Tuesday, November 20, 2012

From zubedy's sales handbook 4.1

13 ) Code of Conduct for Sales & Servicing

1)     When representing Zubedy for sales and servicing activities, all Sales Personnel  
         must abide by the following Code of Conduct.  The rules and regulations are as  

a)    No bribery

b)    No begging

c)    No hard selling

d)    No under counter (those that does under counter will be terminated

e)    Sells on equal terms with all prospects and clients

f)     Politely refuse clients from the industry below as these industries are not
       aligned with our company branding;

i)      Liquor or Alcohol beverage companies
ii)     Gambling based companies
iii)    Cigarette based companies

g)    All other rules and regulations as listed in the Employee Handbook

5 Lies the Media Keeps Repeating About Gaza by Omar Baddar - The Huffington post

As Israel continues to pound Gaza, the Palestinian death toll of the latest round of violence has crossed the 100 mark. Thus far, the American media has given Israeli officials and spokespersons a free pass to shape the narrative of this conflict with falsehoods. Here are the top 5 lies the media doesn't challenge about the crisis in Gaza:

1. Israel Was Forced to Respond to Rockets to Defend Its Citizens 

CNN, like many other American outlets, chose to begin the story of the latest round of violence in Gaza on November 10th, when 4 Israeli soldiers were wounded by Palestinian fire, and the IDF "retaliated" by killing several Palestinians. But just two days before, a 13 year old Palestinian boy was killed in an Israeli military incursion into Gaza (among other fatalities in preceding days). Is there any reason why those couldn't be the starting point of the "cycle of violence"? The bias was even more blatant in 2008/09, when Israel's massive assault on Gaza (which killed 1400+ Palestinians) was cast as self-defense, even though it was acknowledged in passing that Israel was the party that broke the ceasefire agreement in place at the time. Are the Palestinians not entitled to self-defense? And if indiscriminate Palestinian rocket fire is not an acceptable response to Israeli violence (which it absolutely isn't), how can indiscriminate Israeli bombings of Gaza ever be acceptable? And why is the broader context, the fact that Gaza remains under Israeli blockade and military control, overlooked?

2. Israel Tries to Avoid Civilian Casualties

It must be aggravating for Israel's propagandists when high-ranking political officials slip and get off the sanitized/approved message for public consumption. Yesterday, Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai said the "goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages." Not to be outdone, Gilad Sharon, son of former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, said "we need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza." If you're thinking this is just rhetoric, consider the fact that, according to Amnesty International, Israel "flattened... busy neighborhoods" into "moonscapes" during its last major assault on Gaza in 2008/09. And it wasn't just human rights organizations that were exposing Israeli war crimes in Gaza, but Israeli soldiers whose consciencecould not bear to remain silent about the atrocities they had committed were also coming forward.

click here to read more on this article

Monday, November 19, 2012

zubedy is hiring and we need TALENTS!

zubedy is hiring and we need TALENTS!

Zubedy (M) Sdn Bhd is a for-profit organisation with a social cause. We are a fast growing human development and training consultancy, with a mission to add value to everyone we interact with. Our vision is to unite people by getting the world to work together.

We need like-minded people who understand other people.
We need dedicated people to promote our business.
We need thinking people to strategise our brand.

If you are a qualified and self-motivated candidate with an eye for a dynamic and fulfilling career with a heart, kindly submit your application to by 25 November 2012.

Only shortlisted candidates will be notified.

For more information, visit

Wisma WIM, 3rd Floor, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, Taman Tun Dr Ismail, 60000 Kuala Lumpur.
Tel: 03 – 7727 0758            Fax: 03 – 7727 0759

