關於 how to write business proposal ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

#AWE 女性創業學院在本週二舉辦了第一場數位行銷工作坊，更棒的是，有將近200位朋友透過直播參加！如果你想進一步了解如何在社群媒體上揮灑廣告創意來幫助你的事業，千萬別錯過第二場工作坊的直播，就在明天9/9下午3:00-5:30。(預告一下：9月29-30日還會再有兩場工作坊喔! )

💁‍♀️AWE x SheMeansBusiness 數位行銷工作坊 –第二場

✅ 日期：九月九日 (星期四)
✅ 時間及題目：
- 15:00-15:50 如何揮灑廣告創意
講者： 蘇培若｜adHub (經緯科技) 產品行銷總監
- 16:00-17:30 打動人心的社群文案力
講者：葉家瑜 ｜只要有人社群顧問 創意總監

💡現在就報名：https://pse.is/3n6w8j

It is exciting to see about 200 people joining us at the first Academy for Women Entrepreneurs Digital Marketing Workshop via Facebook live streaming on Tuesday! If you want to learn more about how advertisement can effectively help your business, don’t miss the second workshop that is taking place TOMORROW (9/9) from 3:00pm-5:30pm. Two more workshops will happen on September 29-30. #AWEinTaiwan #AWEnergized #AWE

💁‍♀️AWE x SheMeansBusiness Digital Marketing Workshop Series – Second Event
September 9 (Thursday)
15:00-15:50 How do you best exercise creativity in advertisement

✅Speaker: Pei-Rou Su, Product marketing Director of adHub
16:00-17:30 How do you write creative advertising proposal
✅Speaker: Chia-Yu Yeh, Creativity Director of Humanoid

💡 Register the workshops now: https://pse.is/3n6w8j

เราคือเพื่อนกัน

1
เพื่อนๆ ผู้อ่านครับ
...Continue ReadingWe are friends

1
Friends, readers.

Supposedly one day, a company is allowed to make gold mines near your house that has been colored for a long time. He started producing and mineral. Not long ago. The chemical used to produces the chemicals used to leak along the public creek. Yours, your village, your neighbors, your parents, siblings, thousands of people. Almost four thousand families are sick and still have to eat chemical contaminated food every day.

What will friends do?

Unfortunately, the incident is a real event that happened at khao luang sub-District, Wang Saphung District, province.

Unfortunately, the voices of villagers there may not be as loud as the voices of fellow communications experts through social media.

In 2556, six villagers gathered on behalf of the homeland rak to file a federal court to order for the minister of industry and commissioner of industry and mining duty to supervise the mining companies to perform the terms. Cards and licenses for mines without impact on the environment and community.

But then the result is to beat the villagers and tie their hands on the back to many injured.

After the coup. Assigned to local military units to take care of gold mine. There are appointed ' Provincial Gold Mines ' committee that villagers disagree with and ask for solutions according to the people's proposal for reasons that the solution that affect the life of the life of the life of They should let them participate in the decision.

But then the result is the leader of homeland and students who call to report to adjust attitude.

And this group of students we know them as 'dao din', students from faculty of law, khon kaen university, who camp to learn society. They are on the area with villagers around the golden mines, Wang Saphung District. Many years from seniors to juniors. Study information and work with villagers all along, not only in this government days.

For villagers in the area, the soil star is not different from children and grandchildren who come to help each other and take care

After coup, the movement to fight gold mines are more restricted and always connected to politics, basically fighting for the quality of life of life.

From the light sound, it can barely make noise. It's easy. City people like us haven't heard about the villagers in wang saphung district.

Once in 2556, while the riot police will break down, villagers who come to gather to hear comments after cuddle states, keep people from commenting. Only allow those who agree to go in one side when it comes to face. Set up a human wall to protect villagers from the force of officers.

Students Help villagers who are in trouble against power of cuddle states and capital power.

Friends, if we were villagers in Wang Saphung District, how would we feel about these students?

...

2

Once upon a time, when I was still studying at the faculty of cuddle, Chulalongkorn University, I had a chance to read the magazine ' special edition of ' 14 October 2516 ' while chasing my eyes on the story in it. I had a question. In mind why young people in that era have strength and aspirations are different from young people in our generation.

Their aspirations are national social level, not a dream of personal success. Want to work in a famous company. Want a lot of salary, want bonus months a year or something.

Their problem is looking forward to change society to more equality. Help be a voice for farmers, poor people to be more justice in life than ever.

