Sunday 25 September 2011

MOTIVATIONAL - An extract & photos below - Food-For-Thoughts-

The Difference Between Preparation And Execution…..


A giant ship engine failed. The ship’s owners tried one expert after another, but none of them could figure how to fix the engine.



Then they brought in an old man who had been fixing ships since he was a young. He carried a large bag of tools with him, and when he arrived, he immediately went to work. He inspected the engine very carefully, top to bottom.Two of the ship’s owners were there, watching this man, hoping he would know what to do. After looking things over, the old man reached into his bag and pulled out a small hammer. He gently tapped something…..



Instantly, the engine lurched into life. He carefully put his hammer away. The engine was fixed! A week later, the owners received a bill from the old man for ten thousand dollars."What?!" the owners exclaimed. "He hardly did anything!"So they wrote the old man a note saying, "Please send us an itemized bill."The man sent a bill that read:






************
"Every prudent man acts with knowledge, but a fool lays open his folly"
(Proverbs 13:16)

Tuesday 20 September 2011

News & Comments


Quoted from Borneo Post - Date 22 Sep. 2011
News Headline: Parti Rakyat S’wak reaching out to ‘hostile’ groups 

 “.... it was best [approach = my insertion] to engage those groups........the party  would hold a forum involving these groups to discuss current issues and other matters affecting the state, especially those involving the rural areas..

 
Questions:
(1) Who are those people or groups?
(2)Will they be (favoured) members (selected) from (certain branches) among native NGOs like:  
- Sarawak Dayak National  Union (SDNU)
- Sarawak Dayak Graduates' Association (SDGA)
- Sarawak Daiay Iban Association (SADIA)
- Dayak Bidayuh National Associatio (DBNA)
- Dayak Bidayuh Graduates' Association (DBGA)
- Orang Ulu National Association (OUNA)
- Others  - including groups or individuals from native-churches


In the dawn of the forthcoming election, the newspaper report sounds “politically soothing”. However, the measure of seriousness of the intended forum shall be determined by its forms [objective(s) planning ... implementation] and outcomes.  


It is hoped that the dialogue is not just a window-dressing or become a one-time off event (or "anang-enda"); or a talk-to” event, BUT a real “talk-with” function. It shall become counterproductive to hold the intended forum without the real spirit of openess. Therefore the parties must take the stand to agree and also to disagree on matters including approaches on issues under discussions.


I join others in commending PRS in its "new-found"  or "added-value" strategy in pursuing its political adventure. All the best!
   

Tuesday 13 September 2011

EXTRACT from Harvard Business Review - HBR

September 2011

HBR Case Study: Culture Clash in the
 Boardroom


(Harvard Business Review) HBR’s fictionalized case studies present dilemmas faced by leaders in real companies and offer solutions from experts. This one is based on a teaching case at China Europe International Business School in Shanghai.

The room was already packed when Liu Peijin walked in. His flight from Shanghai to Chongqing had been delayed, and he had fretted about missing the training. But fortunately he’d gotten there in time. Liu knew his presence was important. As the president of Almond China, he wanted to show his Chongqing colleagues how much he cared about the topic under discussion: ethical business practices.

Taking his seat, Liu nodded at the head of HR, who was running the training. The two went way back: Both had been with their German parent company, Almond Chemical, since 1999, when it first established operations in China. Since then Almond China had set up two joint ventures with local partners—the only way foreigners could do business in chemicals in the country. Almond controlled 70% of the stock in one of them. The other was a venture with Chongqing No. 2 Chemical Company, in which Almond had a 51% stake and the Chinese directors were very active.

Liu sat next to Wang Zhibao, the vice president in charge of sales for the Chongqing joint venture. Wang looked skeptical. He was good at his job, having closed several key deals that had kept the business afloat during its early years. But he was also at the center of a conflict between the venture partners: The Chongqing executives were increasingly vocal about how difficult it was to operate according to European standards, particularly the rules against gifts and commissions. Such incentives were commonly accepted in China and routinely employed by Almond’s competitors. Trying to do business without them, Wang argued, was foolhardy. “This is China, not Europe,” was his refrain.

But the line between these practices and breaking the law was a fine one. Almond was headquartered in Munich and listed on the New York Stock Exchange as well as the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, meaning it was required to adhere to the U.S. government’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which specifically forbade the bribing of foreign government officials by U.S.-listed companies.

Liu kept an eye on Wang as the HR director explained Almond’s ethics regulations and the legal consequences of business bribery. Liu knew the rules made sales more difficult, but Almond’s policy was clear, and he wanted to make sure that every member of the sales team understood it.

He had taken the same hard line on safety and environmental practices. The production facilities in Chongqing had been built according to German national standards, and all the safety equipment—helmets, shoes, and protective clothing—had come from Europe. The Chinese partners had called these investments “wasteful” and “frivolous”—“luxurious expenditures” that the young venture couldn’t, and shouldn’t, afford. But, with backing from the head office, Liu had stood firm. Similarly, he’d insisted that the factory’s MDI (methylene diphenyl diisocyanate) waste be treated as a dangerous substance and processed with a special cleaning agent, in accordance with European standards, even though Chinese law didn’t mandate it. His partners had been dismayed at the millions of yuan this would cost. But Liu refused to compromise, because he had witnessed the consequences of lesser standards firsthand. Years before, when he was working for another Chinese chemical company, an affiliate’s chlor-alkali plant had suffered an explosion, injuring 200 staff members and residents of the surrounding area and halting production for more than a month.

The training was reaching its end, and the HR director signaled to Liu that it was his turn to speak. Liu hesitated slightly as he looked at his Chongqing colleagues. “At Almond, ethics are nonnegotiable,” he said. “We need to remember these laws as we go about our business. We are not just a Chinese company; we’re a global one.” Solemn, blank faces stared back at him.