Sunday, November 11, 2012

The lowdown on the AES by Shahanaaz Habib

The AES may not be the only solution to reducing road accidents but it can be an effective initiative in the long run.
IT was supposed to be the solution for many of Malaysia’s road safety woes, but the Automated Enforcement System (AES) has instead drawn mixed reactions. The latest was the Selangor state government’s decision to block the installation and implementation of the system until an independent valuator reviewed if the Transport Ministry has “holistically” considered all necessary procedures.
Transport expert and Universiti Putra Malaysia vice-chancellor Datuk Dr Radin Umar Radin Sohaidi, who came up with the AES concept when he was heading the Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (Miros), shares his views on the automated system.
> Is the AES really the way to go to bring down road accidents and fatalities?
It is one of the proven ways to tackle speed-related crashes and red light-running crashes in any country. In Malaysia, we have about 1,500 deaths, 5,000 serious injuries, 12,000 slight injuries, (and) around 50,000 damage-only crashes related to speed and running red lights every year on our roads. Many are just victims like you and me.
> What are the pros and cons of the AES?
AES offers a 24-7 enforcement opportunity, provided it is set up properly and there is good acceptance by all. At the same time, it eliminates discretion and corruption. It has the potential of reducing about 30% to 40% of speed-related and red light-running “Killed and Seriously Injured” (KSI) cases (around 2000 less KSI) per year. The key success factor is in the details, particularly on parameter settings and engagement with the public. The public should look at it from the public safety point of view rather than revenue generation. 
> Is there an alternative and different system that is comparable and just as effective? If so – what and how does it work?
Traffic calming like speed control devices such as humps, rumble strips, speed tables, super elevations, and delineation have also been used. However, they are only appropriate under certain conditions. In addressing speed-related and red light-running cases, the AES would be the best option.
> Why do you think there is so much objection and resistance on the AES if the objective is to save lives and that those who do not commit traffic offences do not need to pay?
First, it has been politicised and the general election is coming near. Second, the parameter settings were not done properly.
Third, the public have not been properly informed. Fourth, there have been many spinners with the wrong knowledge and information, for example that AES is saman ekor – which is not the case. Fifth, it is perceived as being subcontracted to a private company. Somehow, it is not promoted as a life-saving initiative. Hence, there is a need to get it right.
> How surprised are you at the resistance to the AES?
Not surprised. This is the normal cycle and has also been experienced by other countries.
> What should or could be done to gain public confidence and acceptance of the AES?
Site verification must be carried out. What is on the map must be on the ground. Collision mechanisms and road user movements (RUM) must be attributable to speed-related and red light-running crashes. We need the RUM and collision diagrams to verify this.
Parameter settings must be carried out. Among the parameter settings for red light cameras are phasing, timing, inter green, dilemma zones, viability, layout configurations, lane balance, trapped lanes and others. All of these must be properly set first, before the camera is installed. This is to ensure that red-light running is not due to poor design of the intersection. For example, we can’t blame the road user for beating the traffic light due to frustration (waiting for more than three cycles of red light).
For speed cameras, the parameter setting would be speed consistency within a 5km section, speed change, approach speed, 85th percentile speed, and design speed, among others. If more than 15% are caught overspeeding, it indicates that the posted speeds are not appropriate. Signage is important, too. Finally, outcomes of the AES in saving lives must be communicated.
> What is the best way to reduce accidents, fatalities and mishaps?
Many interventions but each one depends on the (individual) crash characteristics.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Invitation to Zubedy Talk on “Our Constitution: The Foundation of National Unity”

I’m happy to invite you to attend this talk, which will be delivered by the renowned constitutional expert, Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi to be held as follows:

Date    :           1 December 2012 (Saturday)
Time    :           9.00 – 11.30 a.m.
Venue  :           zubedy (m) sdn. bhd.
3rd Floor, Wisma W.I.M.
Jalan Abang Hj. Openg
Taman Tun Dr. Ismail
60000 Kuala Lumpur

Based on his book, “The Bedrock of Our Nation: Our Constitution”, the talk will address constitutional issues such as the Islamic state debate, social contract, special position of Sabah and Sarawak, Muslim apostasy issue, and many others.

We look forward to seeing you. Feel free to get in touch for further information, please contact this number: 03 – 7727 0758 or email it to:

Please RSVP by 19 November 2012.

Thank you.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Have a Meaningful Deepavali - tomorrow in The STAR

Jawaharlal Nehru (1889 – 1964)
“Failure comes only when we forget our ideals and objectives and principles.”

Back to basics: 
What we should do in the beginning before anything else

Each year zubedy picks a theme that is relevant for our nation, our Malaysia. We usually launch a new theme around Deepavali. Last year we called on you, our brother and sister Malaysians to consider The Middle Path as the way to move forward. For this coming year, we feel it is time for us to get back to basics.

As we progress as a people, we need to understand and appreciate our history, to remember our principles, to further strengthen our foundation, and to find ourselves. We need to go back to basics.

What do we mean by going back to basics?

It is the need for a firm foundation – to rebuild it if needs be. Ensure the cake is right before icing it. Eat right and exercise, before considering supplements. Get the product right before advertising. Know the alphabets before aiming to read and write. Eradicate poverty before erecting fancy monuments.

