Kuasa, duit, kedudukan memudahkan diri untuk melakukan apa saja.
Teori kenapa kebelakangan ini banyak isu skandal melibatkan aktiviti tak bermaruah dsbnya terutama bagi org yg berstatus dan berpangkat besar....
Dulu dulu kerja melibatkan banyak aktiviti. Kemudahan adalah berbeza dizaman dulu banyak memerlukan tumpuan sepenuhnya dan tiada melibatkan delegation of duty pada org bawahan dan contractor untuk buat research etc dan compile data utk serious decision making. Kemudian tidak semua mampu ada drebar melainkan dia adalah pemilik prniagaan tersebut. Maka kena lah naik train, bas, drive sendiri dll..Balik rumah
penat dan letih...
Zaman moden dimana semua ada kemudahan infrastruktur, computer, drebar, delegation authority (passing the bucket) kepada org bawahan(kuli) kerja ketua atau boss ini makin mudah. Cuma tanya apa yang perlu saja contohnya apa risiko yg berkaitan dan perkara yg berlaku dan patut berlaku (contoh saja). Maka berdasarkan hasil pencarian maklumat oleh kuli tadi, keputusan sudah tersedia cuma perlu di sahkan saja.
Dari contoh diatas ketua atau big boss ni tidaklah stress kerja mereka dan berpeluh peluh memikirakn penyediaaan maklumat. Malah dia tidak stress melakukan apa apa, krn yg selalu stress adalah si kuli tadi tak cukup tidur, makan tak ikut masa, balik lewat malam atau sambung kerja hingga lewat malam.
Maka si bigboss ni bila habis waktu kerja mereka tidak lah letih mana, melainkna mereka masuk lambat pagi tadi main seround golf dari jam 6 pagi tadi.. dan seround golf di petang tadi. Mereka tidak perlu bawa balik kerja utk dibaca dan ada deadline.Sebab mereka boss.
Bila badan tidak mengeluarkan peluh dan tidak stress berlari sana sini, otak tidak over used, maka ketua ketua yang masih muda ini dan sihat ini mula gelisah kerana hilang fokus dan banyak masa yg terluang.
terutama bila badan sihat dan masih muda.. tenaga didalam badan yg tak digunakan kerana kerja kerja dipejabat tidak mengeluarkan peluh, ditambahlagi tak payah berpeluh peluh memikirkan penyelesaian, segala di beri pada org bawah utk lakukan, selalunya ketua yg teratas selalunya tak yah terkejar kejar berlari sana sini...balik naik keta mewah, dreba bawah.. dirumah semua disediakan, bini takkan ganggu sebab ingat suami sebuk tak boleh diganggu kerana statusnya sebagai org penting.
Pakaian semua siap tersedia.
Bila banyak tenaga pent up(tersimpan) dan tiada fokus harian (sebab semua didelegatekan)maka mereka banyaklah masa dan tenaga utk buat buat bedna mengarut.
Kedudukan mereka dan pangkat mereka digunakan untuk memudahkan apa saja.. tiada siapa berani menyoal apa apa yg dilakukan. walaupun jelas nampak tapi mereka tidak akan berani memberi komen takut nanti hilang kerja..
maka si ketua akan berterusan buat apa saja.. bini takkan tanya mana laki pergi sbb laki akan ckp mtg sana sini dsbnya.. maka perbuatan spt ini makin berleluasa... Gaji sbg big boss dan elaun memang mewah. Kalau ada tu dapat pulak title datuk ke moyangke.. hebat le org akan menyanjung..
Kerja tu sebagai syarat aja, bukan penting. lagipun dah kaya.. Kalau apa apa jadi pada syarikat, takpe, sebab ada kenalan sudah dan boleh kerja lain.. apa jadi pada pekerja nasibla...kalau kompeni bungkus. Kalau gomen nak selamatkan ok... tapi pada si ketua, masih lagi boleh cari kerja seterusnya sbg big boss ditempat lain... sama gaji dan status boss, serta title masih lagi intact.
Kalau cerita skandal mula bocor, saman aja..