So what are we doing?

I've heard many adults say that the problem of education in the post-term is scheduled to serve capitalism, workers, employees log in to work, meet business entrepreneurs. Look at the problems that teachers have given us. We can't deny that it's true. Students like us design expensive chairs, interia, Luxury Hotel, five Star Spa, cool graphics, cool design, almost no design to solve problems for little ones or to solve the problems of disadvantaged people in society.

It seems like we live in different worlds.

It's not that students don't want to use knowledge to help society, but we barely have that mode because we live in a world far away from the problems of those little people.

Of course, the problem that the teacher gives us is a necessary problem for professional assembly. But if we look at the other way, if we live in the same society, we should know the problem and try to use the knowledge that we have studied to figure out how to solve it for friends. Isn't it society? But we have never been taught to look that way. These days may start to have some.

And this is a common thing in Thai University. The bond connects the relationship between students and social problems. The story of society. The misery of social friends is faded.

...

3

After the students of the soil star came out to move and arrested to military court, we heard both adults in the city and comment on Facebook say, " admire students who made a reputation for the country in science, Sports. Come out to this move. Let's stop because it makes the city unpeaceful " or the words like " why are students ranting. Why is the duty of students to study " or even the saying " these look like students, but they look like beast. Say "

I feel sad after listening to Thai society. Students who think about social friends fighting for justice. Become students that adults don't want. What kind of students do we want?

Some people write comments to ask these students, " when the government cheat, why don't you come out to shrink their head which I think this is the same thing, whether the cuddle government, cuddle government, cuddle, the election or government used. The unjust power that comes from taking over should be investigated, and the ground stars have fought both governments.

Arrests of din students is not sad because cuddle government officials arrested a group of students who fight for justice for villagers, but this arrest will scare many students and citizens who wish society. It is a cut off the idea of dreams. And hope is not only for young people, not only for the people, but it is also a cut of the thoughts, dreams and hopes of Thai society.

Because it tells us that this society does not value fighting for justice for fellow society.

If you let this happen, what do we want to see society?

...

4

A society where people laugh at when students who fight for the justice of villagers are arrested. What kind of society is this?

Don't we really need sense citizens for social associates?

If our family has to drink chemical contaminated creek, don't we really need sympathy from anyone? If our friends have to drink chemical contaminated water, we will shrug and say that first cry. Why would we really live like that?

If the soil stars fought for us for our village, would we look at him differently from now?

One day these students may ask for something for us or wait until that day so we think they did the right thing.

For me, din star is an example of students who are hard to find in Thai society. Both their dedication and courage are all up to be salute. I respect them for seeing villagers as ' friend s'. What happens is villagers. See them as ' friend s' as well

Feeling grateful for ' friend s' like this. It's a magical thing with the overall society because it creates an atmosphere of being part of each other. Sympathy for each other. Help each other to happen in society.

This is the ' friend ' that is missing from Thai society because we keep thinking about ' personal issue '
Many people may be bored of politics, bored of movement, calling and like the city is peaceful. But we have to ask who ' peaceful ' is peaceful and peaceful for anyone when there are people who benefit from this ' peace ' and need to make noise for others to hear. Fighting for my own life

Therefore, a peaceful city without contending or disputing is a world that tucked under the carpet. Press over the cries of many people from hearing.

Peace is beyond invisible suffering

Therefore, democracy is important because it opens the opportunity for every voice to speak, make noise.

Every voice speaks the same loud and the same important.

...

5

Before being arrested, these students wear shirts with letters, " we are friends I think this word means another aspect hidden in it. If ' friend ' are the ones who see each other's suffering and don't think about themselves. These students are. Friends of villagers are friends of the people.

'we' are all the people.

As for the real ' Devil ' or ' BEAST ' is the opposite of the people. No matter who they are, no matter how they come, election comes to take power. If the opposite of the people, don't listen to the voice, don't focus, don't think about the benefit of all people Truly, we should stand beside each other to make noise to expel demons together.

Leaders. If you see that we are friends. If we are beside the people, we have to listen to each other. Open the opportunity to comment, not to fix it, but to catch those who come out to warn or adjust attitude.

'we' should fight corps cuddle together and fight against unrighteous power together.

Fighting all kinds of unrighteousness is necessary.

There may be different opinions. If you don't like Mr. Thaksin. If you don't like khun prayut, let's say (which is not strange if anyone doesn't like both of them). But if you see that you shouldn't fight for disadvantaged people who Should let these people express their thoughts. This one would be a big deal.

