Have you not heard of 'window dressing' to achieve
'profitability' ?
This practise is common in all countries, whether in Singapore or
EU countries, UK, USA, or Japan, Australia, and any other countries
with Public Accounting System.
Some corporations experiencing losses from their core business,
will attempt to cover up these losses with more activities in
non-related business - such as selling off some assets to improve
their cash positions and reflect 'PROFITABILITY'.
The successor can only continue with the show, and the last man at
the helm left with no more assets to dispose off, will have to
think smart and pray that the cash that have been realised with all
the past Assets Sales would have been put to better use - so as to
achieve REAL PROFITABILITY.
Selling off assets to reinvest isn't "window dressing". If by
wat u say, then buying over assets should be considered as a "loss"
too ? Selling off assets only increases the companies' liquid
money, but it will not be considered as a profit unless they sell
it off at a higher price then they buy it in.
DO u think in auditing, there is a loophole whereby when u buy in
assets, it is not a loss while selling off assets is a profit ? In
tat case if I am the CEO of a company, I will sell off all my
companies asset (selling thus PROFIT) using the name of my
subsidiary companies (buying is not loss), which transfer the asset
back to the main company (Since I control the companies I can do
tat). Than I can earn any amount of money, maybe a few hundred
trillion of dollars, depending on how often I transfer the name of
the assets.
If tat asset doesn't help them or earn them any cash, I don't think
there is a problem selling them off to reinvest in other areas.
Such is the problem of economics, u cannot expect all your
investment to perform as expected. It is the same for politics, u
cannot expect all your policies to work.
Miracles are NOT IMPOSSIBLE, as miracles do happen in the
Business World.
It takes alot of hardwork and lots of LUCK too.
It takes commitment and undying perseverance.
It also takes alot of intelligence.
It requires a good sense of BUSINESS ACUMEN - a sixth sense to
smell, see, feel and get excited with an OPPORTUNITY that no one is
able to see.
This is what makes the Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steven Jobs
(Apple), Sim Wong Hoo (Creative) and Goi Seng Hui (Tee Yih
Jia).
They all started with NOTHING, and as NOBODY.
Other than these few examples u had given, the rest of the CEOs
in the world r at least a graduate. From the previous reply from
sk, he mentioned about a person working from a cleaner to CEO of
Macdonald. How many cleaners r there in Macdonald ? How many of
them make it into being a CEO ? For every CEO with humble
beginning, there is at least a million other people with the same
humble beginning but cannot excel as much. Isn't tat considerd as a
miracle ?
People with qualities tat excel in work will excel in school work
too. People who excel in school work displays the following
traits.
They have an attitude to work hard to display
excellent result, which also shows their commitment and
undying perseverance
They have the basic intelligence to understand
complicated theories
they understand competition and can work and excel in such
environments.
Wat other better ways to guage a person's performance other than
school work ? If u need to develop people at an early age for
future crucial needs, wat other guage do u have ?
Look at all the politicians out there in this world, which one of
them aren't remarkable in their studies ? I guess the only names u
can come out with is Arnold.
To the credit of the Singapore Government, who had the decency to
turn around - (and seemingly following the solutions proposed by
SDP Dr CSJ's book written 10 years ago) - and are changing the
education policy with a less emphasis on examination oriented
achievements.
The Government is reviewing policies and giving schools the option
of dropping the 'O' and 'A' Levels, and finding new creative ways
to TRULY EDUCATE our Future Generation of Potential Leaders.
The Government has now decided to turn around from their skewed
policy of having a limited quota of graduands from our only TWO
Universities in Singapore; and have suddenly decided to place
emphasis on KNOWLEDGE and EXPERTISE.
The past skewed policy of limited university graduates have been
followed for the last 40 years (from the 1950's), even when there
have been protests in the manner that the Government were limiting
entries into local universities - especially with the imposing of
SUITABILITY CERTIFICATES (politically motivated - after strong
University Student's Union activities in Politics) before one is
allowed to enter universities.
The government had always feared the nightmare of larger pool of
university graduates with trained critical mind that the economy
cannot absorb.
This fear rides parallel with the LKY's philosophy of 'Dull the
Mind by Filling the Stomach'.