Di negara barat seperti artikel dibawah diambil dari suratkabar menyiarkan isu bagaimana pemain bola yg kaya raya dan tok0h keparat, celeb yg ada terbabit dgn isu panas. dan negatif. Disebabkan mereka memohon perintah mahkamah utk ban dari hal ini dari diketahui ramai... Maka ianya menjadi public outcry kerana ianya di salah guna kan oleh golongan berduit dan status nya di naik taraf kerana duit, untuk menghalang dari hal skandal tidak berm0ral dari di ketahui umum dan keluarga mereka..
Menurut laporan akhbar di negara itu, kebanyakkan permohonan super injunction melibatkan skandal..
Dibawah adalah salah satu isu yang melibatkan seorg ketua bank yg terbesar di England, dimana ahli dewan mendebatkan isu ini kerana ianya melibatkan kepentingan umum - taxpayer money!
Sebahagian dari petikan akhbar evening standard online: 'The whole story should be out there': Peer defends revealing Sir Fred super-injunction
:The peer who helped reveal details of Sir Fred Goodwin's super-injunction today defended the move.:
Lib Dem Lord Oakeshott, who tabled yesterday's topical question in the House of Lords, said it was necessary to know what was going on at the top of Royal Bank of Scotland in the run-up to and during its collapse.
Sir Fred, nicknamed Fred the Shred, was accused of having an extra-marital affair at the time RBS imploded and needed rescuing by taxpayers.
His super-injunction was originally revealed by Lib Dem MP John Hemming in March, when it emerged the gagging order obtained by Sir Fred was so strict it banned references to him as a banker.
The order was partially lifted by the High Court yesterday after Lib Dem peer Lord Stoneham, speaking for Lord Oakeshott, used parliamentary privilege to name Sir Fred in relation to the alleged affair in the Lords.
"Every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland, so how can it be right for a super-injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague?" he said.
Lord Oakeshott today told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I'm very concerned the whole story should be out there, should be properly investigated and we should all learn the lessons of the collapse.
"This was the biggest corporate crash in British history."
He said he would not consider revealing details of other super-injunctions, such as those banning reports of footballers' and actors' alleged affairs.
He said: "I couldn't care less if footballers are playing away. This is quite different, this is not the question of footballers' sex lives - I'm not interested in that. This is a major, overwhelming public interest."
He branded secrecy around the former RBS chief executive "stupid", saying the alleged affair may be crucial to a Financial Services Authority probe into RBS' collapse.
Lord Oakeshott added: "I wanted to make sure the regulator could look at this.
"If this is not overwhelming public interest to get to the bottom of what happened when the Royal Bank of Scotland collapsed causing billions (of pounds) of cost to taxpayer and many thousands of families lost their jobs - I can't conceive of a more of a more overwhelming public interest."
:Secrecy: ex-RBS boss Sir Fred Goodwin took out superinjunctionSir Fred: Gagging order 'to hide affair' lifted by High Court Judge:
Nicholas Cecil, Chief Political Correspondent
19 May 2011
An order granting anonymity to former bank boss Sir Fred Goodwin was lifted at the High Court today.
Sir Fred, former head of the Royal Bank of Scotland, had won an injunction preventing publication of details of a "sexual relationship".
But Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting in London, varied the injunction to allow publication of Sir Fred's name, but not details of the alleged relationship and the name of the woman said to be involved.
He did not oppose the move for his identity to be revealed, which came after the injunction was referred to in the House of Lords earlier today.
Earlier today, a peer used parliamentary privilege to rip apart the cloak of secrecy surrounding the former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive.
In a dramatic intervention, Lord Stoneham breached the super-injunction by telling the House of Lords: "Every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland, so how can it be right for a super-injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague?
"If true, it would be a serious breach of corporate governance and not even the Financial Services Authority would be allowed to know about it."
Justice minister Lord McNally replied: "I do not
think it is proper for me, from this
despatch box, to comment on individual cases some of which are before the courts."
The move to reveal more alleged details of Sir Fred's injunction is a direct challenge to the courts, which are locked in a battle with Parliament over Britain's privacy laws.
Lord Stoneham said he was acting on behalf of another peer, Liberal Democrat Lord Oakeshott, who has also raised questions in Parliament about the legal protection offered to Sir Fred, 52.
