GE16: PEMIMPIN–PEMIMPIN YANG TAK BOLEH PAKAI

 

Please share if you agree, thanks.

Dear Malaysian voters, peace.

We can disagree on many things in politics. Policies, priorities, even ideology. We may support different political parties, come from different ethnic groups or religious affiliations, be young or old, rich, middle class or poor, from Sabah, Sarawak, or Semenanjung.

But let us agree on some basic standards of leadership that should not be negotiable.

We need the best individuals. We must set the highest standards for the 222 who will represent us in Parliament. They will shape our nation over the next five years, and the future of our next generations.

Let us agree not to vote for these dirty dozen.

First, those who cakap tak serupa bikin. Leaders who lack authenticity, where words and actions do not align. Trust is the foundation of leadership. Once broken, everything else becomes questionable. If we cannot rely on their word, we cannot rely on their leadership. They are not difficult to spot. Look at what they promised before GE15 and what they did after. In today’s digital world, there is more than enough audio and visual record to judge them fairly. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Second, those who are corrupt, protect the corrupt, or remain silent. Corruption is not just about money. It steals opportunity, fairness, and the future of the rakyat. Every ringgit lost is a classroom not built, a university place denied, a hospital under-resourced, a burden shifted to the people. Integrity is not negotiable. These individuals are easy to identify. Before elections, they speak loudly about accountability. After elections, they become friendly, fall silent, or accept positions that benefit from that silence. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Third, those who say one thing and do another, especially once in power. Before elections, they speak of reform, accountability, and change. After gaining power, the narrative shifts. Consistency is a minimum requirement. Power should reveal character, not reverse it. This is a litmus test of who we can trust and who we should not trust again. Listen to their language. Do they justify inaction with phrases like “reforms take time,” claim their hands are tied, or blame the very people they aligned with to gain power? TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Fourth, those who disrespect other people’s religious beliefs, institutions, and practices. Malaysians have a deep connection to their faith, and respect for others is paramount, even when we disagree. This is the soul and fabric of our nation. When leaders use unkind words to belittle or attack, or employ double-edged language to elevate themselves by putting others down, that is not leadership. Worse still is when they coin terms to divide and segment the nation, keeping race and religion alive as political fuel. They are not strengthening society. They are weakening it.

We must recognise them and refuse to vote for them. They are among the most dangerous individuals in a multi-religious society like ours. Left unchecked, they erode the very foundation of our nation. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Fifth, those who abuse their position for family and their own people’s benefit. Public office is a trust, not a family enterprise. When opportunities, contracts, and positions are given based on connections rather than capability, the system suffers. Public funds are not personal assets. These individuals are not hard to identify. Look at who benefits. Review contracts. Follow the distribution. Patterns will reveal themselves. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Sixth, those who place politics above the needs of the rakyat. When decisions are delayed, diluted, or distorted to protect political positions, it is the people who pay the price. Leadership is about solving problems, not managing narratives. Power over people is unacceptable.

Yes, politics is part of the job. But when politics comes first, trust is broken. Ask a simple question: are they willing to risk their position to uphold their principles? If not, power has become the goal, not service. We become pawns in their game. Why should we vote for them again? TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Seventh, those who are arrogant. Leaders who believe they have all the answers and refuse to listen. No one has a monopoly on wisdom. Arrogance shuts out feedback, and mistakes are repeated instead of corrected. Leadership requires humility.

This is easy to spot. Observe how they speak, behave, and respond to questions, complaints, and feedback. Arrogance is hard to hide. You know who they are. Do not vote for them. And remember, during elections, they may suddenly appear humble and caring. Do not be fooled. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Eighth, those who talk about unity but practise division. They speak of togetherness, yet play race and religious politics when it suits them. Unity cannot be a slogan used to gain power. When unity becomes a tool for power, instead of power being used to build unity, we have a serious problem.

Watch their language. They question loyalty, whether as citizens or as members of an ethnic group. They frame it as a choice: are we Malaysian first or defined by ethnicity? This is a false divide. We are both. When leaders blur this to create tension, they are not uniting the nation. They are weakening it. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Ninth, those who practise double standards. One rule for themselves and their own people, another for everyone else. Justice loses its meaning when applied selectively. When fairness disappears, trust in institutions follows.

This is easy to identify. Observe how they exercise power. Who gets more, who gets less. Who is punished, and who walks free. The pattern will be clear. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Tenth, those who blame others and avoid responsibility. When things go wrong, they point fingers instead of stepping forward. Leadership begins with ownership. Without accountability, there is no learning, and without learning, no progress.

