Why a University Student Should Stay in School Assignment

Why a University Student Should Stay in School - Assignment Example Arguments for staying in school Staying in school to complete university education has many benefits in the student’s life in school, life after school and to the student’s immediate society. One of the sets of benefits of staying in school is the available opportunity for the student to develop professional and social networks. Interactions between a student and lecturers and other professional stakeholders to higher education, for example, establish a person’s initial networks with professionals. This also allows mentorship to shape the student’s life and to influence the student into a productive member of society. Being in school also has the advantages of a developed network with fellow students from different faculties and courses towards future professional and social networks. The developed relationships are especially important for future networking as future work and social commitment identifies the scarce time for networking. The developed netwo rks with other students also have the advantages of future professional interactions for identification of future entrepreneurial and employment opportunities (Monash 1). The developed social networks during college educations have also registered social benefits as some people have met their spouses and best friends on campus. Similarly, universities offer opportunities for discovering one’s talent through available extra curriculum activities. While some of these talents may generate social benefits in recreation, development of the talents into professional applications has economic advantages (Pure potential 1). Another benefit of university education, free potential dent should stay to complete a program, is the direct utility from the institution’s curricula. A student, for example, learns to overcome obstacles in the academic field and to apply such potentials in real life situations. Such applications may be direct to a person’s field of study or may be indirect through an application of developed rationale and intellect towards deriving solutions to social problems. The university also offers opportunities for development of leadership potentials. Similarly, learning environments in universities offer opportunities for explorations and discoveries among students. The setups in the institutions, for instance, have facilities for research into the development of new knowledge and application. Such developments benefit both students and society through the development of solutions to social problems or the development of entrepreneurial products towards commercial gains. The institutions’ environments that foster creativity and innovation also develop students’ ability to venture into entrepreneurial activities for economic self-reliance (Monash). The greatest benefit of staying in school to complete a university education is, however, the developed ability towards improved aspects of an individual’s life. Comple ting a university program, for example, grants the graduate an academic qualification into the job market.

Pre School Observation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Pre School Observation - Essay Example It can be noticed that many children in the class are overweight but Edwin seems to be have a well proportioned body. Edwin is one child in the class who has good physique. 3. The three things that acknowledged his status as a preschooler was his talkative attitude, his impulsive behavior and his hyperactivity. I observed the way he talked, which was without a break. Moreover he was not able to stand in one place; he was very impulsive and acted whatever he spoke out in words. Also he was not standing in one place and was moving continuously. 4. Looking from the health perspective, Edwin was a normal child with good physique and a cheerful attitude. But it is a fact that he is bit over grown compared to his classmates. His body also showed an overgrown aspect which when compared to his aged children become odd. I can take this fact as a hereditary attribute as his parents both are tall and well built. Emotionally he seemed to be strong with good activity and physical capabilities. 1. While observing closely, the three gross motor skills that can be pinpointed are the way he walked, ran and did sit dups. I noticed that while walking, he was not placing his foot with pressure on to the ground and it seemed as if he is not touching the ground with his feet. While running, I observed that he ran with his shoulders stooped to front which was not a healthy way of running, this can hurt his shoulder with time. When I asked the class do sit –ups, he could not get up properly and had to place his hands on legs. I could see that Edwin was not enjoying the sit – up movements. 2. While comparing what I read in book and activity of Edwin it can be understood that what Edwin was doing was not exactly right. The walking part can be understood as he his hyper but to place shoulder stooping while running is not a recommended activity. Doing sit – ups he was normal as

The market entry strategy of international fashion brand Essay

The market entry strategy of international fashion brand - Essay Example he purpose of insuring the correct market entry of the designer brand, so that the company does not face any risk or loss after launching the â€Å"Tekbir Giyim† brands. The research that is being conducted is through questionnaires, through mall intercepts as women love to go out for shopping, and specially the increasing Muslim community in various parts of Europe is definitely interested in buying the designer brand which is being prepares specially for them. Although the products are still being sold to people but they are not yet owned by the original company â€Å"Tekbir Giyim†, which means that people do not find the brand under the company’s name, it is sold through the distribution. The business these days are getting failed easily on for no reason but yet the proper research clarifies the doubts in minds of people willing to initiate business, the job that we would be performing for the company is the same that is to identify the opportunities and minim ize the chances of loss. The company is facing a lot of trouble right now and thus the research task is to follow a sequence from the problem definition which is the base for the project to be started, to the final stage which is report presentation, which would help the company in taking on further decision, whether to go for the launching of â€Å"Tekbir Giyim† or not, meanwhile the development of an approach to the problem, research design formulation that includes the conclusive research, data collection and its preparation would also be playing a key role in ensuring us about the outcome. The basic idea to conduct this entire research on the designer brand â€Å"Tekbir Giyim† is to identify the possibility of its successful launching in a place other than it is currently available. Our main objective is to go through all the steps in marketing research process, one by one, which would ensure us whether it would be relevant for the company to go for launching or not. This research would not only be

Of Mice and Men Qu Essay Example for Free