Why is there a need to get back to basics?

Because we must first have a strong footing for all our actions form chain reactions; the right ones will provide the groundwork for success and the wrong ones may lead to bad consequences. And also, because we need to address the fundamental problems and not just the symptoms – patch-up work won’t do anymore. Get it right at the start.

How do we get back to basics?

Believe; we need to do this. Prioritise; delay gratification and allow politics to be on the back burner. Act; do what is right and needs to be done. These three steps can very well be the start of a better Malaysia and help us avoid situations becoming like nasi jelantah – undercooked at its core.

When to do it?


Where should we apply this concept?

At home. At work. In politics. Business. Education. Welfare.  Family. Poverty eradication. Sports management. Everywhere.

Who to do it?

You and I.

At zubedy, our programs draw strength from shared values and traditions. We believe that at heart, all Malaysians want good things for themselves and for their brother and sister Malaysians, simply because our nation cannot prosper as a whole if some of us are left behind.

Let us be first and foremost Malaysians.

Let us add value,
Have A Meaningful Deepavali

Monday, November 5, 2012

Plight of city's poor by Bavani M - The STAR

A little help: Ramanathan (second from left) and a volunteer (fourth from left) presenting Manjeet’s family with some groceries.A little help: Ramanathan (second from left) and a volunteer (fourth from left) presenting Manjeet’s family with some groceries.
MANJEET Kaur, 31, sells vegetables at night to neighbours living in and around her low-cost government unit in Batu Muda, Kuala Lumpur. In the daytime, she toils under the blazing sun at a nearby empty land planting those vegetables to earn a living.
The heavy responsibility of feeding her family has fallen on her frail shoulders.
She has five children aged between five years and 11, a 72-year-old mother and a disabled relative to care for.
A few doors away, Letchumi Govindasamy is left to care for five grandchildren, aged four to 13, after the children’s parents abandoned them.
The 63-year-old granny’s only income is a paltry RM300 a month from the Welfare Department; with that amount she has to feed, clothe and pay for the children’s education.
At times, the family has to make do with biscuits and water for a meal as there is no money to buy proper food.
Three floors below, 53-year-old Ayaimah Sinnapaian struggles alone to care for her 35-year-old mentally-disabled son, Vijesh Veeran, while another family in the same building is burdened with the medical bills for their four-year-old bedridden daughter Jayasree Prithy Saravanan who suffered brain damage from a fever three years ago.
These families are among Kuala Lumpur’s urban poor who fall under “hard-core poor” category in the Government’s E-kasih programme, a national database to collect information on poor families in need of help.
Under the programme, the Poverty Line Income (PLI) for the hard-core poor in peninsular Malaysia are those whose household income is less than RM430.
There are hundreds of families in the city in similar situations as Letchumi, who are living below the PLI and are not registered with E-kasih.

What if the Secret to Success Is Failure? - The New York Times Magazine

Dominic Randolph can seem a little out of place at Riverdale Country School — which is odd, because he’s the headmaster. Riverdale is one of New York City’s most prestigious private schools, with a 104-year-old campus that looks down grandly on Van Cortlandt Park from the top of a steep hill in the richest part of the Bronx. On the discussion boards of, worked-up moms from the Upper East Side argue over whether Riverdale sends enough seniors to Harvard, Yale and Princeton to be considered truly “TT” (top-tier, in UrbanBabyese), or whether it is more accurately labeled “2T” (second-tier), but it is, certainly, part of the city’s private-school elite, a place members of the establishment send their kids to learn to be members of the establishment. Tuition starts at $38,500 a year, and that’s for prekindergarten.