Listen to how they respond when things go wrong. Do they take responsibility or shift blame? Their response tells you everything. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Eleventh, those who sacrifice principles for outcomes. The idea that the ends justify the means is flawed. Short-term gains achieved through wrong methods create long-term damage. The journey matters as much as the goal.

These are the individuals who justify compromise, even on the very principles they once fought for and used to earn your support. They explain it away and expect acceptance. In doing so, they assume we will forget.

There is a saying often shared in Chinese, “sik sei gai hou taai.” It refers to how it is easiest to slaughter the chicken that does not see you as a threat. Those who trust you most are often the easiest to take advantage of. In politics, the easiest people to mislead are those who trusted you the most. We must not allow ourselves to be misled. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Finally, those who talk a lot but do little. Incompetence disguised as rhetoric. Announcements, slogans, and speeches mean little without execution. The rakyat do not live on promises. They live with results. Good intentions are not enough.

Compare what they say with what has been delivered. The gap will be clear. We should not vote for NATOs. No Action, Talk Only. BETUL-BETUL TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Peace.
Anas Zubedy

 

12 GOLONGAN YANG TIDAK AKAN SAYA UNDI DALAM PRU16

 

Sila kongsikan kalau setuju … terima kasih

1. Cakap tak serupa bikin
   Tiada keaslian. Kata dan tindakan tidak selari.
2. Rasuah, melindungi perasuah, atau berdiam diri
   Integriti tidak boleh dirunding.
3. Janji dicapati
   Cakap lain, buat lain. Terutamanya selepas berkuasa.
4. Menghina kepercayaan, institusi, dan amalan agama orang lain
   Menjatuhkan orang lain untuk menaikkan diri sendiri.
5. Menyalahgunakan jawatan untuk kepentingan keluarga dan kroni
   Dana awam bukan harta peribadi.
6. Meletakkan politik melebihi keperluan rakyat
   Mengutamakan kuasa berbanding rakyat tidak boleh diterima.
7. Sombong dan bongkak
   Kepimpinan memerlukan sifat rendah diri.
8. Berbicara tentang perpaduan, tetapi mengamalkan perpecahan
   Menggunakan perpaduan sebagai topeng untuk politik perkauman dan agama.
9. Mengamalkan dwi standard
   Satu peraturan untuk diri dan kroni, satu lagi untuk orang lain.
10. Menuding jari dan mengelak tanggungjawab
    Jarang bertanggungjawab atas kegagalan dan kesilapan.
11. Menggadaikan prinsip demi kepentingan peribadi
    Cara mencapai matlamat sama penting dengan matlamat itu sendiri.
12. Banyak cakap, kerja tak jalan. Tidak kompeten.
    Tiada keupayaan untuk melaksanakan tugas dengan berkesan.

Salam, anas

 

TRUMP’S BEST EXIT STRATEGY

 

When I was studying at University of Malaya, my friends and I were privileged to have close relationships with many of our lecturers, especially those who were fellows at our Seventh Residential College. One such lecturer was the late Che Hashim.

I remember one occasion when we were chatting while he was marking exam papers. He looked up, half amused, half exasperated, and said, “The only way I can pass this kid’s paper is if he claims temporary insanity.”

Peace, anas

WHY MANY US SOLDIERS MAY DIE SOON

 

It is deeply unfortunate, but I fear that many American soldiers may soon lose their lives.

Not because they chose this path freely, but because they are following orders from leadership that appears, at best, reactive, and at worst, driven by arrogance, self-aggrandisement, and the need to justify earlier decisions. There is a growing certainty that the current escalation is not purely in the interest of the United States, but influenced heavily by the long-standing strategic objectives of Benjamin Netanyahu and the state of Israel. Even as of today, Israel’s own military, the Israel Defense Forces, may not be at the forefront in a ground war, while young American soldiers are pushed to carry out that burden.

These soldiers are not abstract figures. They are sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. They have families, dreams, and lives beyond the battlefield. To see them placed in harm’s way for what may not be a direct American necessity is troubling.

My concern is further heightened by recent developments. The United States is now moving a third aircraft carrier into the Middle East. This is not a routine deployment. It is a signal. A signal of escalation, of preparation, and potentially, of war widening beyond control.

So far, Iran has shown a degree of restraint that is often overlooked. Their responses have largely targeted military assets, installations, and strategic structures rather than maximizing human casualties. This is evident in the imbalance of lives lost, with Iran bearing a significantly higher toll compared to the combined US and Israeli side.

It would be naïve to assume that Iran lacks the capability to inflict far greater human damage. On the contrary, their demonstrated precision suggests that if their intention were to maximize casualties, the outcome would be very different.