Of Mice and Men Qu Essay Do you agree that Lennie is always incapable of taking responsibility for his actions? You should refer closely to Lennies words, to events and to the actions and opinions of other characters in your answer. Throughout the majority of the novel, Steinbeck demonstrates how Lennie relies on George to help him out of the dire, tense situations he brings upon himself. Steinbeck conveys this image of Lennie by producing this by frequent reoccurring events, Lennies actions or even implicit use of speech from or even directed at Lennie. At the opening section of the book, Steinbeck chooses to show us the large contrast between George and Lennie; he describes how Lennie flung himself down snorting into the water like a horse. The use of crude descriptive words such as flung or snorting suggests just how careless Lennie can be. This compares Lenny to an animal which instinctively lashes at the sight of something they want without thinking logically at all. And with this, the readers taste the first time at which how reliant Lennie is of George. Steinbeck chooses to have George say that Lennie will be sick like you was last night. By mentioning last night, the reader learns that Lennie must regularly make stupid mistakes like this. It is made very apparent how Lennie is unable to take responsibility for his actions when he crushes Curleys hand. Lennie was unable to understand the situation when Curley made a misunderstanding about Slim and his wife and Lennie continued smiling with delight on a completely different topic. This produces a juxtaposition image in the readers mind where at one side: Curley is steaming hot with anger as he whirled upon Carlson (the word whirled also suggests how he only gave Slim respect opposed to Carlson who he flipped into his old aggressive self again) and on the other, Lennie is grinning to himself like an idiot. The fact that Steinbeck chooses to have Lennie fantasize whilst a loud commotion is going on nearby shows just how little awareness and sense Lennie has altogether. And this is what leads into the fight. When Lennie is being attacked, he has no intuition to make a decision on what to do so once again he looked helplessly at George. The word helplessly really emphasises just how incapable Lennie is like a baby animal or lamb for instance when he gets himself into trouble like this. He bleated with terror implying that even with the strength Lennie possesses, he is unable to analyse the situation to take responsibility of the problem he has gotten himself into. The words bleated and terror really create an atmosphere as if Lennie like a baby lamb has been corned by a wolf. This is done by using the onomatopoeia bleat so you can almost here how distressed and vulnerable Lennie is at this stage. All he can do is use his animal like instincts and retreat and defend with his huge paws. The reference to paws may also hint to us what is about to come however it may have several connotations; a bear is a shy beast and doesnt want attention, however if a situation of danger arises, it can be extremely vicious and protective just like Lennie becomes when George tells him to get him. On the other hand, paws may refer to another weaker animal such as the paws of a puppy that Lennie was so infatuated about. This can symbolize how weak and inexperienced Lennie is since he is also new to this aggression he is receiving likewise to a new born pup is to the world. At this stage, Slim sees how vulnerable and useless he is and jumped up to help. The impact the moment is causing on the other workers watching is shown to be so big that the respected Slim is even shaken conveyed by jumped up. It shows how emotions inside Slim were building up until they finally jumped out of him in an explosion. Steinbeck does this to show how useless Lennie can be in these situations so that even people around him who have known him for a few hours understand how dependent he is. However, Lennie with Georges guidance was able to do something however his actions shows the reader once again just how unintentionally irresponsible he can be. At first the description of Lennies attack is just that Curleys fist was lost in Lennies big hand. It isnt very dramatic at this point and just seems like Lennie stops Curley from attacking him. For example, it could of been described using dramatic words such as: Curleys hand was absolutely crushed causing him to scream with agony however it uses the word disappear to relieve all the tension that may of built up; this may be done to cause a greater impact later on. The speech that follows explains how the situation was worsening. George tells Lennie to leggo of him but all Lennie could do was watch in terror which shows how shaken up he is so that he cant even respond. Even with George who slapped him in the face again and again, Lennie was still unresponsive. By slapping him George hoped to achieve a respond which would normally happen to anyone however it shows that Lennie was undergoing a mental difficulty insde. The way Steinbeck describes George having to give multiple signals again and again like slapping or verbal commands show how incapable Lennie was. When Lennie finally finishes he doesnt seem to even understand what hes done. He doesnt even look at the shrunken Curley and immediately talks to George miserably. At this point Slim had regarded Lennie with horror showing how his opinion of him being a nice fella had turned so very quickly. By having Slim- a very high respected figure looking at Lennie with this horror, Steinbeck causes the readers to truly understand how dangerous and uncontrollable he is. Lennies only concern here was probably mainly whether or not he could tend to the rabbits so he was apologizing to George. He even asks George at the end of the section whether he can still tend the rabbits which once again shows us how unaware of the situation he really is and this requires George to look into their greater concern- whether they will get canned now. This shows that even though Lennie is not prioritized correctly, George once again desperately tries to fix the damage thats been done which suggests how many times this may of happened in the past. Steinbeck just repeatedly reinforces the strong idea of what Lennie is like and how George has to bail him out time and time again. It states how Slim smiled wryly and instantly the world wryly shows how Slim is going to take responsibility and deal with Curley in a slightly devious, corrupt method so that George and Lennie wont get sacked. After Lennie killed the puppy in section 5, his initial fears was once again the rabbits. And after he causes the death of Curleys wife, his fears remained the same. At that point, he pawed up the hay until it partly covered her and left for the place where George told him to go if anything wrong happened. The fact that Lennie crudely leaves the body openly partly hidden in the barn shows how little concern he has for the bigger picture. The way Lennie only partly hides the corpse shows what little concern he has almost to the extent where it becomes ridiculous as all he can think of is go to the rendezvous part and have George help him yet again. Up until the beginning of section 6, Lennie has acted irresponsibly and ironically, he begins to think accordingly to the situation only when it is too late. Opposed to how he flung himself around in section 1, Lennie went through the bushes to the meeting place as silently as a creeping bear moves. He also drank, barely touching his lips to the water opposed to how he was snorting it like a horse. Steinbeck uses the same location to create a strong contrast between the juxtaposition used here. As he crept silently and drank barely touching the water, these two words emphasise how carefully he is acting. Steinbeck deliberately does this to emphasise how late it is for him to be responsible and coordinated. And even so, it is George once again who has to take the real responsibility to shoot him.

