the last day for the WTO MC6 in Hong Kong. But seems until now 4pm in the afternoon, no one, including those one sitting in the negotiation room, knows what will happen. Over 1000 reporters, including me, are hanging around now, waiting for the final result to come out(I planned to rush into the negotiation room and shout at them: what are you folks really doing here?)
European Union has become the one to affect the process in the last minute, widely reported by the media. "Everyone is ganging up at me", said European Union Commissioner Peter Mandelson in the conference, described by one attendant. United States is also struggling from the talks with West Africa countries.
Leading developing countries already agreed to eliminate the export subsidies before 2013, while Brazile is arguing the deadline should be 2010.
U.S. is worries about textile import from Bangladesh and Cambodia, claimed to be the reason why they are reluctant on giving the least developing countries tarriff and quota free system.
And so on....
WTO has become a place for everyone to speak up, though U.S. and EU are still the two speakers with biggest voice....
Who will lose and who will win?
European Union has become the one to affect the process in the last minute, widely reported by the media. "Everyone is ganging up at me", said European Union Commissioner Peter Mandelson in the conference, described by one attendant. United States is also struggling from the talks with West Africa countries.
Leading developing countries already agreed to eliminate the export subsidies before 2013, while Brazile is arguing the deadline should be 2010.
U.S. is worries about textile import from Bangladesh and Cambodia, claimed to be the reason why they are reluctant on giving the least developing countries tarriff and quota free system.
And so on....
WTO has become a place for everyone to speak up, though U.S. and EU are still the two speakers with biggest voice....
Who will lose and who will win?
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Amy_crazy in WTO MC6
Writing always needs strength, someone said before. Amy finally get that strength to go back to my blog. After some rest at home, Amy is now crazy in the fantastic WTO Ministerial Conference 6 in Hong Kong.
Described as a conference which will not get a satisfied result, the city, Hong Kong, still trys to show ministers from the world its full energy and good management.
"If no achievement could happen in such a beautiful city as Hong Kong, how ministers do that in the other cities", said Bo Xilai, Chinese Commerce Minister, who leaded a over-100-delegate group to attend the conference.
Unfortunately, Bo's colleagues are not open as Bo does. They refuse to talk to media; no press briefing; no attending the public debate; not to say to communicate with the non-profit organizations from China, though there are only two.
We could say China's low profile is its way to avoid attack; but in such an organization with 144 members, how you could avoid attack? U.S. is there, speaking, though under attack; European Union is there, under attack, too. But at least they show their attitude, make their negotiation transparent. On the other side, see developing countries who are more poor and smaller than China, they are also giving their voices. It is an organization, where everyone will forget, or discrimate you when you don't speak anything.
In such a worldwide conference, I know we could justify a country's strength from its economy, or population; let's hear its voice publicly......
Described as a conference which will not get a satisfied result, the city, Hong Kong, still trys to show ministers from the world its full energy and good management.
"If no achievement could happen in such a beautiful city as Hong Kong, how ministers do that in the other cities", said Bo Xilai, Chinese Commerce Minister, who leaded a over-100-delegate group to attend the conference.
Unfortunately, Bo's colleagues are not open as Bo does. They refuse to talk to media; no press briefing; no attending the public debate; not to say to communicate with the non-profit organizations from China, though there are only two.
We could say China's low profile is its way to avoid attack; but in such an organization with 144 members, how you could avoid attack? U.S. is there, speaking, though under attack; European Union is there, under attack, too. But at least they show their attitude, make their negotiation transparent. On the other side, see developing countries who are more poor and smaller than China, they are also giving their voices. It is an organization, where everyone will forget, or discrimate you when you don't speak anything.
In such a worldwide conference, I know we could justify a country's strength from its economy, or population; let's hear its voice publicly......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