Randolph, by contrast, comes across as an iconoclast, a disrupter, even a bit of an eccentric. He dresses for work every day in a black suit with a narrow tie, and the outfit, plus his cool demeanor and sweep of graying hair, makes you wonder, when you first meet him, if he might have played sax in a ska band in the ’80s. (The English accent helps.) He is a big thinker, always chasing new ideas, and a conversation with him can feel like a one-man TED conference, dotted with references to the latest work by behavioral psychologists and management gurus and design theorists. When he became headmaster in 2007, he swapped offices with his secretary, giving her the reclusive inner sanctum where previous headmasters sat and remodeling the small outer reception area into his own open-concept work space, its walls covered with whiteboard paint on which he sketches ideas and slogans. One day when I visited, one wall was bare except for a white sheet of paper. On it was printed a single black question mark.
For the headmaster of an intensely competitive school, Randolph, who is 49, is surprisingly skeptical about many of the basic elements of a contemporary high-stakes American education. He did away with Advanced Placement classes in the high school soon after he arrived at Riverdale; he encourages his teachers to limit the homework they assign; and he says that the standardized tests that Riverdale and other private schools require for admission to kindergarten and to middle school are “a patently unfair system” because they evaluate students almost entirely by I.Q. “This push on tests,” he told me, “is missing out on some serious parts of what it means to be a successful human.”
The most critical missing piece, Randolph explained as we sat in his office last fall, is character — those essential traits of mind and habit that were drilled into him at boarding school in England and that also have deep roots in American history. “Whether it’s the pioneer in the Conestoga wagon or someone coming here in the 1920s from southern Italy, there was this idea in America that if you worked hard and you showed real grit, that you could be successful,” he said. “Strangely, we’ve now forgotten that. People who have an easy time of things, who get 800s on their SAT’s, I worry that those people get feedback that everything they’re doing is great. And I think as a result, we are actually setting them up for long-term failure. When that person suddenly has to face up to a difficult moment, then I think they’re screwed, to be honest. I don’t think they’ve grown the capacities to be able to handle that.”
Randolph has been pondering throughout his 23-year career as an educator the question of whether and how schools should impart good character. It has often felt like a lonely quest, but it has led him in some interesting directions. In the winter of 2005, Randolph read “Learned Optimism,” a book by Martin Seligman, a psychology professor at the University of Pennsylvania who helped establish the Positive Psychology movement. Randolph found the book intriguing, and he arranged a meeting with the author. As it happened, on the morning that Randolph made the trip to Philadelphia, Seligman had scheduled a separate meeting with David Levin, the co-founder of theKIPP network of charter schools and the superintendent of the KIPP schools in New York City. Seligman decided he might as well combine the two meetings, and he invited Christopher Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan, who was also visiting Penn that day, to join him and Randolph and Levin in his office for a freewheeling discussion of psychology and schooling.
Levin had also spent many years trying to figure out how to provide lessons in character to his students, who were almost all black or Latino and from low-income families. At the first KIPP school, in Houston, he and his co-founder, Michael Feinberg, filled the walls with slogans like “Work Hard” and “Be Nice” and “There Are No Shortcuts,” and they developed a system of rewards and demerits designed to train their students not only in fractions and algebra but also in perseverance and empathy. Like Randolph, Levin went to Seligman’s office expecting to talk about optimism. But Seligman surprised them both by pulling out a new and very different book, which he and Peterson had just finished:“Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification,” a scholarly, 800-page tome that weighed in at three and a half pounds. It was intended, according to the authors, as a “manual of the sanities,” an attempt to inaugurate what they described as a “science of good character.”
It was, in other words, exactly what Randolph and Levin had been looking for, separately, even if neither of them had quite known it. Seligman and Peterson consulted works from Aristotle to Confucius, from the Upanishads to the Torah, from the Boy Scout Handbook to profiles of Pokémon characters, and they settled on 24 character strengths common to all cultures and eras. The list included some we think of as traditional noble traits, like bravery, citizenship, fairness, wisdom and integrity; others that veer into the emotional realm, like love, humor, zest and appreciation of beauty; and still others that are more concerned with day-to-day human interactions: social intelligence (the ability to recognize interpersonal dynamics and adapt quickly to different social situations), kindness, self-regulation, gratitude.
In most societies, Seligman and Peterson wrote, these strengths were considered to have a moral valence, and in many cases they overlapped with religious laws and strictures. But their true importance did not come from their relationship to any system of ethics or moral laws but from their practical benefit: cultivating these strengths represented a reliable path to “the good life,” a life that was not just happy but also meaningful and fulfilling.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Debates rage on many fronts by Shad Saleem Faruqi - The STAR