Collectivization and the Peasant Rebellion

Collectivization and the Peasant Rebellion Collectivization and the Peasant Rebellion Collectivization was one of Joseph Stalins policies in addressing the looming decline in food production in the Soviet Union. This policy, implemented from 1928 through 1940, involved the consolidation of farms from individual farmers into collective farms. Because of the collectivization policy, the Soviet Union experienced significant problems as the peasants opposed collectivization and as the government remained adamant in supporting the policy. Support from the Peasantry One of the main benefits of the collectivization policy was that the landless peasants would be able to experience significant improvements in their economic situations, especially when considering that the policy provided for increased involvement of the landless peasants in the farm activities. This was the major aspect of the policy that attracted the peasants to provide support for the establishment of collective farms. Another important consideration is that the collectivization policy was aimed at providing necessary information in order for decision-making at different government levels to be well-grounded. Such information was the main target of the government in controlling the collective farms, with the information being delivered or made accessible to decision-makers in the timeliest manner possible through the centralized structure of the collective farms. This means that the reach/ scope and effectiveness of the centralized collective farms could significantly contribute to the success of the governments efforts in increasing agricultural output. In this regard, it is arguable that one of the advantages of the collective policy was that it made decision-making more attuned to the current conditions of the Soviet Union. However, an important consideration is the structure of the Soviet Union this influenced how economic information on the collective farms could be disseminated among the de cision-makers at the different government levels. For instance, a centralized structure could readily allow for the dissemination of such information through just a singular effort. In the case of a decentralized structure (as was the case of the non-collective farms prior to the implementation of the policy), however, such information would have proven to be difficult to disseminate. This was important to consider, especially amidst the widely implemented combination of centralized and decentralized economic processes within the Soviet Union.[1] The structure of the centralized collective farms would have had to be well-adapted to this (generally) dual nature of the government for it to be utilized fully. From this perspective, if the structure of the centralized collective farms was indeed designed to support such nature, it would have allow decision-makers to be effective at making use of available information. In a decentralized government as in the case of the farms prior to the implementation of the collectivization policy, a properly configured structure would have allowed for the most appropriate way of allocating of resources. In addition, it would have helped decision-makers in assessing options and in implementing control over a variety of processes. The significance of the structure of the centralized collective farms was greater in the overall performance of the economy of the Soviet Union and its centralized operations. Since decentralization meant that many components produced different sets of information and were likely to make decisions based on such varying information sets, having centralized structure such as the structure of the centralized collective farms that comprehensively covered the government and the Soviet Union and its needs would have meant great improvements in making decision making among the different components well-organized and in harmony with each other. Having this done would have meant that the Soviet Union would be able to col1aborate its efforts, in spite of being decentralized. The challenge, however, was that the different components had different information outputs that did not necessarily conform to each other. The system would have had to make major adjustments to such information-processes before actually being able effectively implement the structure of the centralized collective farms. Under decentralization, there were a number of advantages that the peasants and government could use of when implementing the centralized structure of the collective farms. For instance, the costs of developing the centralized structure of the collective farms and implementing it were relatively lower than maintaining decentralized farms that could barely support the food needs of the Soviet Union. This was because of the â€Å"divided† nature of the system individual components of the system did not have to cover the entire Soviet Union, but only had to be connected to the system core Moscow.[2] In addition, the centralized structure of the collective farms in the economic environment of the Soviet Union at the time meant that the system could be customized in such a way that the specific needs of the individual components are addressed in the best possible way. Therefore, through the centralized structure of the collective farms in such a setting, the processes in the di fferent areas were maintained, thereby theoretically allowing for more efficient production. This, in turn, made the system considerably flexible as some areas could be made to function differently from the rest of the Soviet Union. The centralized structure of the collective farms allowed for more effective implementation of Soviet strategies. Theoretically, it also allowed the government to maintain or improve participation of peasants. Moreover, decision-makers in the different areas, even though having access to information regarding other areas, would still have maintained a sense of responsibility, considering that they were made to perform within their own areas in spite of having better access to the system information. Moreover, the centralized structure of the collective farms had the advantage of being theoretically more reliable. This was because of the use of different systems (or sub-systems) in the different areas. When a problem/ failure occurred in one sub-system, t he centralized structure of the collective farms would still remain functional in other sub-systems. The centralized structure of the collective farms also provided for responsiveness among the government offices. It is important to emphasize on the increased motivation/ satisfaction that, theoretically, peasants would