Top 10 ways to get rid of Gen Yers in your office

GENERATION Y – a perpetual hot topic. How to attract them, retain them, put up with them? Or that one solution that tempts many but no one wants to say out loud: Get rid of them altogether, and save yourself a lot of headaches.

Much research has been done on Gen Yers and what makes them tick. Using those findings as a basis, let’s look at how to get rid of them.

1. Ban Facebook, Twitter and all other social media websites. While not a panacea for clearing your office of Gen Yers, this is a good place to start. A survey done by Deloitte shows that some teens consider lack of social networking at work a significant detriment in choosing a workplace.

2. Don’t let them work from home. Or anywhere that’s not the office. Gen Ys value and almost expect flexible schedules. Not letting them work from home – or anywhere other than the office – is a sure way to frustrate them.

3. Don’t tell them why their work matters, or how it will be used. Everyone appreciates knowing the value his work adds, especially Gen Y. One Gen Y in a focus group pointed out that they are constantly “looking for a sense of the bigger picture”.

4. Give them as much mundane and repetitive work as possible. Gen Yers believe they can learn quickly, take on significant responsibility and make major contributions far sooner than older generations think they can. Personal development is usually a high priority for them. Assigning them mundane work is therefore an irritant in both the short and long term, especially if you can combine it with No. 3 above.

5. Tell them off for not working 100% of the time in the office. Technological advances have broken down the disconnection between working hours and non-working hours. With round-the-clock email and demands for answers, many Gen Y knowledge workers feel they are effectively on call 24/7.

Consequently, they believe that they need to take more breaks throughout the day, often through video games, iPods or YouTube. Tell them that they’re not paid to play around during company time whenever you see them goofing off in the office – even if they worked till midnight last night.

6. Evaluate them on the number of hours they stay in the office a day, rather than the quality or quantity of work they produce. Combine this with No. 2 and No. 5 for extra impact.

7. Never praise them or thank them for putting in the extra effort. Gen Ys are willing to work hard but within reason. Asking them to put in time and/or effort they see as unreasonable and/or unnecessary is guaranteed to irritate them. Don’t forget you can rub some salt into the wound by giving them no praise or recognition whatsoever, or acting as if their extra effort was run of the mill.

8. Give them anything but transparency. Gen Y came of age in a world of layoffs and corporate scandals, fostering a belief that businesses in general value their own financial gains above everything else, and that business talk about the importance of people is largely insincere.

One Gen Y in a focus group commented: “We are looking to be loyal to an employer if that employer will be loyal to us, but we don‘t think business operates that way today.”

Utilise this scepticism by making promises you never deliver on or even address again. If they can even tell you made any, under the layers of fluff.

9. Tell them work-life balance is a fantasy only held by the ambitionless. One survey found that almost 90% of Gen Yers have either a primary focus on family, or they divide their focus between work and family. They favour family and personal time over the rewards that usually accompany increased job responsibility.

Now, this is a golden opportunity; pile on the hours, while telling them that eventually they’ll grow up and realise that they’ll have to prioritise their career just to make a living.

10. Use these phrases as often as possible: “Do it because I said so.” “That’s the way we’ve always done it around here.” “You have to pay your dues.” “You young people don’t understand working life.”

Gen Yers hate being disrespected. They have been raised to feel valuable and very positive about themselves…and to question authority. Send them the message that you expect them to respect you due to your higher rank alone.

Once you’ve successfully cleared all Gen Ys out of your office, and hopefully deterred any other potentials from applying, sit back and relax. You’ve managed to save yourself a lot of time, trouble and headaches, in the short term. In the long term, as the workforce ages and older generations retire, you may experience a problem.

The truth of the matter is that Gen Y is simply too large to ignore, both as workers and consumers. Companies that don’t figure out how to harness this growing resource are likely to find themselves at a distinct disadvantage, not only in the talent market, but in the broader market as well.

Effectively attracting, managing and retaining Gen Y certainly poses a challenge, especially while taking care to cater to the rest of your workforce. However, research has shown that all generations basically want and value the same things.

The difference is that priorities, expectations and behaviours may differ noticeably. With a little creative thinking, and an open mind from all employees, organisations can find solutions that appeal to all generations.

For instance, coaching and/or mentoring arrangements support Gen Yers’ desire to learn and develop, while giving older generations an opportunity to contribute and feel valued. Other programmes such as flexible work arrangements appeal to not just Gen Y, but also baby-boomers considering sabbaticals and Gen Xers who value flexitime and telecommuting.

The most important question to ask yourself is not “how should I manage Generation Y?” but rather, “how can I make my company a great place for all generations to work?”