The peaceful society that we want should be a society where people care about each other's problems and suffering. Listen to exchange civilized opinions, not peaceful because of other people's mouth or neglect. Don't care about suffering

A society like that may seem peaceful just because we can't hear or ignore other people's cries.

As a person who lives in the same society. #Are we friends?

If you are not friends with the people, who will we be friends with?Translated

A GOOD READ from one of the greatest leader that lived, #SINGAPORE's founding man, #LeeKuanYew

THIS MUST BE SHARED AND THOROUGHLY READ BY EVERY FILIPINO... Its quite long but it will surely strengthen our minds but then at the end, I was like "SAYANG!!!"
It came from the SINGAPORE'S FOUNDING MAN ITSELF, former Prime Minister LEE KUAN YEW on how the Philippines should have become, IF ONLY...

I've just read it and, its point blank!
Its a good read
____________

(The following excerpt is taken from pages 299 – 305 from Lee Kuan Yew’s book “From Third World to First”, Chapter 18 “Building Ties with Thailand, the Philippines, and Brunei”)

*

The Philippines was a world apart from us, running a different style of politics and government under an American military umbrella. It was not until January 1974 that I visited President Marcos in Manila. When my Singapore Airlines plane flew into Philippine airspace, a small squadron of Philippine Air Force jet fighters escorted it to Manila Airport. There Marcos received me in great style – the Filipino way. I was put up at the guest wing of Malacañang Palace in lavishly furnished rooms, valuable objects of art bought in Europe strewn all over. Our hosts were gracious, extravagant in hospitality, flamboyant. Over a thousand miles of water separated us. There was no friction and little trade. We played golf, talked about the future of ASEAN, and promised to keep in touch.

His foreign minister, Carlos P. Romulo, was a small man of about five feet some 20 years my senior, with a ready wit and a self-deprecating manner about his size and other limitations. Romulo had a good sense of humor, an eloquent tongue, and a sharp pen, and was an excellent dinner companion because he was a wonderful raconteur, with a vast repertoire of anecdotes and witticisms. He did not hide his great admiration for the Americans. One of his favourite stories was about his return to the Philippines with General MacArthur. As MacArthur waded ashore at Leyte, the water reached his knees but came up to Romulo’s chest and he had to swim ashore. His good standing with ASEAN leaders and with Americans increased the prestige of the Marcos administration. Marcos had in Romulo a man of honor and integrity who helped give a gloss of respectability to his regime as it fell into disrepute in the 1980s.

In Bali in 1976, at the first ASEAN summit held after the fall of Saigon, I found Marcos keen to push for greater economic cooperation in ASEAN. But we could not go faster than the others. To set the pace, Marcos and I agreed to implement a bilateral Philippines-Singapore across-the-board 10 percent reduction of existing tariffs on all products and to promote intra-ASEAN trade. We also agreed to lay a Philippines-Singapore submarine cable. I was to discover that for him, the communiqué was the accomplishment itself; its implementation was secondary, an extra to be discussed at another conference.

We met every two to three years. He once took me on a tour of his library at Malacañang, its shelves filled with bound volumes of newspapers reporting his activities over the years since he first stood for elections. There were encyclopedia-size volumes on the history and culture of the Philippines with his name as the author. His campaign medals as an anti-Japanese guerrilla leader were displayed in glass cupboards. He was the undisputed boss of all Filipinos. Imelda, his wife, had a penchant for luxury and opulence. When they visited Singapore before the Bali summit they came in stye in two DC8’s, his and hers.

Marcos did not consider China a threat for the immediate future, unlike Japan. He did not rule out the possibility of an aggressive Japan, if circumstances changed. He had memories of the horrors the Imperial Army had inflicted on Manila. We had strongly divergent views on the Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia. While he, pro forma, condemned the Vietnamese occupation, he did not consider it a danger to the Philippines. There was the South China Sea separating them and the American navy guaranteed their security. As a result, Marcos was not active on the Cambodian question. Moreover, he was to become preoccupied with the deteriorating security in his country.

Marcos, ruling under martial law, had detained opposition leader Benigno (Ninoy) Aquino, reputed to be as charismatic and powerful a campaigner as he was. He freed Aquino and allowed him to go to the United States. As the economic situation in the Philippines deteriorated, Aquino announced his decision to return. Mrs. Marcos issued several veiled warnings. When the plane arrived at Manila Airport from Taipei in August 1983, he was shot as he descended from the aircraft. A whole posse of foreign correspondents with television camera crews accompanying him on the aircraft was not enough protection.