have in such a setting peasants were theoretically encouraged to participate in processes and have a heightened sense of responsibility. Also, since the theoretically took into consideration the various needs of the different areas and not just those of the entire Soviet Union as a whole, theoretically, the decision-makers in the different areas would have been able to achieve improvements in their response times. Peasants Discontent and Its Parameters The main discontent of the peasants with the policy was that it took away land from peasants who already had land prior to the policy implementation, and it effectively decreased the income of the peasants in spite of the supposed improvements in the economic situations of the peasants. One of the parameters of the peasants discontent was their freedom to work on their own lands and on lands of their own choosing. The former farm system prior to collectivization is generally associated with democratic societies. This makes sense because the former farm system prior to collectivization required individual freedom and control of resources, properties and means of production. It is arguable that the framework of democracy was the most appropriate for the former farm system prior to collectivization at least at the village level. In contrast, communism and socialism imposed by the collectivization were not typically associated with democracy, especially when considering that communism an d socialism prohibits individual ownership and control of the economys means of production. As a result, the former farm system prior to collectivization could not exist in purely communist or purely socialist economic systems.[3] It is important to note that the former farm system prior to collectivization was characterized by three main aspects: (a) private ownership, (b) individual economic freedom, (c) competition among farming entities. In terms of private ownership, the entire village accepted and accommodated private ownership. This meant that, in such an economy, resources such as land, as well as the means of production and goods and services were privately owned at the village level by individual members of the society, by groups or entities like partnerships or families. In terms of individual economic freedom, the former farm system prior to collectivization allowed individual members of the villages to pursue their own interests to achieve certain economic goals. This meant that in such a situation, the individual peasants were allowed and accommodated to act for personal gains. Considering that individuals were free to go for whichever occupation they desired, the former farm system prior to coll ectivization was frequently referred to as an enterprise system within the socialist Soviet Union.[4] In terns of competition among farming entities, the former farm system prior to collectivization allowed and accommodated individuals and groups to compete against each other. This aspect of the former farm system prior to collectivization was actually an offshoot of individual economic freedom at the village level people competed against each other because of their desire to accomplish their personal economic interests in a system where resources and, thus, economic opportunities were limited. These three aspects were important factors that contributed to the discontent of the peasants and that distinguished the former farm system prior to collectivization from the collective farming villages upon implementation of the policy. In the new collective farm structure, there was no individual economic freedom, no private ownership and no economic competition among individuals or groups of individuals. In such an economy, there was no private ownership. The main positive effects of the former farm system prior to collectivization were as follows. It supported individual freedom. It also allowed for individual control of resources and properties at least at the village level. This prevented the government (or a few individuals) to control economic resources and properties. Overall, the former farm system prior to collectivization was a dominant factor in the Soviet Unions situation during the implementation of the collectivization policy. In contrast, the new structure of the collective farms entailed economic equality. Peasants were compelled to work, with their efforts ideally being pooled together to be distributed equally among the people. In terms of productivity, the people were theoretically encouraged to be more productive. Socialist and communist strategies (agenda) were similar in that they consider the people as the origin of power. However, they also differ in terms of how such power is utilized and maintained, and in terms of how the people have control of such power once it has already been given to the ruler(s). The new structure of the collective farms meant that the landed peasants would lose their properties, that the landless peasants would gain access to farmlands but lose their economic freedom, and that the farming villages would be subjected to the control of Moscow, mainly for the benefit of the densely populated cities of the Soviet Union. The new structure of the collective farms also meant that, with the aim of increasing overall economic efficiency, there was the very realistic risk of the government making reduced payments to the peasants in spite of the peasants increased agricultural output. Uprising Effectiveness, Expectations of Peasants and Overall Outcome The peasant uprising was effective in the sense that it effectively counteracted the collectivization policy. For instance, the Soviet Union as a whole experienced decreased agricultural output because the peasants refused to the work in the farms.[5] This is completely opposite the initial goal of the collectivization policy, which is to increase agricultural output to support the growing demand of the Soviet Union, especially in urban areas where populations were concentrated.[6] One of the main reasons for the effectiveness of the uprising was that the peasants expectations of maintained or increased income were not met by the collective farms. In fact, many of the peasants experienced decreased income because of the collectivization policy.[7] The result of such failures can be observed in the situation of the Soviet Union by the late 1930s. For instance, large-scale collectivization and the reaction of the peasants resulted in major changes in the effectiveness of Soviet Unions institutions especially at the level of the villages. Such collectivization policy did not necessarily have the power or strength to be successful at being effective, in spite of the fact that the policy was supported, theoretically, by the socialist economic system that framed the economic activities of the villages in general.