The allegations in the Lords came just 24 hours before the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, publishes the findings of an inquiry into the use of super-injunctions. They may be seen as a pre-emptive move to challenge any attempt by senior judges to reinforce the use of super-injunctions.
The orders ban the media from disclosing that a gagging order has been granted. Lib-Dem MP John Hemming used parliamentary privilege in March to reveal that Sir Fred, chief executive of the RBS before it was nationalised, had taken out a super-injunction. Today is the first time its details have been revealed.
Sir Fred became a hate figure after the financial crisis which led to Britain's recession. He quit as RBS chief executive in October 2008, with an annual pension of £703,000, later reduced to £342,500. The Royal Bank of Scotland was bailed out by the taxpayer, which now owns more than 80 per cent of it.
The bank's code of conduct says employees must inform management about any relationships which pose a potential conflict of interest. Lord Oakeshott said, outside the Chamber and without parliamentary privilege: "I'm not interested in footballers' sex lives, but Royal Bank of Scotland was the biggest collapse in corporate history.
"It cost taxpayers billions and thousands of people their businesses and their jobs. You could not conceive of something more in the public interest to know the full facts leading to that collapse." David Cameron said last month he was "a little uneasy".
"What's happening here is that the judges are using the European convention on human rights to deliver a sort of privacy law without parliament saying so," he said. "We do need to have a proper sit back and think: is this right, is this the right thing to happen?"
MPs have said super-injunctions allowed rich men to hide their infidelities. BBC presenter Andrew Marr was last month accused of hypocrisy after he admitted that he obtained a super-injunction to gag the press to hide an adulterous affair.
Former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas, 28, is banned from revealing the name of a Premier League footballer who has a gagging order to stop coverage of their alleged affair. The super-injunction culture, which allows several top footballers to conceal alleged affairs, has been shaken by the naming on Twitter of some who are allegedly involved.
Jemima Khan was incorrectly linked to Jeremy Clarkson. She said it was a "nightmare" as the false rumours spread around the world.
Hebat bukan, ada duit senang saja nak jaga nama. tutup aja skandal ...semua kerana imej dan status dan nama..supaya anak bini tak tahu sapa mereka sebenarnya.
Teori kenapa kebelakangan ini banyak isu skandal melibatkan aktiviti tak bermaruah dsbnya terutama bagi org yg berstatus dan berpangkat besar....
Dulu dulu kerja melibatkan banyak aktiviti. Kemudahan adalah berbeza dizaman dulu banyak memerlukan tumpuan sepenuhnya dan tiada melibatkan delegation of duty pada org bawahan dan contractor untuk buat research etc dan compile data utk serious decision making. Kemudian tidak semua mampu ada drebar melainkan dia adalah pemilik prniagaan tersebut. Maka kena lah naik train, bas, drive sendiri dll..Balik rumah
penat dan letih...
Zaman moden dimana semua ada kemudahan infrastruktur, computer, drebar, delegation authority (passing the bucket) kepada org bawahan(kuli) kerja ketua atau boss ini makin mudah. Cuma tanya apa yang perlu saja contohnya apa risiko yg berkaitan dan perkara yg berlaku dan patut berlaku (contoh saja). Maka berdasarkan hasil pencarian maklumat oleh kuli tadi, keputusan sudah tersedia cuma perlu di sahkan saja.
Dari contoh diatas ketua atau big boss ni tidaklah stress kerja mereka dan berpeluh peluh memikirakn penyediaaan maklumat. Malah dia tidak stress melakukan apa apa, krn yg selalu stress adalah si kuli tadi tak cukup tidur, makan tak ikut masa, balik lewat malam atau sambung kerja hingga lewat malam.
Maka si bigboss ni bila habis waktu kerja mereka tidak lah letih mana, melainkna mereka masuk lambat pagi tadi main seround golf dari jam 6 pagi tadi.. dan seround golf di petang tadi. Mereka tidak perlu bawa balik kerja utk dibaca dan ada deadline.Sebab mereka boss.