As he left the room, he couldn’t help feeling that his remarks had fallen on deaf ears.


Sunday 4 September 2011

A DAY TO CELEBRATE...

Some reflections on
16th SEPTEMBER 2011 - A DAY TO CELEBRATE...  DAY OF INDEPENDENCE
Preamble:
On August 31st 1957, Malaya was detached and declared as an independent nation from the British Colonial Government. Malaya also became an ‘automatic’ member of British-created international political-economic blog which are territories formerly under British Colonial Rule called “Commonwealth”  headed by Britain.  Historically four days ago was 31st August 2011 and which was Malaya’s 54th year of independence from the British Colonial Rule.

The days from the date 31st August 1957 were short of 6 years and 16 days to reach the date of Malaysia Agreement dated on 16th September 1963. Thus, for any Malaysian (historian or academician or politician) to say and/or write and accept that August 31st 2011 was Malaysia’s 54th Anniversary of nationhood is deliberate in causing grievous political misnomer and gross distortion of true history.

Formation of Malaysia
On 16th September 1963 Malaysia Agreement was signed between four distinctive territories namely: Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak. When Singapore left in 1966, the Federation of Malaysia was left with three signatory- territories (i.e Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak). Subsequently through the due process of the so called “referendum” and “amended” laws, Sabah and Sarawak somehow were reduced from being equal partners to Malaya in Malaysia. They were made to become states equivalent to Johor and the rest of the constituent-states of Malaya.
For Sarawak and also Sabah, 16th September 1963 was the day when the two terrritories (I beg to differ by not calling them as states in this context) were detached and became independent from British Colonial Rule. The Declaration was full of hopes and joys then for all “Sarawakians” because of: “Sarawak’s Independence (from British Rule) within Malaysia” or “Sarawak Merdeka Dalam Malaysia”. There were records to prove the facts in Sarawak Museum Archives.

In looking backward, for me, the hopes and joys of “Sarawak Merdeka Dalam Malaysia” felt in 1963 ended when Sarawak became state equivalent to Malacca...

Some fond memories

In 1963, I was the 3rd batch of Form One of about 60 students attended Government Secondary School Simanggang which was renamed SMK Simanggang as part and parcel of nation-building programmes termed as “Malaysianization” and “other-nization” of education system and schools, as well as other national social, economic and economic functions aimed at creating ‘new’ (Malaysian) national identity and values in line with RUKUN NEGARA. I still remember very well about many national-building events such as “Berjaya Weeks” or “National Solidarity Weeks” organized regularly (by Jabatan Keselamatan Dalam Negri and Malaysian Information Service –MIS) in various towns throughout the breadth and length of   Sarawak, including Pasar Simanggang between 1963 and 1966. The core focus of those public events was to instil Malaysian identity and loyalty in face of Indonesian military aggression along Sarawak-Kalimantan Border.

Negara Ku” was played randomly (1963 – 1965) on purpose before the start of “tukis” or “wayang” in Simanggang Theatre (now Theatre Inn) to see who stood up indicationing of loyalty to the nation.

 “Pentas Rakyat” which proceeded from “Berjaya Weeks” focused on nation-building and fighting internal security threats posed by subversive and militant threats staged by the outlawed Sarawak Communist Organization and North Kalimantan Communist Party (NKCP) following the June 1966 Peace Accord in Bangkok (end of Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation) until after the end of security Operation Sri Aman in 1973. Since then, the potential sources of security threats are internal. They include the elements:(i) Religious extremisms;(ii) Declaration of racial and/or political dominance and supremacy (chauvinisms) ; (iii)Presence of legal and illegal workforce (in millions) (iv) Knowledge-based society, and (v) In-coming influences of globalization.  

This forthcoming 16th September 2011 will be the 48th Anniversary Nationhood of Malaysia. Sarawak is blessed on being nominated as national centre of pompous celebration of the historic date. The venue of the anniversary is said to be at the latest majestic landmark - which is the new complex of Dewan Undangan Negri (DUN) Sarawak in Kuching City.  Kuchingites from all walks of life and age-groups including visitors from near and far are expected to enjoy watching the historical Sarawak Regatta fare as the highlight of daytime celebration.

Transformations

It is undeniable that much physical than non-physical transformations had already taken placed in many aspects in Sarawak during the last forty-eight (48) years. In considering   the 48 years, it is not untimely and also not wrong for us (as loyal Malaysians-of-Sarawak-Origins) to ask ourselves honestly and answer (analyze) one soul-searching question: Is Sarawak really independent under politics of federalism?as intended by the founding fathers of the nation in the context of the Malaysian Agreement? Secondly, must we conform to transform and move forward truly in tune with democratic processes and choices to become more peaceful, caring, tolerance, harmonious and prosperous in the literal sense of 1Malaysia National Concept? One most challenging agenda in the task of national democratic transformation is to free ourselves (minds) from clutches or stigmas of all religious, racial and political supremacy.  
To my fellow Malaysians
 Selamat Hari Malaysia ke-48 Tahun
on 16th September 2011 !!
aonepakkopi

To read some views
(i) www.sapp.org.my/pdf/msia_agreement_1963.pdf; (ii) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Agreement - Cached;(iii)www.freemalaysiatoday.com/.../jeffrey-wants-malaysia-agreement-r...-Cached(iv) (iv) thebrokenshield.blogspot.com/2009/10/malaysian-agreement.html-Cached;(v) blog.limkitsiang.com/.../merdeka-social-contractmalaysia-agreement... - Cached; (vi) [PDF] No. 10760 UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND...untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/21/36/00041791.pdf;(vii)www.sabah.gov.my/openfora/subjects.asp?group=control.rmgroup - Cached ]