[8] In fact, the results of the collectivization policy indicate that such policy was met with significant opposition, such that support for the collectivization policy was utterly uncommon throughout the Soviet Union in spite of the outright and well-known mandate of the government for the establishment of the collective farms. The opposition exhibited by the peasants in the villages can be considered akin to the Soviet Unions transition into a state where small democratic institutions are accommodated at the village level. Democratic movements have been making some progress at the time, but they are still weak against the large communist government.[9] In addition, perhaps more importantly, the actions of the Soviet Unions government actually resulted in attention being shifted towards the government and its policies and actions.[10] This led to increased criticism of the Soviet Union government and the policies it implemented. However, movements against the communist autocracy were very difficult, in spite of the large scale refusal of the peasants to work in the collective farms. Thus, this implies that the problems experienced by the Soviet Union during the collectivization of the farms were attributable to the Soviet Unions nature of government. Such problems were very complex and difficult to address by way of movements or activities similar/ related to the collectivization.[11] In this regard, the overall outcome of the peasant uprising was the decline of agricultural production of the Soviet Union and the eventual failure of the collectivization policy. It should be noted that the Russian communist government was the principal reason behind the difficulty in addressing problems of autocracy and problems in sustaining the collectivization policy. For instance, in spite of changes in power distribution within the Russian government, the communist central government remained strong and powerful in addressing challenges and oppositions.[12] The Russian communist government actually had not changed much in terms of influence and thus remained the major obstacle to any democratic move or any move that counters the Russian communist governments initiatives and decisions, even at the lowest levels of the villages. Because of this maintenance of power, the central government was able to impose restrictions on the population even when such restrictions were against the desires of the peasantry. For instance, by controlling the farms at the village level, the Russian central communist government believed that it would be more able to control localities and effectively implement reforms for growth, especially in the agriculture and food supply.[13] Because of its power and the lack of strength of opposition, the central government readily and extremely limited the population in spite of changes in the economic conditions throughout the country. Such strength and apparent lack of flexibility undermined the growing problems linked to the peasant uprising. As a result, the inflexibility of the Russian government contributed to the eventual failure of the collectivization policy. Nonetheless, in spite of the power and oppression that the government exerted on the people in the villages, it was actually suffering from unapparent problems in maintaining central control as well as discipline, especially among the communities involved in the collectivized farms.[14] This made Moscow prone to problems in maintaining the system of government throughout the country, which, in turn, made the government unable to properly, completely and effectively enforce the collectivization policy. This also points out that need for Moscow then to examine large-scale and comprehensive reforms and their effects on the economy. An important part of the situation of the Soviet Union during and immediately after the implementation of the collectivization policy was the transformation of the Russian communist government into a major facilitator of the reform.[15] This is important because the Russian government did not properly accommodate the expectations and needs of the peasantry. There was no effective means of establishing a system that checks and balances on all institutions involved in the collectivization policy, such that there were conflicts of interests among the different offices involved in the collectivization policy, as well as between the government and the peasantry in general. The Russian communist government was then already trying to transform itself into an entity that is more understandable and acceptable to the population through the collectivization policy, which undoubtedly attempted to consider the needs of the growing population as well as the needs of the landless peasants.[16] Another principal consideration for Soviet Unions reforms was its legal system at the time of the implementation of the collectivization policy. In the past, the actions that were made in this system were practically determined by the central government. Thus the system was able to deeply enroot itself into the Russian society. The negative things about this characteristic of the government was that, under communist totalitarian government, power was unlimited, party power was permanent, and the leaders power was indivisible.[17] In addition even if the Russian communist government took on a reversal of action, this would not mean any change in the totalitarian power structure. Such inflexibility, as mentioned earlier, contributed to the eventual failure of the collectivization policy. Because of its strong persistence even to the late 1930s and after the failure of the collectivization policy, this central autocracy had to be dealt with if the country was to sustain its economic pace through reforms in the legal system. The historical task that faced Soviet Union was to create a society under the rule of law, in spite of the increased economic lawlessness of the peasants who refused to work in the collective farms. The path to such a society was a legal one, not an illegal one.[18] However, courts were not independent.[19] There still needed to be some big struggles to be faced in order for the system to be changed in favor of economic and socio-political reform for the benefit of the population. This was important because the legal path was an effective method of struggle towards properly addressing the needs of the Soviet Union.[20] It should be noted though that, in spite of apparent stagnancy and decline resulting from the collectivization policy, the Russian legal system has already exhibited significant changes alongside the decline of the economy upon implementation of the collectivization policy.