Bila badan tidak mengeluarkan peluh dan tidak stress berlari sana sini, otak tidak over used, maka ketua ketua yang masih muda ini dan sihat ini mula gelisah kerana hilang fokus dan banyak masa yg terluang.
terutama bila badan sihat dan masih muda.. tenaga didalam badan yg tak digunakan kerana kerja kerja dipejabat tidak mengeluarkan peluh, ditambahlagi tak payah berpeluh peluh memikirkan penyelesaian, segala di beri pada org bawah utk lakukan, selalunya ketua yg teratas selalunya tak yah terkejar kejar berlari sana sini...balik naik keta mewah, dreba bawah.. dirumah semua disediakan, bini takkan ganggu sebab ingat suami sebuk tak boleh diganggu kerana statusnya sebagai org penting.
Pakaian semua siap tersedia.
Bila banyak tenaga pent up(tersimpan) dan tiada fokus harian (sebab semua didelegatekan)maka mereka banyaklah masa dan tenaga utk buat buat bedna mengarut.
Kedudukan mereka dan pangkat mereka digunakan untuk memudahkan apa saja.. tiada siapa berani menyoal apa apa yg dilakukan. walaupun jelas nampak tapi mereka tidak akan berani memberi komen takut nanti hilang kerja..
maka si ketua akan berterusan buat apa saja.. bini takkan tanya mana laki pergi sbb laki akan ckp mtg sana sini dsbnya.. maka perbuatan spt ini makin berleluasa... Gaji sbg big boss dan elaun memang mewah. Kalau ada tu dapat pulak title datuk ke moyangke.. hebat le org akan menyanjung..
Kerja tu sebagai syarat aja, bukan penting. lagipun dah kaya.. Kalau apa apa jadi pada syarikat, takpe, sebab ada kenalan sudah dan boleh kerja lain.. apa jadi pada pekerja nasibla...kalau kompeni bungkus. Kalau gomen nak selamatkan ok... tapi pada si ketua, masih lagi boleh cari kerja seterusnya sbg big boss ditempat lain... sama gaji dan status boss, serta title masih lagi intact.
Kalau cerita skandal mula bocor, saman aja..
Di negara barat seperti artikel dibawah diambil dari suratkabar menyiarkan isu bagaimana pemain bola yg kaya raya dan tok0h keparat, celeb yg ada terbabit dgn isu panas. dan negatif. Disebabkan mereka memohon perintah mahkamah utk ban dari hal ini dari diketahui ramai... Maka ianya menjadi public outcry kerana ianya di salah guna kan oleh golongan berduit dan status nya di naik taraf kerana duit, untuk menghalang dari hal skandal tidak berm0ral dari di ketahui umum dan keluarga mereka..
Menurut laporan akhbar di negara itu, kebanyakkan permohonan super injunction melibatkan skandal..
Dibawah adalah salah satu isu yang melibatkan seorg ketua bank yg terbesar di England, dimana ahli dewan mendebatkan isu ini kerana ianya melibatkan kepentingan umum - taxpayer money!
Sebahagian dari petikan akhbar evening standard online: 'The whole story should be out there': Peer defends revealing Sir Fred super-injunction
:The peer who helped reveal details of Sir Fred Goodwin's super-injunction today defended the move.:
Lib Dem Lord Oakeshott, who tabled yesterday's topical question in the House of Lords, said it was necessary to know what was going on at the top of Royal Bank of Scotland in the run-up to and during its collapse.
Sir Fred, nicknamed Fred the Shred, was accused of having an extra-marital affair at the time RBS imploded and needed rescuing by taxpayers.
His super-injunction was originally revealed by Lib Dem MP John Hemming in March, when it emerged the gagging order obtained by Sir Fred was so strict it banned references to him as a banker.
The order was partially lifted by the High Court yesterday after Lib Dem peer Lord Stoneham, speaking for Lord Oakeshott, used parliamentary privilege to name Sir Fred in relation to the alleged affair in the Lords.
"Every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland, so how can it be right for a super-injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague?" he said.
Lord Oakeshott today told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I'm very concerned the whole story should be out there, should be properly investigated and we should all learn the lessons of the collapse.
"This was the biggest corporate crash in British history."
He said he would not consider revealing details of other super-injunctions, such as those banning reports of footballers' and actors' alleged affairs.
He said: "I couldn't care less if footballers are playing away. This is quite different, this is not the question of footballers' sex lives - I'm not interested in that. This is a major, overwhelming public interest."
