:: how would u poll?::

[suteerak1099]

supposing u're the owner of a big company, where u hire a chief operations officer (COO) & team of managers for 5yrs contract term. u will assess & appraise them respectively, and will discern to renew their contract on completion of the 5yrs term.

so, u've hired a brady bunch all under the wing & directions of the COO, in the course of the past 40 odd years, this team has been mediocre in recent years. the policies they've implemented have cost u more than u can bear, their productivity & results have fallen short of the projected targets they've promised by miles.

the 5yrs contract is coming to an end, its time for u to appraise them & make decisions.

would u:
1. cut your losses, terminate this motley crew & replace with a completely new team?
2. cut your losses, restructure the subordinates & replace some of them, extend another 5yrs contract for the COO & core managers
3. continue to be a sucker, keep the same team, burn your pockets for the next 5yrs

 

[cass888]

Good question, good attempt to draw a parallel to the PAP.

Sadly for you, the "U" in your story is different for each person. And for 66.6% of the "U"s, this team has been outstanding, the policies they've implemented have cost less than the benefits and the results have way exceeded the expectations of the "U".

That is why there is going to be another 5 year term.

supposing u're the owner of a big company, where u hire a chief operations officer (COO) & team of managers for 5yrs contract term. u will assess & appraise them respectively, and will discern to renew their contract on completion of the 5yrs term.

so, u've hired a brady bunch all under the wing & directions of the COO, in the course of the past 40 odd years, this team has been mediocre. the policies they've implemented have cost u more than u can bear, their productivity & results have fallen short of the projected targets they've promised by miles.

the 5yrs contract is coming to an end, its time for u to appraise them & make decisions.

would u:
1. cut your losses, terminate this motley crew & replace with a completely new team?
2. cut your losses, restructure the subordinates & replace some of them, extend another 5yrs contract for the COO & core managers
3. continue to be a sucker, keep the same team, burn your pockets for the next 5yrs

 

[suteerak1099]

Good question, good attempt to draw a parallel to the PAP.

Sadly for you, the "U" in your story is different for each person. And for 66.6% of the "U"s, this team has been outstanding, the policies they've implemented have cost less than the benefits and the results have way exceeded the expectations of the "U".

That is why there is going to be another 5 year term.

i'd appreciate that u would stick to the isolated scenario & cast your vote, than to speculate on the digressions that may be subjective.

your understanding appreciated.

 

[cass888]

i'd appreciate that u would stick to the isolated scenario & cast your vote, than to speculate on the digressions that may be subjective.

your understanding appreciated.

I see. Freedom of speech only applies to the critics.

But the truth is that your isolated scenario is misleading, is far from the truth and 66.6% of the shareholders do not agree with you. So the COO gets promoted to CEO and you get ousted as chairman

 

[twinseeker]

This is quite an interesting poll. Pun intended or not, I don't really care. But in some aspects, it does make sense that if it were related to the local political climate, the costs indeed escalating.

 

[sherrry]

Based on the scenario presented, it is obviously stupid to continue hiring a bunch of under-achievers that bleeds the company's finances, while the results fall short of fundamental expectations.

Even if it costs severance fees to terminate them, it'd probably put a plug into the depleting of funds.

 

[cass888]

A more accurate description of the scenario and
You are a shareholder of a big company. You have voted for a board of directors who will hire a a team of managers for a 5yr contract term. The shareholders will assess and appraise them respectively, and will discern to renew their contract on completion of the 5yrs term.

So, you've hired a brady bunch all under the wing & directions of the COO, in the course of the past 40 odd years, this team has been outstanding, policies they've implemented benefited you and have cost less than the benefits and their productivity and results have way exceeded the projected targets they've promised by miles.

In the meantime, one of the managers who unsuccessfully tried to vie for a seat on the board was sacked by the team for using company money to courier his wife's thesis. He went on a hunger strike but cheated by taking glucose. He also tried to oust his mentor, one of the two sole independent directors from the board.

He has about 25% of the shareholders' support and is trying to convince you that this team has been mediocre in recent years. the policies they've implemented have cost you more than u can bear, their productivity & results have fallen short of the projected targets they've promised by miles. You know for a fact that that is not true as the dividends you have been getting have been way outstanding.