International outrage over the killing resulted in foreign banks stopping all loans to the Philippines, which owed over US$25 billion and could not pay the interest due. This brought Marcos to the crunch. He sent his minister for trade and industry, Bobby Ongpin, to ask me for a loan of US$300-500 million to meet the interest payments. I looked him straight in the eye and said, “We will never see that money back.” Moreover, I added, everyone knew that Marcos was seriously ill and under constant medication for a wasting disease. What was needed was a strong, healthy leader, not more loans.

Shortly afterward, in February 1984, Marcos met me in Brunei at the sultanate’s independence celebrations. He had undergone a dramatic physical change. Although less puffy than he had appeared on television, his complexion was dark as if he had been out in the sun. He was breathing hard as he spoke, his voice was soft, eyes bleary, and hair thinning. He looked most unhealthy. An ambulance with all the necessary equipment and a team of Filipino doctors were on standby outside his guest bungalow. Marcos spent much of the time giving me a most improbable story of how Aquino had been shot.

As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him any money. They wanted to know who was going to succeed him if anything were to happen to him; all the bankers could see that he no longer looked healthy. Singapore banks had lent US$8 billion of the US$25 billion owing. The hard fact was they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered that it would be only eight years. I said the bankers wanted to see a strong leader in the Philippines who could restore stability, and the Americans hoped the election in May would throw up someone who could be such a leader. I asked whom he would nominate for the election. He said Prime Minister Cesar Virata. I was blunt. Virata was a nonstarter, a first-class administrator but no political leader; further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Ponce Enrile, was out of favour. Marcos was silent, then he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find a successor, there would be a solution. As I left, he said, “You are a true friend.” I did not understand him. It was a strange meeting.

With medical care, Marcos dragged on. Cesar Virata met me in Singapore in January the following year. He was completely guileless, a political innocent. He said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos was likely to be nominated as the presidential candidate. I asked how that could be when there were other weighty candidates, including Juan Ponce Enrile and Blas Ople, the labor minister. Virata replied it had to do with “flow of money; she would have more money than other candidates to pay for the votes needed for nomination by the party and to win the election. He added that if she were the candidate, the opposition would put up Mrs. Cory Aquino and work up the people’s feelings. He said the economy was going down with no political stability.

The denouement came in February 1986 when Marcos held presidential elections which he claimed he won. Cory Aquino, the opposition candidate, disputed this and launched a civil disobedience campaign. Defense Minister Juan Enrile defected and admitted election fraud had taken place, and the head of the Philippine constabulary, Lieutenant General Fidel Ramos, joined him. A massive show of “people power” in the streets of Manila led to a spectacular overthrow of a dictatorship. The final indignity was on 25 February 1986, when Marcos and his wife fled in U.S. Air Force helicopters from Malacañang Palace to Clark Air Base and were flown to Hawaii. This Hollywood-style melodrama could only have happened in the Philippines.

Mrs. Aquino was sworn in as president amid jubilation. I had hopes that this honest, God-fearing woman would help regain confidence for the Philippines and get the country back on track. I visited her that June, three months after the event. She was a sincere, devout Catholic who wanted to do her best for her country by carrying out what she believed her husband would have done had he been alive, namely, restore democracy to the Philippines. Democracy would then solve their economic and social problems. At dinner, Mrs. Aquino seated the chairman of the constitutional commission, Chief Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, next to me. I asked the learned lady what lessons her commission had learned from the experience of the last 40 years since independence in 1946 would guide her in drafting the constitution. She answered without hesitation, “We will not have any reservations or limitations on our democracy. We must make sure that no dictator can ever emerge to subvert the constitution.” Was there no incompatibility of the American-type separation of powers with the culture and habits of the Filipino people that had caused problems for the presidents before Marcos? Apparently none.