[21] All these emphasize the complexity that the Russian government actually faced in trying to mold the Soviet Union into a growth-conducive society. Regarding the nature of Soviet Unions system of corruption, it is important to note that corruption was built into the fabric of Russian society such that removing it would have resulted in problems at the basic levels of government and public service.[22] Thus, there was a compelling case that essentially establishes that, probably, to some extent, the Soviet Union would have had to continue addressing the need for growth-conduciveness without actually eliminating corruption and peasant opposition comprehensively at such a large-scale. Analysis and Conclusion Regarding the establishment of collective farms in Russian villages, the problems faced by the Russian government was on the autocracy and the delegation of â€Å"power† to the villages through to ensure proper implementation of collectivization.[23] Through collectivization, the village people are deprived of their power and are compelled to give up their properties for the benefit of populations that the government considered fit for allocation of the produce from such properties. By the end of the 1930s, the country already had large scale implementation of collectivization in villages throughout all its territory. However, in spite of the general interest that such an implementation has gained from critics and analysts around the world, the Russian government was actually having problems with the implementation. The principal issues to consider in the implementation of collectivization in the Soviet Union were as follows: (1) whether or not this collectivization policy would influence lawlessness and rebellion exhibited by villages; (2) whether or not the resulting structure of the collective village farms would function as agents for suppressing village resistance to state initiatives or, on the contrary, as supporters of such resistance; (3) whether or not it is possible to establish a peaceful and beneficial coexistence between the Russian Government and the collective farm structures in the villages; and (4) whether or not the people were actually inclined to accept and participate in the collective farms. In effect, there needs to be an examination of such issues, especially in terms of the objectives of the policys implementation and how it was that the resulting collective farm structures in the villages could be established realistically. The problems and results of the collectivization policy were discussed and analyzed, especially from the perspective of the state government as well as the perspective of the peasants. The bases used for such analysis are considerably robust and makes use of earlier literature on Russian sociology and politics. This paper addresses the issues involved in the implementation and failure of the collectivization policy, with Russian socio-politics as the foundation for the analysis. It is concluded that village opposition and freedom in economic activities was difficult to attain, given the state of government (or lack of it) in the villages at the time the collectivization policy was implemented. However, it was not impossible, especially when considering the economic boom that influenced even to a small extent the villages. Overall, the collectivization policy was a failure because it did not consider all of the needs and expectations of the peasants, and because the uprising of the peasants resulted in a decline in agricultural output, which was completely opposite to the agricultural and economic improvement goals of Stalins collectivization policy for the Soviet Union. Bibliography Allilueva, A. 1946. Vospominaniia. Moscow: Apin. Conquest, R. 1989. Stalin and the Kirov Murder. New York: Free Press. Deutscher, I. 1968. Stalin: A Political Biography. London: Sage. Fotieva, L.A. 1964. Lenin. Moscow: Apin. Hingley, R. 1974. Joseph Stalin: Man and Legend. London: Sage. Jonge, A. 1988. Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union. New York: Free Press. Kaminskii, V., Vereshchagin, I. 1939. Detstvo I iunost vozhdia: dokument y, zapiski, rasskazy. Molodaia gvardiia, no. 12, 1939. Khrushchev, N.S. 1989. Stalin. Vospominaniia, 28, 9-15. Krivitsky, W. 1939. In Stalin s Secret Service. London: Sage. Lewin, M. 1968. Lenins Last Struggle. New York: Free Press. Medvedev, R. A. 1969. Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism. New York: U. Binding. Nicolaevsky, B. 1965. Power and the Soviet Elite. New York: Ann Arbor. Orlov, A. 1953. The Secret History of Stalins Crimes. New York: Free Press. Rayfield, D. 1976. The Dream of Lhasa: The Life of Nikolay Przhevalsky. Athens: Ohio. Slusser, R. M. 1987. Stalin in October. London: Sage. Souvarine, B. 1939. Stalin: A Critical Survey of Bolshevism. New York: Read Books. Triymfi, I.V. 1956. Stalin: Politicheski Portret. Moscow: Apin. Tucker, R. 1974. Stalin as Revolutionary. New York: Free Press. Ulam, A. 1973. Stalin: The Man and His Era. New York: Viking Press. Volkogonov, D. 1973. Stalin. New York: Free press. [1] Kaminskii, V., Vereshchagin, I. 1939. Detstvo I iunost vozhdia: dokument y, zapiski, rasskazy. Molodaia gvardiia, no. 12, 1939. [2] Krivitsky, W. 1939. In Stalin s Secret Service. London: Sage. [3] Souvarine, B. 1939. Stalin: A Critical Survey of Bolshevism. New York: Read Books. [4] Allilueva, A. 1946. Vospominaniia. Moscow: Apin. [5] Orlov, A. 1953. The Secret History of Stalins Crimes. New York: Free Press. [6] Triymfi, I.V. 1956. Stalin: Politicheski Portret. Moscow: Apin. [7] Nicolaevsky, B. 1965. Power and the Soviet Elite. New York: Ann Arbor. [8] Deutscher, I. 1968. Stalin: A Political Biography. London: Sage. [9] Lewin, M. 1968. Lenins Last Struggle. New York: Free Press. [10] Medvedev, R. A. 1969. Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism. New York: U. Binding. [11] Ulam, A. 1973. Stalin: The Man and His Era. New York: Viking Press. [12] Volkogonov, D. 1973. Stalin. New York: Free press. [13] Hingley, R. 1974. Joseph Stalin: Man and Legend. London: Sage. [14] Tucker, R. 1974. Stalin as Revolutionary. New York: Free Press. [15] Rayfield, D. 1976. The Dream of Lhasa: The Life of Nikolay Przhevalsky. Athens: Ohio. [16] Slusser, R. M. 1987. Stalin in October. London: Sage. [17] Ibid, 37. [18] Jonge, A. 1988. Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union. New York: Free Press. [19] Ibid, 9. [20] Ibid, 36. [21] Conquest, R. 1989. Stalin and the Kirov Murder. New York: Free Press. [22] Ibid 98. [23] Khrushchev, N.S. 1989. Stalin. Vospominaniia, 28, 9-15.

