Dilema Hutang?Kita orang muda!

"Masa depan kita tak dapat kita tentukan. Masa silam yang suci adalah dicorak pada masa sekarang" -ahmad london-

Dilema hutang?Perlu ke kita berhutang? Bagaimana kita menguruskan kewangan kita? Aku ada dua role model yang boleh kita sama-sama lihat dan nilaikan gaya mereka menguruskan kewangan. Mungkin mereka menguruskan wang dengan skop yang lebih besar iaitu pengurusan kewangan negara tapi gaya mereka yang kita boleh nilaikan yang mana baik untuk kita implemen dalam memnentukan halatuju masa depan kewangan kita.

TUM DAIM VS Ku Li

Gaya bekas Menteri Kewangan, Tun Daim Zainuddin (1984-1991) dalam mengurus ekonomi negara. Gaya beliau adalah bertentangan dengan Menteri Kewangan sebelumnya iaitu Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah atau Ku Li (1976-1984) di mana Ku Li lebih suka meminjam supaya pertumbuhan ekonomi negara lebih semarak. Berbeza dengan gaya Daim iaitu perbelanjaan mesti selaras dengan pendapatan untuk pertumbuhan ekonomi negara. Semasa kemelesetan ekonomi melanda pada tahun 1985 iaitu pertumbuhan ekonomi ialah -1.1%, baru disedari betapa beratnya beban hutang akibat pinjaman yang berjumlah RM20 billion. Dengan keazaman dan ketekunan dalam menghadapi rintangan dalam memulihkan ekonomi negara, Daim berjaya memulihkan ekonomi negara. Falsafah Daim dalam mengurus ekonomi pula ialah "Kita hidup dalam batas kemampuan kita". Kesannya, Daim telah berjaya mengeluarkan negara dari lembah kemelesetan daripada -1.1% tahun 1985 kepada +9.2% pada tahun 1989 iaitu suatu pencapaian rekod terbaik bagi negara membangun.

Intipati yang boleh dipetik daripada pengurusan ekonomi Tun Daim ialah kita usahlah berhutang dalam menambah pendapatan kita contohnya dalam membuat pelaburan ataupun untuk berniaga. Sebenarnya, kita sedang menjana 'pendapatan palsu' jika mengikut falsafah Daim. Apa yang perlu kita lakukan ialah kita harus memperuntukkan 30% daripada pendapatan kita untuk membuat pelaburan. Sekiranya pendapatan kita ialah RM3,000 sebulan, peruntukkan RM900 sebulan untuk pelaburan kita. Dalam masa 3 tahun, hasilnya ialah RM32,400. Daripada mengigau di siang hari dengan membuat 'pinjaman peribadi' sehingga 20 tahun semata-mata untuk melabur.

*Kesimpulan yang dapat kita lihat Tun Daim suruh kita belanja ikut kemampuan sebab kita perlu hidup dalam batas kemampuan kita. Manakala Ku Li lebih suka berhutang untuk merancakkan ekonomi. Tapi apa yang aku belajar dan ingin cuba lakukan adalah berhutang untuk berniaga macam orang cina. Mereka tak guna duit saving untuk run bisnes, mereka berhutang then meniaga jadi, meletop kaya raya,kemungkinan takda masalah nak bayar balik hutang yang mula-mula mereka invest. Ni lagi satu masalah nak beli kereta hutang 9 tahun? Wajar ke tak? Dilema beb dilema!

The Bias Against Creatives as Leaders

Two candidates are being interviewed for a leadership position in your company. Both have strong resumes, but while one seems to be bursting with new and daring ideas, the other comes across as decidedly less creative (though clearly still a smart cookie). Who gets the job?

The answer, unfortunately, is usually the less creative candidate. This fact may or may not surprise you – you yourself may have been the creative candidate who got the shaft. But what you’re probably wondering is, why?

After all, it’s quite clear who should be getting the job. Studies show that leaders who are more creative are in fact better able to effect positive change in their organizations, and are better at inspiring others to follow their lead.