Endless attempted coups added to Mrs. Aquino’s problems. The army and the constabulary had been politicized. Before the ASEAN summit in December 1987, a coup was threatened. Without President Suharto’s firm support the summit would have been postponed and confidence in Aquino’s government undermined. The Philippine government agreed that the responsibility for security should be shared between them and the other ASEAN governments, in particular the Indonesian government. General Benny Moerdani, President Suharto’s trusted aide, took charge. He positioned an Indonesian warship in the middle of Manila Bay with helicopters and a commando team ready to rescue the ASEAN heads of government if there should be a coup attempt during the summit. I was included in their rescue plans. I wondered if such a rescue could work but decided to go along with the arrangements, hoping that the show of force would scare off the coup leaders. We were all confined to the Philippine Plaza Hotel by the seafront facing Manila Bay where we could see the Indonesian warship at anchor. The hotel was completely sealed off and guarded. The summit went off without any mishap. We all hoped that this show of united support for Mrs. Aquino’s government at a time when there were many attempts to destabilize it would calm the situation.

It made no difference. There were more coup attempts, discouraging investments badly needed to create jobs. This was a pity because they had so many able people, educated in the Philippines and the United States. Their workers were English-speaking, at least in Manila. There was no reason why the Philippines should not have been one of the more successful of the ASEAN countries. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was the most developed, because America had been generous in rehabilitating the country after the war. Something was missing, a gel to hold society together. The people at the top, the elite mestizos, had the same detached attitude to the native peasants as the mestizos in their haciendas in Latin America had toward their peons. They were two different societies: Those at the top lived a life of extreme luxury and comfort while the peasants scraped a living, and in the Philippines it was a hard living. They had no land but worked on sugar and coconut plantations.They had many children because the church discouraged birth control. The result was increasing poverty.

It was obvious that the Philippines would never take off unless there was substantial aid from the United States. George Shultz, the secretary of state, was sympathetic and wanted to help but made clear to me that the United States would be better able to do something if ASEAN showed support by making its contribution. The United States was reluctant to go it alone and adopt the Philippines as its special problem. Shultz wanted ASEAN to play a more prominent role to make it easier for the president to get the necessary votes in Congress. I persuaded Shultz to get the aid project off the ground in 1988, before President Reagan’s second term of office ended. He did. There were two meetings for a Multilateral Assistance Initiative (Philippines Assistance Programme): The first in Tokyo in 1989 brought US$3.5 billion in pledges, and the second in Hong Kong in 1991, under the Bush administration, yielded US$14 billion in pledges. But instability in the Philippines did not abate. This made donors hesitant and delayed the implementation of projects.

Mrs. Aquino’s successor, Fidel Ramos, whom she had backed, was more practical and established greater stability. In November 1992, I visited him. In a speech to the 18th Philippine Business Conference, I said, “I do not believe democracy necessarily leads to development. I believe what a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy.” In private, President Ramos said he agreed with me that British parliamentary-type constitutions worked better because the majority party in the legislature was also the government. Publicly, Ramos had to differ.

He knew well the difficulties of trying to govern with strict American-style separation of powers. The senate had already defeated Mrs. Aquino’s proposal to retain the American bases. The Philippines had a rambunctious press but it did not check corruption. Individual press reporters could be bought, as could many judges. Something had gone seriously wrong. Millions of Filipino men and women had to leave their country for jobs abroad beneath their level of education. Filipino professionals whom we recruited to work in Singapore are as good as our own. Indeed, their architects, artists, and musicians are more artistic and creative than ours. Hundreds of thousands of them have left for Hawaii and for the American mainland. It is a problem the solution to which has not been made easier by the workings of a Philippine version of the American constitution.

The difference lies in the culture of the Filipino people. It is a soft, forgiving culture. Only in the Philippines could a leader like Ferdinand Marcos, who pillaged his country for over 20 years, still be considered for a national burial. Insignificant amounts of the loot have been recovered, yet his wife and children were allowed to return and engage in politics. They supported the winning presidential and congressional candidates with their considerable resources and reappeared in the political and social limelight after the 1998 election that returned President Joseph Estrada. General Fabian Ver, Marcos’s commander-in-chief who had been in charge of security when Aquino was assassinated, had fled the Philippines together with Marcos in 1986. When he died in Bangkok, the Estrada government gave the general military honors at his burial. One Filipino newspaper, Today, wrote on 22 November 1998, “Ver, Marcos and the rest of the official family plunged the country into two decades of lies, torture, and plunder. Over the next decade, Marcos’s cronies and immediate family would tiptoe back into the country, one by one – always to the public’s revulsion and disgust, though they showed that there was nothing that hidden money and thick hides could not withstand.” Some Filipinos write and speak with passion. If they could get their elite to share their sentiments and act, what could they not have achieved?

-----

SAYANG! kindly share.