BY Deloitte Insight - By LIM PHUI CHENG  - The writer is a consultant with Deloitte Malaysia’s human capital consulting practice.

A tighter rein on land transfers

A tighter rein on land transfers
Comment by ROGER TAN

There is a general sigh of relief with the Federal Court’s decision in favour of a landowner who was cheated of his property, overruling the decision in Adorna Properties which has wreaked havoc in land transactions and increased the number of land scams in the last nine years.

THE decision by the Federal Court last Thursday in Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San & 2 Ors to depart from its previous decision made in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit 2000 has finally and correctly restored the principle of deferred indefeasibility in our Torrens system of registration after a gruelling wait of more than nine years.

For the benefit of the readers, let me first explain this principle in simple terms.

Under the Torrens system , the State will guarantee an indefeasible title to anyone whose name is registered on the register of titles.

This is enshrined in section 340(1) of the National Land Code, 1965 (“NLC”) which applies to West Malaysia.

However, sub-section 340(2) provides that a title or interest can still be defeasible if it is acquired, inter alia, by fraud, misrepresentation, forgery or through an insufficient or void instrument.

Sub-section 340(3) then goes on to say that if the immediate purchaser subsequently transfers the title or interest to a subsequent purchaser, the said title or interest is still liable to be set aside provided the subsequent purchaser is a purchaser in good faith (or bona fide) and for valuable consideration.

In other words, only the subsequent bona fide purchaser/transferee and not the immediate bona fide purchaser/transferee will get an indefeasible title created out of a defeasible title.

(Under the NLC, a purchaser is defined to include a bank taking a charge over the land.) To put it in another way, for example, A is the registered proprietor of the land.

B forges A’s signature and transfers the land to himself. B later sells and transfers the land to C. C, who has no knowledge of the forgery, will obtain an indefeasible title. Or if B forges A’s signature and transfers the land from A to C and C later transfers the land to D, then, D and not C, who has no knowledge of the forgery, will obtain an indefeasible title. C and D in the first and second examples are known as subsequent purchasers under s 340(3).

However, if the principle of immediate indefeasibility espoused in Adorna Properties applies, C will still get an indefeasible title if B forges A’s signature and transfers the land immediately from A to C without first having transferred to B himself.

That was exactly what happened in Adorna Properties.

An impostor of the genuine landowner, Boonsom Boonyanit, made a false statutory declaration that she had lost the original title to two pieces of lands in Penang, and successfully managed to obtain a certified copy of the title from the land office.

With that, the impostor registered the transfer of the lands to Adorna Properties Sdn. Bhd. (“Adorna”) for a sum of RM12mil.

A three-member bench led by Chief Justice Tun Eusoffe Chin held that Adorna had obtained a good title because the proviso in sub-section 340(3) would apply to sub-section 340(2) even though Adorna was an immediate bona fide purchaser.

As a result, Boonyanit lost everything as the forger had also disappeared with the money.

Despite two attempts made by Boonyanit’s family to have the decision reviewed by a separate panel of the Federal Court in 2001 and 2004, the Federal Court dismissed both applications on the ground that no grave injustice had occasioned.

It is, therefore, not surprising to hear Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi last Thursday describe the error committed by the Federal Court in Adorna Properties as “obvious and blatant”.

In delivering the main judgment of the apex court, Chief Judge of Malaya, Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria ruled that the Federal Court in Adorna Properties had misconstrued s 340 and came to the erroneous conclusion that the proviso appearing in sub-section 340(3) equally applied to sub-section 340(2).

With the latest decision, the law as respects indefeasibility of titles is now settled, and all the other judges must hereafter follow it conscientiously as the decision of this strong five-member bench has effectively overruled Adorna Properties.

In fact, it cannot be gainsaid that Adorna Properties has wreaked havoc in land transactions, and incidents of land scams have also increased in the last nine years. The police had even revealed before that the computerised land registration system in several states, including Kuala Lumpur, Penang and Johor, had been compromised by syndicates using “inside people” to forge land titles resulting in several registered proprietors and purchasers losing millions of ringgit.

The former Director of Bukit Aman Commercial Crimes Investigation Department Datuk Ramli Yusoff was quoted in 2007 as saying the modus operandi of these perpetrators was to declare that they had lost their land titles and then obtained replacement titles with the assistance of “inside people” before selling the land.

In Tan Ying Hong’s case, the forger, Tan Sian San, had forged the signature of the landowner Ying Hong to create a forged power of attorney in order to charge the land to RHB Bank as security for loans totalling RM300,000 granted to a third party, Cini Timber Industries Sdn Bhd.

It follows that the apex court held that the charge was invalid because as RHB Bank was an immediate purchaser under s 340(2), the proviso under s 340(3) did not apply.