He branded secrecy around the former RBS chief executive "stupid", saying the alleged affair may be crucial to a Financial Services Authority probe into RBS' collapse.
Lord Oakeshott added: "I wanted to make sure the regulator could look at this.
"If this is not overwhelming public interest to get to the bottom of what happened when the Royal Bank of Scotland collapsed causing billions (of pounds) of cost to taxpayer and many thousands of families lost their jobs - I can't conceive of a more of a more overwhelming public interest."
:Secrecy: ex-RBS boss Sir Fred Goodwin took out superinjunctionSir Fred: Gagging order 'to hide affair' lifted by High Court Judge:
Nicholas Cecil, Chief Political Correspondent
19 May 2011
An order granting anonymity to former bank boss Sir Fred Goodwin was lifted at the High Court today.
Sir Fred, former head of the Royal Bank of Scotland, had won an injunction preventing publication of details of a "sexual relationship".
But Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting in London, varied the injunction to allow publication of Sir Fred's name, but not details of the alleged relationship and the name of the woman said to be involved.
He did not oppose the move for his identity to be revealed, which came after the injunction was referred to in the House of Lords earlier today.
Earlier today, a peer used parliamentary privilege to rip apart the cloak of secrecy surrounding the former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive.
In a dramatic intervention, Lord Stoneham breached the super-injunction by telling the House of Lords: "Every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland, so how can it be right for a super-injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague?
"If true, it would be a serious breach of corporate governance and not even the Financial Services Authority would be allowed to know about it."
Justice minister Lord McNally replied: "I do not
think it is proper for me, from this
despatch box, to comment on individual cases some of which are before the courts."
The move to reveal more alleged details of Sir Fred's injunction is a direct challenge to the courts, which are locked in a battle with Parliament over Britain's privacy laws.
Lord Stoneham said he was acting on behalf of another peer, Liberal Democrat Lord Oakeshott, who has also raised questions in Parliament about the legal protection offered to Sir Fred, 52.
The allegations in the Lords came just 24 hours before the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, publishes the findings of an inquiry into the use of super-injunctions. They may be seen as a pre-emptive move to challenge any attempt by senior judges to reinforce the use of super-injunctions.
The orders ban the media from disclosing that a gagging order has been granted. Lib-Dem MP John Hemming used parliamentary privilege in March to reveal that Sir Fred, chief executive of the RBS before it was nationalised, had taken out a super-injunction. Today is the first time its details have been revealed.
Sir Fred became a hate figure after the financial crisis which led to Britain's recession. He quit as RBS chief executive in October 2008, with an annual pension of £703,000, later reduced to £342,500. The Royal Bank of Scotland was bailed out by the taxpayer, which now owns more than 80 per cent of it.
The bank's code of conduct says employees must inform management about any relationships which pose a potential conflict of interest. Lord Oakeshott said, outside the Chamber and without parliamentary privilege: "I'm not interested in footballers' sex lives, but Royal Bank of Scotland was the biggest collapse in corporate history.
"It cost taxpayers billions and thousands of people their businesses and their jobs. You could not conceive of something more in the public interest to know the full facts leading to that collapse." David Cameron said last month he was "a little uneasy".
"What's happening here is that the judges are using the European convention on human rights to deliver a sort of privacy law without parliament saying so," he said. "We do need to have a proper sit back and think: is this right, is this the right thing to happen?"
MPs have said super-injunctions allowed rich men to hide their infidelities. BBC presenter Andrew Marr was last month accused of hypocrisy after he admitted that he obtained a super-injunction to gag the press to hide an adulterous affair.
Former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas, 28, is banned from revealing the name of a Premier League footballer who has a gagging order to stop coverage of their alleged affair. The super-injunction culture, which allows several top footballers to conceal alleged affairs, has been shaken by the naming on Twitter of some who are allegedly involved.
Jemima Khan was incorrectly linked to Jeremy Clarkson. She said it was a "nightmare" as the false rumours spread around the world.
Hebat bukan, ada duit senang saja nak jaga nama. tutup aja skandal ...semua kerana imej dan status dan nama..supaya anak bini tak tahu sapa mereka sebenarnya.
