Saturday, January 23, 2016

meeting minutes of MY Ltd AGM


Shareholder #1: The company is currently lacking in capable executives to run its operations. The training and re-skilling budget for employees is being cut this year. Why?

 

CEO: We from the higher management find that we don’t need capable executives to run the company. We just need executives that are submissive and loyal to the company’s higher management in order to keep the company afloat. Less so-called smart ideas more work can be done.

 

Shareholder #2: There has been a lot of complaint from the employees that the company does not provide adequate transportation allowances to cover their daily commute. Why?

 

CEO: We from the higher management find that their complaints are not justified. If they can’t afford the fuel price, take public transportations. If that is troublesome, they should wake up early and travel on roads that are free from toll charges. Better still, they can even ride a bicycle or walk to work. Look at the Europeans.

 

Shareholder #1: The company’s cafeteria is selling food with exorbitant prices. I just got normal fried rice just now and was charged a bomb for it. Won’t the employees complain?

 

CEO: We from the higher management find that the price is justified based on the economy outlook. If the employees can’t afford the food, they can always pack from home or bring some raw meat to cook at the office. We have just signed a deal with Cronies Ltd to provide state of the art cooking utensils in the pantries.

 

Shareholder #3: We don’t quite understand some transactions in the company’s Yearly Financial Records. There is a payment of approximately billions into a personal account for some services rendered. However it is not clear what those services are and who the vendor is.

 

CEO: Security, please remove Shareholder #3 from the premises for asking stupid questions.

 

Shareholder #1: There is a plus point we can see that the operating expenses has decreased immensely. Seems that this is largely due to the annual increment and bonus payout remains nil for 3 consecutive years. Will this affect employees’ morale and subsequently affect productivity?

 

CEO: We from the higher management find that this is totally a non-issue. We have instructed HR to provide counseling to the employees at a monthly basis and tell them that if the earning is not sufficient they can always get a second job or sell some of their personal belongings online to make ends meet. We have just signed a contract with MyBrother Ltd to provide internet training to assist them.

 

Shareholder #3: What the heck is the company’s direction to increase profitability and compete effectively in the global market?

 

CEO: Security, why is this troublemaker still in the premises. Call the police and ask them to send the Chief of Police here personally to escort him out. By the way, the meeting has come to an end as I am late for a golf session with the President of Utopia. I will hand over to my deputy to close the meeting.

 

Deputy CEO: Everyone please leave. On your way out please collect a document notifying that the company plans to buy 2 private jets for the CEO and his immediate family members’ business usage. Thank you all for coming and please continue to vote us into the higher management and do hold on to our under-valued company share.

Friday, October 2, 2015

quote of the day

"Constructive criticism is essential for growth and must not be confined along racial lines"

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

freedom of speech

In all great democracies one of the most recognized fights is the fight for freedom of speech. This is the freedom accorded to every citizen whereby each individual is given the freedom to voice his opinion; albeit accepted or not. The next question will be, should we allow every person to voice his opinion freely without considering the consequences? What if the opinion can lead to animosity and even full scale riot?

To put it bluntly if we support freedom of speech then we will be labelled as hypocrites if we suppress a certain group of people from voicing out their opinions if those opinions do not conform to ours. So how do we judge what opinions are valid and which are not? To dissect this quandary let’s throw in a scenario. A person voiced his opinion based on certain facts against another. There is an accused, there is some evidence to support his opinion even though not validated by the court but in common sense the person should have the right to voice this out. Whereas the accused has the right to voice out his opinion to dispute the accusation by providing facts to counter. The freedom of speech is rightfully practiced here by both parties.

How about a person that is voicing his opinion with no supporting facts and does cursing and degrading another person constitutes freedom of speech? No matter how ridiculous this may sound, it is still freedom of speech; just not done in a proper way. These unfavorable actions can lead to legal suits no doubt but in essence we still need to support the person in voicing them out.
Voltaire did quote “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” However he should have continued “even if you are saying things without using your brains.”

Happy birthday Malaysia. God bless.