There are some law issues being argued of late like secular state, parliamentary committee and death penalty.
IN the last fortnight, a number of engaging public law issues captured the public imagination.
Secular state: De facto law minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz crossed swords with DAP’s Lim Kit Siang over the latter’s claim that Malaysia is a secular state.
The law minister correctly pointed out that nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the word “secular”.
Further, as Islam is recognised in the Constitution as the religion of the federation, it would be improper to regard the country as a secular state.
In support of this view, one can point out that the word “Islam” is mentioned at least 24 times in the Constitution, the words MuftiKadi Besar and Kadi at least once each. In Schedule 9, List II, paragraph 1, state legislatures are permitted to apply Islamic law to Muslims in a variety of civil areas.
The state legislatures are also permitted to create and punish offences by Muslims against the precepts of Islam except in relation to matters within federal jurisdiction.
Syariah courts may be established. Under Article 121(1A), syariah courts are independent of the civil courts.
On the other side, Lim correctly pointed out that Malayan constitutional documents and pronouncements by early leaders indicate that at its birth the federation was meant to be a secular state.
To back this view, one can point to the Supreme Court decision in Che Omar Che Soh’s case that although Islam is the religion of the federation, it is not the basic law of the land.
Article 3 on Islam imposes no limits on the power of parliament to legislate contrary to the syariah. Islamic law is not the general law of the land either at the federal or state levels.
It applies only to Muslims and that too in limited and specified areas. It is noteworthy that non-Muslims are not subject to syariah or to the jurisdiction of the syariah courts.
Ever since Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s declaration on Sept 29, 2001 that Malaysia is an Islamic country, this debate ignites periodically and no firm conclusion is ever possible because of the problem of semantics – the assignment of different meanings to the words “secular” and “theocratic” by participants in the discourse.
My personal view is that if by a theocratic state is meant that the law of God is the supreme law of the land and that the temporal ruler is subject to the final direction of the theological head, then clearly Malaysia is not a theocratic state due to the presence of a supreme Constitution and the overriding power of secular authorities over the religious establishment.
At the same time if by a secular state is meant that law and religion are separated from each other; that there is no legally prescribed official religion; that religion is not interwoven into the affairs of the state; that no state aid is given to any religious creed; and that religion is left entirely to private establishments, then Malaysia is certainly not a secular state.
Then how should we be described? It is submitted that the Malaysian legal system is neither fully secular nor fully theocratic. It is hybrid. It permits legal pluralism.
It avoids the extremes of American style secularism or Saudi or Taliban type of religious control over all aspects of life. It walks the middle path. It promotes piety but does not insist on ideological purity.
Muslims are governed by divinely ordained laws in some fields but in others their life is regulated by Malay adat and by secular provisions enacted by elected legislatures. Non-Muslims are entirely regulated by secular laws.
In sum, the secular versus theocracy debate is full of semantics and polemics and will take us nowhere.
Parliamentary committee: The Government is contemplating setting up a permanent select committee in Parliament to scrutinise Suhakam reports.
If this move comes about it will not only catapult human rights to the forefront of parliamentary discussion, it will also do a great deal to bolster the image of parliament as the grand inquest of the nation.
A system of well integrated and well serviced investigatory committees as in the United States and the Philippines holds the only key to enabling parliament to become an effective countervailing force to the ever increasing powers of the executive.
An increase in the number of permanent select committees from the present five to one for each government department as in Britain, one joint committee on Human Rights, a Dewan Rakyat committee on Public Complaints to examine the reports of the Public Complaints Bureau and a joint committee on subsidiary legislation will do much to improve the institutional efficacy of parliament and to enable backbenchers to play a more meaningful role.
To assist parliamentarians in this oversight function, non-partisan support structures ought to be established.
MPs should be assigned research assistants. The Houses should have their own legal counsel. In the manner of INTAN and ILKAP, an Institute of Parliamentary Affairs should be established to train MPs and to hone their abilities to research and analyse issues.
> Death penalty: Amnesty International has praised Malaysia for the proposal to abolish the death penalty for drug trafficking. The proposal is in its early stage and it is a matter of speculation which of the three alternatives will ultimately be accepted.
First, maintain the death penalty for serious crimes but remove its mandatory nature. Restore judicial discretion to tailor the punishment to suit the factual matrix of each case.
Second, reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed as at present for waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, offences against a ruler or governor, abetting mutiny in the armed forces, murder, abetment of suicide, attempt by a life convict to murder if hurt is caused, kidnapping or abduction in order to murder, hostage-taking, gang robbery with murder, drug trafficking and unlawful possession of firearms.
Third, abolish the death penalty altogether as in 87 countries plus 27 others that have not executed anyone for the last 10 years.
Which of the alternatives will be chosen will ultimately be a matter of high policy dictated as much by human rights considerations as by public opinion. It is submitted that on fundamental issues of right and wrong, popular opinion, while given due weight, should not be allowed to dictate ultimate decisions.
As Jesse Jackson once said: “Leaders of substance do not follow opinion polls. They mould opinion, not with guns or dollars or position but with the power of their souls.”