Company Law and the Corporate Veil

Company Law and the Corporate Veil Introduction As the day company is formed, it can be said that the company is â€Å"incorporated†. As the company uniqueness is that it provides for effective separation of resources and managements of its resources and it is further compounded on the fact that the owner of the capital can limit his or her liability to the third parties. Therefore the company is recognized as a separate entity and it is treated in its own capacity. In nowadays business companies, it can be seen that companies have both advantages and disadvantages in measuring the limited liability of the shareholders on the basis that the company is liable for its debts and obligations. Therefore, double-edged sword is created which means it has both good and bad elements. In this assignment, details about the doctrine of separate legal entity will be analyzed. Also statements of features of company as separate legal entity and circumstances the veil of incorporation will be lifted will be analyzed with reference to some cases. Doctrine of separate legal entity In company law of Malaysia, a company is treated as a separate legal entity from its members constituted in it which is its shareholders and directors. This is the doctrine of separate legal principle. The company is a different separate body from its member. Thus, the members of the company are not liable for the company debts. For instance, when a company turn into a contract, the company itself will personally liable for the contract rather than the shareholders and the directors. Therefore, a company is a corporate body. A corporation is an artificial legal person that exists independently of the individuals who at any given time are the members of the corporate body. This principle was established by the House of Lords in Salomon v Salomon Co Ltd[1]. The rule of Agency An agency is a relationship where one person consents or is deemed to have consented that the other person should act on its behalf so as to affect its relations with third parties. Features of Separate Legal Entity At the time the company is incorporated, it is a separate legal person, it brings forth some effect which can be the features of it. Under section 16(5) of the Companies Act 1965 states that, once a company had been incorporated, the company had all the ability as an incorporated company. For instances, it is means that the company can enjoys its right and function as a legal person. Company that incorporated is a legal personality that is created and recognized by the law as stated by Salleh Abbas F.J in Tan Lai v Mohamed bin Mahmud. When a company register under Companies Act, it becomes vested with corporate personality which is an independent legal person and separate from its members. For instance, the company is a legal person. In Salomon v. Salomon Co. Ltd. (1987)[2], unsecured creditors claimed that the company never had an existence of independent although it was incorporated. They claimed that it was Salomon himself trading under another name, but the House of Lords held Salomon Co. Ltd. must be regarded as an independent person from Salomon. This is because of the fact that the company was not role as an agent for the member. Thus, Salomon and the others are mere subscribers of the company although he owned all the issued shares. Hence, Salomon could enforce its rights against the company as a secured creditor. Furthermore, the company also has the ability to sue and be sued in its own name. Therefore, a company can make legal action to enforce its right. It was established in the case Foss v Harbottle[3] where action brought by the members of the company made an injury complain towards the company and it was fail. Therefore the member could not take action on behalf of the company. Besides, a company has perpetual succession which means members may join and leave, but the company will continue go on. When a company become incorporation, it will continue operate until it is dissolved according to the Companies Act 1965. Under the case of Re Noel Tedman Holdings Pty Ltd[4], the court allowed the representative personal of the deceased to appoint the directors of the company so that the directors could allow the transfer of the shares to child. This proves that although the shareholders had leave but the company is still exiting and continue go on. Other than that, a company also has ability to own property on its own name. According to section 16(5) a company has power given to own personal land and other types of property. While company is separate legal person from its member, the member has no legal right and interest with the property and it is belongs to company. In case Macaura v Northern Assurance Co. Ltd[5], Macaura owned a tree plantation which was covered by an insurance policy. Later he sold the plantation to a company which he was the only shareholder. After the sale, Macaura continued to insure the plantation in his own name. A fire broke out and the plantation was destroyed. Macaura then attempted to claim on the insurance policy but the insurance company refused to pay. The issue was whether Macaura had an insurable interest at the time of the loss. It was help that the insurance company was right in not paying. The plantation company was a legal entity in its own right, separate from its shareholders. Other than that, in a corporate body, the shareholders of the company can enjoy limited liability. While a company is a separate legal entity, the shareholders are not liable for the debts and the liability is limited by shares. Therefore, creditors have no rights to take any legal action against the shareholders. In case Ye Yut Een 1978[6], the director of the company is not liable for the company’s debt. It is the company who had not complied with the procedures related to the retrenchment benefits. Lifting The Veil of Incorporation Although the company has privilege as separate legal entity, it must not be used for any unlawful or illegal business purposes, in case a fraudulent or dishonest use is made of the legal entity, the concerned individuals will not be allowed to take the shelter of the corporate personality. The court will disregard the corporate veil to see the real persons behind it. Generally, the law will not go behind this veil of incorporation to look at the membership of the company. But the courts will ‘lift the corporate veil’ in some exceptional cases. Salomon v Salomon Co Ltd case have decided that the members of the company are not liable for any contract that contracted by the company. This will cause they may have a chance hiding behind the veil to defraud the creditors and other parties that contracted with the company. The court will pierce the corporate veil by applying the principle known as ‘piercing the corporate veil’. When there is no entity separate from members, the court will pierce the corporate veil and take action. After that the court will make the company and its members liable for any breach of contract. The veil of incorporation can be lifted in according to situation provided under statutory provision and by judicial interpretation under the common law. For