And yet, according to recent research there is good reason to believe that the people with the most creativity aren’t given the opportunity to lead, because of a process that occurs (on a completely unconscious level) in the mind of everyone who has ever evaluated an applicant for a leadership position.

The problem, put simply, is this: our idea of what a prototypical “creative person” is like is completely at odds with our idea of a prototypical “effective leader.”

Creativity is associated with nonconformity, unorthodoxy, and unconventionality. It conjures visions of the artist, the musician, the misunderstood poet. In other words, not the sort of people you usually put in charge of large organizations. Effective leaders, it would seem, should provide order, rather than tossing it out the window.

Our idea of a prototypical creative person is completely at odds with our idea of a prototypical effective leader.

Unconsciously, we assume that someone who is creative can’t be a good leader, and as a result, any evidence of creativity can diminish a candidate’s perceived leadership potential.

In one study conducted by organizational psychologists Jennifer Mueller, Jack Goncalo, and Dishan Kamdar, employees rated the responses of nearly 300 of their (unidentified) coworkers to a problem-solving task for both creativity (the extent to which their ideas were novel and useful) and as evidence of leadership potential. They found that creativity and leadership potential were strongly negatively correlated – the more creative the response, the less effective a leader the responder appeared.

The good news is, the bias can be wiped out – in fact, reversed – if evaluators have a charismatic leader (i.e., someone known for their uniqueness and individualism, like a Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, or Carly Fiorina) rather than an effective but non-charismatic leader in mind.

The good news is, the bias can be wiped out – in fact, reversed.

So what can you do in an interview to fight the creativity bias? You have some options:

1. Be armed with evidence of your leadership abilities. Bias is most powerful when there is nothing else concrete to go on – that’s when our brains (unconsciously) fill in the blanks.
2. Don’t just focus on your past experience. Talk about what you see as your leadership potential – the kind of leader you see yourself becoming. Studies show that interviewers are drawn to candidates described as having potential (often more than actual achievement.) They’ll spend more time thinking about you, and that extra thinking results in more accuracy and less bias.
3. Try to counteract the bias subtly by talking about the charismatic, creative leaders who have been role models for you in the past.
4. Tackle the bias head on. Acknowledge that creative types aren’t often chosen for leadership positions, while arguing (nicely) that your ability to offer fresh and innovative solutions to problems is essential to effective leadership, rather than at odds with it.

KONFLIK ROHINGYA

SEMOGA ALLAH BRSAMAMU...

Aku mengutuk dengan keras terhadap pihak berkuasa Myanmar yang sejak 1982 telah melancarkan penghapusan etnik terhadap kaum Rohingya . Umat Islam Rohingya pernah diperlaku secara kejam oleh regim tentera Myanmar pada tahun 1982 yang mengakibat 100,000 orang Rohingya terbunuh.

Nasib umat Islam Rohingya yang berada di Myanmar berada dalam keadaan yang sangat buruk dan sangat tenat. Undang-undang dan operasi keselamatan Nasaka sejak 1982 telah mengakibat kesengsaraan yang berat keatas Umat Islam Rohingya yang maseh berada di wilayah Arakan , Myanmar .

Antara penderitaan yang dialami ialah perampasan rumah , tanah , ternakan , pemusnahan masjid , arahan tidak dibenarkan membaikki mana-mana Masjid , ratusan Masjid dimusnah dan diganti dengan Pagoda Buddha , perkahwinan dan pergerakkan yang dihadkan hanya dengan keizinan tentera , penangkapan , penyiksaan tanpa bicara , perkosaan wanita dan pemaksaan keluar dari Islam dan dipaksa menganut Buddha.

Penduduk Rohingya didera sehingga tidak dibenarkan memilikki walaupun pisau atau parang untuk kegunaan di rumah kecuali dengan izin tentera. Malah mereka juga tidak boleh memilikki telefon bimbit. Ada yang ditangkap dan dipenjara sehingga 7 tahun hanya kerana memilikki telefon bimbit.


p/s:sama sama kita mendoakan saudara seislam kita. Allah lindungi saudaraku...