薩摩亞商極好科技股份有限公司

1. Received a response very quickly after submitting my résumé.

2. The interview process was simple, straightforward, and smooth.

1. Eight days off per month means eight days off per month. They insist on spinning it as a two-day weekend every week while repeatedly emphasizing that they comply with the Labor Standards Act.

2. The company is evasive about its products. If it’s gambling, then just say it’s gambling—they never mention it and only want to trick you into joining the company first. (It’s also possible they had no intention of hiring me, which is why they didn’t say.)

3. The questions on the written test were seriously disconnected from the position I applied for.

Samoa-registered Jih-Hao Technology and Samoa-registered Hao-Zuan Technology are the same company. It is Chinese-funded and started out in the Philippines as an SPA, tourism, and gaming company. It is currently investing in real estate projects, including developments on the Thai-Myanmar border. The position applied for was secretary to the chairman stationed in Bangkok. The office was comfortable, with around a dozen people, all young, and the atmosphere was fairly pleasant, with people chatting and laughing.

Upon arrival, you are first asked to complete some simple logic-test questions and provide basic information. A supervisor then conducts the interview, but the supervisor is not familiar with the job duties, location, or working conditions. After explaining the company’s general situation for about ten minutes, the interview ends. They added me on LINE at the time and said they would forward my information to the chief secretary stationed in Bangkok, who would then contact me via LINE regarding the next steps. However, two or three days have already passed without any news. The salary is relatively high, but the arrangements for trips back to Taiwan and the number of working days per week are less favorable. You must first travel there on a tourist visa and then apply for a work permit; if you do not stay for a full year, you must reimburse a proportional share of the work-permit fee.

Written above.

During the interview, I looked around at the employees in the company. Most of them appeared to be around 20–30 years old, so the work atmosphere did not seem overly serious.

The position I applied for was executive secretary to the chairman.

Initial interview:

The supervisor mentioned that the chairman is Chinese and that Excellent Technology is a Taiwan branch. The purpose of the position is to recruit several secretaries to assist the chairman with administrative affairs. For details about the job responsibilities and industry scope, the supervisor asked me to discuss them with the chief secretary during the second interview. (The supervisor seemed not to understand the job responsibilities and had not reviewed my résumé in advance. The interview ended after less than 10 minutes of conversation.)

Second interview:

In the evening, I obtained the chief secretary’s Line contact. The chief secretary asked to begin the Line interview 10 minutes later. At 21:45, I messaged the chief secretary to say that I was ready and could receive a call at any time. As of 22:40, the chief secretary had not responded at all. During this period, I asked three times whether the interview time should be changed. Line showed that the messages had been read, but there was no reply.

At 22:40, I informed them that I was withdrawing from the interview because I felt completely disrespected while waiting (the agreed time was not honored, and my messages were read but unanswered). The chief secretary told me that I was not suitable for the position because I did not understand the nature of the work.

I responded: An interview is equivalent to a formal meeting. If a meeting needs to be delayed, shouldn’t a notice of the change be sent? The chief secretary read the message but did not reply.