How can one 'Dull an Educated and Critically Trained MInd, when the
Stomach has Difficulty in being Filled' ?
The policy of limiting the people in the university is an old
policy. In the past, most other countries also limit the number of
people into the university too. In the past very few people get a
degree in almost every country too. Is tis something only singapore
display ? In the past, is it a time where manufacturing is
important or knowledge is important ?
U seems eager to complain about old policies made in the past using
the new found knowledge u have now. Is tat fair ? Does everyone
know wat will happened in future ? During the times when the policy
is implemented, it is illogical for them to do it ?
Does a President's Scholar (or any returning Scholar) need to
compete for any job in Government ?
They are led to any Government Job of their own choosing (within
reason), unless their training and aptitude is seen to be needed
elsewhere that the Government feel is more suitable for both their
mutual benefit.
The Scholar will only need to compete with his own shadow, and
until there is any major disaster in his hands that he is incapable
of dealing with, his career is almost assured.
Compared to a 'scholar material' that enters the Private Sector,
the President's Scholar position in Government is a
'walk-in-the-park'.
Many local corporations will give a 'scholar material' candidate a
very short learning period, and is expected to perform within THREE
MONTHS with a reasonable BOTTOM LINE.
Ever heard of CITIBANK's high pressure environment at the Top ?
How does large companies treat their own returning scholars ?
They also give it an acclerated route too. True, if they don't
perform in 3 months, they get condemn. However if they perform
well, they get to climb much faster and higher than other normal
workers.
The Gov scholars may get an assured position caring little about
performance. But then if they don't perform, will they be able to
get into the ranks of ministers ? U may heard of
Gov scholars getting the accelerated route into the ranks of at
least a colonel early. However it gets much harder than tis after
tat. They have to be made into Brigadier general, working under the
minister of defense then gradually work up to become a minister.
(giving an example if the scholars choose defence) Do u think one
with no talent nor performance can made it so far ? Getting a quick
route to a colonel is only the beginning. Trying to work up after
tat is difficult. They will faced better competitors and had to
really show performance in order to be promoted.
Thus I ask tis question, if the minister start working up in a
private firm instead, will he be less successful and not earn as
much when they work in politics ?
You seem to be fixated with the term 'C.O.E' - which seems to
hang over from our last cross-exchange some months ago in
2003.
The term 'C.O.E.' is supposed to be Certificate Of Entitlement for
cars.
The correct term that you should be using is 'C.E.O.' - which
actually means CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
Is just a small spelling error and u made a paragraph about it ?
Facinating...
Is the selection process of SCHOLARS a fair process ?
On the surface, it is supposed to be 'fair' and is based on the
exam results of the candidates vying for the scholarships.
Unfortunately, the Rich Kid will have better SUPPORTING HELP
outside school hours, and also a better ENVIRONMENT that give them
a headstart to excel.
It will be interesting to do a study to determine the background of
all the scholarship receipients - from the date that the various
scholarships were implemented.
So in other words u feel tat people who r richer can study
better ?
Frankly, I always thought studying well is
remotely associated with the weath of the
family.
Is it so impressive and productive of a Minister, when his
requirements are attended to by an army of supporting staff ?
All that the Minister has to do is to delegate, assigned, and wait
for the return of the works that have been instructed to be
accomplished; and on their return the materials are then digested,
reviewed, corrected, and regurgitated as his own.
The army of supporting staff will prepare all answers from their
research works, summarised reports into key notes; speeches that
are researched and prepared for redraft by the Minister; ideas that
are brainstormed by the supporting scholar civil servants and
offered for the consideration of the Minister, who will adopt them
as his own brilliant speech.
Then does all the others CEOs in the private companies deserve
the pay they r getting ? COORDINATING and MAKING DECISIONS r some
of the most important and hardest skill for human to acquire. These
class of people r the one tat made the most money, thus became the
real talents in the world. Isn't "Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steven
Jobs (Apple), Sim Wong Hoo (Creative) and Goi Seng Hui (Tee Yih
Jia)" just plainly "attended to by an army of supporting staff "now
? Without tis "army of supporting staff", can they get tat far
?