Of course, had Sian San first transferred the land to himself and then charged it to RHB Bank, the latter would have been a subsequent purchaser entitled to the protection of the proviso in s 340(3) .

At this juncture, it must be stressed that the latest decision of the Federal Court does not mean that a landowner is now legally incapable of losing his land to a forger.

The decision only makes it more difficult now for these thieves and conmen to fraudulently transfer the lands.

We must, of course, not underestimate these criminals as it is not difficult from now on for a forger to transfer the property to himself or another person before transferring it to a subsequent bona fide purchaser in order to enjoy the benefit of the proviso in s 340(3).

This is all the more so if there is help from “inside people”. Take Tan Ying Hong’s case, for example.

I am just bewildered as to how the Pahang state government could have “mysteriously” alienated a nine-acre plot of land in Kuantan to Ying Hong in 1976 when he did not even know about the existence of the land until he received a demand letter from RHB Bank in 1985.

As the alienation has not been challenged, it appears that the flawed system has mysteriously enriched Ying Hong with a property which is now probably worth millions of ringgit.

It is apposite to note that in every land scam like in Adorna Properties, there are two victims involved – the genuine landowner and the bona fide purchaser.

As everyone is either a landowner or a purchaser or both, it is indeed a balancing act when deciding whose interest requires more protection and to what extent the landowner should be protected in the entire chain of dealings.

In doing so, it must be borne in mind that if protection is given solely and wholly to the landowner, then Malaysia may not be so conducive for property investments.

In this respect, countries which practise immediate indefeasibility such as Australia, New Zealand and Singapore have an assurance fund to compensate victims of land scams.

That said, as land is a State matter here, implementation of such a fund may not be so straightforward.

All in all, the latest decision now requires the purchasers, banks and their lawyers to be even more vigilant and diligent when conducting land searches and verifying the identities of the sellers before purchasing any property or providing any finance.

It is also my considered opinion that notwithstanding this landmark decision, the NLC should still be amended to bring about more stringent procedures and measures as regards how replacement titles are obtained, and dealings are presented and registered in order to be one step ahead of the criminal minds of fraud and forgery.

The writer is a former Chairman of the Conveyancing Practice Committee of the Bar Council. In Tan Ying Hong’s case, he held a watching brief for the Bar Council as its counsel.

China rejects claims of cyber attacks on Google

BBC

China has denied any state involvement in alleged cyber attacks on Google and accused the US of double standards.

A Chinese industry ministry spokesman told the state-run Xinhua news agency that claims that Beijing was behind recent cyber attacks were "groundless".

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week asked China to investigate claims by Google that it had been targeted by China-based hackers.

The US search giant has threatened to withdraw from China.

"The accusation that the Chinese government participated in [any] cyber attack, either in an explicit or inexplicit way, is groundless. We [are] firmly opposed to that," the unnamed spokesman of China's ministry of industry and information technology told Xinhua.

"Isn't it true that even in the United States, the homeland of Google, certain government agencies are also reported of often entering a massive number of personal e-mail accounts with certain excuses?"
China Daily newspaper

"China's policy on internet safety is transparent and consistent," he added.

Separately, China's state-run China Daily newspaper said America's internet strategy was "to exploit its advantages in internet funds, technology and marketing and export its politics, commerce and culture to other nations for political, commercial and cultural interests of the world's only superpower".

It also described the US government as being hypocritical, saying the country's "certain government agencies" had reportedly illegally checked a massive number of personal e-mail accounts.

On Thursday, Mrs Clinton urged Beijing to investigate the alleged cyber attacks on Google.

Hillary Clinton: "We look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review"

"We look to Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough investigation of the cyber intrusions," she said.

Mrs Clinton added that companies such as the US giant should refuse to support "politically motivated censorship".

Again in reference to China, she said that any country which restricted free access to information risked "walling themselves off from the progress of the next century".

Google said on 12 January that hackers had tried to infiltrate its software coding and the e-mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, in a "highly sophisticated" attack.

The California-based company, which launched in China in 2006, said it would quit the country unless the government relaxed censorship.

On Tuesday, the Chinese government said Google and other foreign companies had to obey the country's laws and traditions.

The same day, Google said it was postponing the launch of two mobile phones in China.

When Google launched google.cn four years ago, it was criticised for agreeing to Beijing's demands to make certain search results off-limits - including those relating to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Tibetan independence or Falun Gong.

China has more internet users, about 350 million, than any other country and provides a lucrative search-engine market worth an estimated $1bn (£618m) last year.

Google holds about a third of the country's search market, with Chinese rival Baidu having more than 60%.

Newscribe : get free news in real time