instance, section 36, Companies Act 1965 states that if the number of members of a company is reduced to below two and its carries on business more than six months, the person who is a member of the company during the time that is so carries on business after those six months, and is aware of it, the person is personally liable for all the debts that the company contracted after those six month and he may be sued therefor. According to the section 304(2), Companies Act 1965, together with the section 303(3), provide that an officers who knowingly contract a debts on behalf of the company. It means borrow money and knowing that that the company is most likely unable to pay the debt is guilty of an offence and on conviction be made personally liable to pay that debt. Under section 304(1), Companies Act 1965 provides that when a company’s intention is to purposely defraud its creditors, the veil of incorporation is lifted. In the course of the winding up of a company or in any proceedings against a company it appears to the court when hearing the application of the liquidator or any creditor or contributory of the company that any business of the company has been carried on with intent to defraud creditors of the company or creditors of any other person or for any fraudulent purpose, the court may hold any persons who were knowingly parties to the fraud personally responsible for all or any of the debts or other liabilities of the company as the court directs. Under section 365(2), Companies Act 1965 provides that any payment of dividend not from profit is prohibited. Any payment made of dividends to shareholders is personally liable by the director towards the creditors of the company when there are no profits available. There are also situations where the court thinks it is appropriate and it will lift the veil of incorporation at common law. The situation whereby the veil of incorporation is lifted where the company is acting as agent or partner of the controlling or parent company. Group of the companies the problems can be complex. Subsidiary own and fund money of a business has been held to do so as agent for the holding and parent company. So, holding and parent company actually operating business. This is applied in case Smith, Stone and Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation (1939)[7]. Besides, the veil of incorporation will be lifted when there is a group of companies, including holding and subsidiary company, the court can lift the veil and treat a company and its subsidiary as one economic unit. In case DHN food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Concil[8], subsidiary company owns a piece of land while the DHN which is parent company operated the business on the land. The local authority purchases the said land. The DHN claimed compensation for disruption. The local authority refused to pay the compensation on the grounds that the land did not belong to DHN. The court lifted the veil of establish that DHN is connected with the subsidiary company as treated as one economic unit, they did suffer a loss as a result of acquisition from the local authority and allowed to claim the compensation. At last, lifting the corporate veil can also assist in the prevention of fraud. In case Aspatra Sdn Bhd Ors v Bumiputra Bank Malaysia Berhad (BBMB)[9], Lorrain Osman, one of the director of Aspatra Sdn Bhd, was once a director of Bumiputra Bank Malaysia Berhad, must account for the secret profit he made in breach the fiduciary duty. To avoid detection Lorrain Osman had channeled the monies which is the secret profit he make into several companies that he controlled, one is the Aspatra Sdn Bhd. BBMB feared that the money Lorrain Osman took would leave Malaysia and applied for an injunction. The veil lifted to reveal that the assets of Aspatra Sdn Bhd belong to the Lorrain Osman and the injunction was accepted. Conclusion In conclusion, it clearly stated that the doctrine of separate legal entity have created double-edged swords to the shareholders of the company. Although it brings many features to the shareholders but it also have drawback towards the company itself and creditors in some situation. Hence, there will be some defects of incorporation. However, lifting the veil of incorporation by the court will reduce the defects of incorporation. [1] SALOMON v SALOMON CO LTD [1897] A.C. 22, House of Lords [2] SALOMON v SALOMON CO LTD [1897] A.C. 22, House of Lords [3] Foss v Harbottle(1843) 67 ER 189 [4] Re Noel Tedman Holdings Pty Ltd. (1967) QdR 561 [5] Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd[1925] AC 619 [6] Yee Yut Ee(978)2 MLJ 142 [7] Smith, Stone Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corp[1939] 4 All ER 116 [8] DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council[1976] 1 WLR 852 [9] Aspatra Sdn Bhd v Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd (1988) 1 MLJ 97

Fred as a Foil to Scrooge in A Christmas Carol :: Christmas Carol Essays

Fred as a Foil to Scrooge in A Christmas Carol In Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, Scrooge's selfish, cold, melancholy nature is contrasted with Fred, Scrooge's light-hearted nephew. At the beginning of the novel, Fred and Scrooge are complete opposites, but, as the novel progresses, they become more and more alike. Throughout the novel, Dickens uses Fred to show Scrooge's transformation from a cold, unfeeling man to a man of warmth and compassion. The first time Fred is seen is on page 5 when he greets Scrooge with, "A merry Christmas, Uncle! God save you!" Scrooge's reply is "Bah! Humbug!" The statement Fred makes shows that he cares about even the coldest beings. Scrooge's reply shows that he is closed to joyous things and it also hints that he is not saved. From their first meeting in the book, their character differences are obvious. During their conversation, Fred and Scrooge reveal their definitions of the word "good." Fred tells Scrooge, "There are many things from which I might have derived good by which I have not profited" This shows that Scrooge's definition of Good is money. Later on, Fred states that he has always thought of Christmastime "as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time." This defines Fred's "good" as kind, forgiving, charitable, and pleasant. After Fred leaves, two gentlemen come to Scrooge and ask for money for the poor. His response is, "Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses? Are they still in operation?" One of the gentlemen replies, "They are. Still, I wish I could say they were not." Scrooge's remark shows that he doesn't care about poor people. He does not care if they live or die, just as long as he is comfortable. The two gentlemen are shocked by this. At the beginning of Stave II, Scrooge lies awake considering that he could, "no more go to sleep than go to heaven." This shows that he probably isn't going to heaven. On page 43, Dicken's gives a glimpse of Scrooge's warm personality that has been muted by the cold, horrible events that have happened to him. When he says, "Why, it's old Fezziwig! Bless his heart; it's Fezziwig alive again!" Scrooge uses the word "bless" to show that he cared for Fezziwig.