The 5yrs contract is coming to an end, its time for u to appraise them & make decisions.

would u:
1. be a sucker to the loser, terminate this motley crew & replace with a completely new team?
2. cut your losses, restructure the subordinates & replace some of them, extend another 5yrs contract for the COO & core managers
3. keep the same team for the next 5yrs

 

[sir cum-a-lot]

A more accurate description of the scenario and............... In the meantime, one of the managers who unsuccessfully tried to vie for a seat on the board was sacked by the team for using company money to courier his wife's thesis. He went on a hunger strike but cheated by taking glucose. He also tried to oust his mentor, one of the two sole independent directors from the board.

The 5yrs contract is coming to an end, its time for u to appraise them & make decisions.

would u:
1. be a sucker to the loser, terminate this motley crew & replace with a completely new team?
2. cut your losses, restructure the subordinates & replace some of them, extend another 5yrs contract for the COO & core managers
3. keep the same team for the next 5yrs

Mate, maybe you ought to start your own poll, instead of hijacking this thread.

 

[ah_phah]

if my team fails me, it's the end of them. i wouldn't bother feeding a bunch of good for nothings that can't meet the objectives.

 

[cass888]

Mate, maybe you ought to start your own poll, instead of hijacking this thread.

Just inserting some objectivity to the thread. Afterall he omitted to say that 2/3 of the shareholders were happy with the team's performance.

 

[eQuipment]

Just inserting some objectivity to the thread. Afterall he omitted to say that 2/3 of the shareholders were happy with the team's performance.

to put it into proper perspectives, 1/3 of the shareholders were absent for the AGM & EGM, they gave proxy to the remaining 2/3 of shareholders; 1/3 voted "yay", another 1/3 voted "nay".

in truth, it only appears superficial that 2/3 voted "yay".

 

[cass888]

to put it into proper perspectives, 1/3 of the shareholders were absent for the AGM & EGM, they gave proxy to the remaining 2/3 of shareholders; 1/3 voted "yay", another 1/3 voted "nay".

in truth, it only appears superficial that 2/3 voted "yay".

But the 1/3 of the shareholders were were going to keep them anyway. That is why the opponents of the team didn't send the EGM notice to them.

In truth, more than 2/3 of the the additional 1/3 of the shareholders would also have voted for the team, so the 2/3 should actually have been higher.

 

[suteerak1099]

to put it into proper perspectives, 1/3 of the shareholders were absent for the AGM & EGM, they gave proxy to the remaining 2/3 of shareholders; 1/3 voted "yay", another 1/3 voted "nay".

in truth, it only appears superficial that 2/3 voted "yay".

But the 1/3 of the shareholders were were going to keep them anyway. That is why the opponents of the team didn't send the EGM notice to them.

In truth, more than 2/3 of the the additional 1/3 of the shareholders would also have voted for the team, so the 2/3 should actually have been higher.

1/3 absent not because they weren't notified. neither did they grant proxy to the others. they were denied the opportunity, bcos there wasn't any poll opportunity granted for them to participate.

 

[cass888]

1/3 absent not because they weren't notified. neither did they grant proxy to the others. they were denied the opportunity, bcos there wasn't any poll opportunity granted for them to participate.

But it wasn't the team's fault that they couldn't participate. The opponents, knowing how much the 1/3 support the team, decided not to contest the team for this category of shareholders.

Please lah, enough of that tired argument about walkovers. Walkovers awarded by the incumbents or by the opponents?

 

[williamsF1]

But it wasn't the team's fault that they couldn't participate. The opponents, knowing how much the 1/3 support the team, decided not to contest the team for this category of shareholders.

Please lah, enough of that tired argument about walkovers. Walkovers awarded by the incumbents or by the opponents?

if really wanna be fully democratic, then should mimic the american style of elections, make sure everyone gets to vote. no such thing as walk-overs even if there's no contest. that way, vote count for all citizens would be fully accounted for

 

[Cruxx]

if really wanna be fully democratic, then should mimic the american style of elections, make sure everyone gets to vote. no such thing as walk-overs even if there's no contest. that way, vote count for all citizens would be fully accounted for

There's no country in this world more democratic than Switzerland.

 

[cass888]

if really wanna be fully democratic, then should mimic the american style of elections, make sure everyone gets to vote. no such thing as walk-overs even if there's no contest. that way, vote count for all citizens would be fully accounted for

Don't talk about things you don't know. Even in America, if you are uncontested, you don't go through a vote. It's just that every seat in America is hotly sought after by a dozen people.

 

[Char_Azn]

There's no country in this world more democratic than Switzerland.

U need to go visit India

 

[suteerak1099]

the time has come to make some change, a fundamental change... how will u vote?