This context also raises questions about widely circulated narratives. Claims that Iran has indiscriminately killed tens of thousands of its own people during the protest period in January and February should be examined critically. It is difficult to reconcile such claims with observed behaviour in current engagements, where there appears to be deliberate avoidance of unnecessary loss of life, even among adversaries. The contrast between what is reported from those protests and what is being demonstrated on the battlefield today warrants closer scrutiny and more careful judgement.

We have also seen earlier encounters involving carriers such as the USS Gerald R. Ford and the USS Abraham Lincoln. In those situations, Iran reportedly deployed drones and tactics that signaled capability without triggering large-scale casualties. It was, arguably, a form of controlled messaging rather than outright destruction.

But today, the situation is changing.

With continued escalation, and with discussions around ground troop involvement, the dynamics shift entirely. War, once expanded to that level, rarely remains contained. Intentions change. Thresholds break. If this trajectory continues, we may soon witness a very different phase of conflict.

And if that happens, it would not be surprising if major military assets, including aircraft carriers, become direct targets. Should such an event occur, the loss of life could be significant, likely in the thousands.

These losses, together with the lives of Iranians, both military personnel and civilians, are unnecessary. This is a pointless war, except for those who seek to colonise and become settler-colonialists, as Israel has done, and for powerful elites who desire Iran’s oil for their own profit at the expense of ordinary Americans and the world at large.

America and Americans must act quickly. There must be accountability and a return to sound judgement. Leadership matters. Decisions of war cannot be left unchecked.

I salute the American generals and senior military and intelligence leaders who have stood their ground and sacrificed their positions because they know, understand, and are certain that this war was unnecessary even before February 28, and remains just as pointless today.

I hope America’s system and processes are strong enough to check an unbridled and unconstitutional war, driven by a self-aggrandising President influenced by a foreign power, and to truly MAKE AMERICA FIRST.

Peace
anas

 

12 TYPES OF PEOPLE I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR IN GE16

 

1. Cakap tak serupa bikin
   Lacks authenticity. Words and actions do not align.
2. Corrupt, protect the corrupt, or stay silent
   Integrity is non-negotiable.
3. Say one thing, do another
   Especially once in power.
4. Disrespect other people’s religious beliefs, institutions, and practices
   Putting others down to make themselves look good.
5. Abuse position for family and their own people’s benefit
   Public funds are not your personal assets
6. Put politics above rakyat’s needs
   Power over people is unacceptable.
7. Arrogant
   Leadership requires humility.
8. Talk unity, practise division
   Use unity as a veil to play race and religious politics.
9. Practice double standards
   One rule for themselves and their own people, another for others.
10. Blame others, avoid responsibility
    Rarely accountable for failures and mistakes.
11. Sacrifice principles for outcomes
    The journey matters as much as the goal.
12. Talk a lot, do little. Incompetent.
    Lacks what it takes to get the job done.

Peace, anas

 

SINAR HARIAN HARI INI : MENGAPA KEPEMIMPINAN PENGURUSAN PERLU MEMBINA "RESPECTFUL FEAR"

 

Yang Dihormati Kapten Industri dan Peneraju Sektor Awam,

Tugas seorang Pemimpin atau Pengurus, terutamanya bagi seorang Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif (CEO), bukanlah suatu amanah yang mudah. Tanggungjawab utama kita adalah untuk memastikan setiap warga organisasi bergerak serentak menuju matlamat Bersama - selari dari segi hala tuju, seirama dalam tindakan, dan memacu kepantasan yang mampu mengatasi persaingan.

Namun, untuk mencapai tahap sinkroni ini, komitmen yang tinggi diperlukan bagi mengimbangi kekuatan dan kelemahan setiap jabatan. Cabarannya ialah tiada formula kekal dalam mengurus sesebuah organisasi; landskap perniagaan sentiasa berubah dan menuntut kalibrasi semula pada setiap hari. Adalah tidak bermakna jika pasukan jualan cemerlang tetapi bahagian pengeluaran gagal memenuhi pesanan. Begitu juga, tidak berguna jika pemasaran memenangi anugerah tetapi sistem operasi dan penyampaian mengalami kepincangan.

Kepimpinan sebenar terletak pada keupayaan mengorkestrasikan keseluruhan sistem, bukan sekadar meraikan kecemerlangan terpencil. Inilah beban sekali gus keistimewaan seorang Teraju Eksekutif.

Definisi "Respectful Fear"

Bagi memikul tanggungjawab besar ini, salah satu sifat kepimpinan utama yang perlu kita bina adalah apa yang saya istilahkan sebagai "Respectful Fear" (Kegentaran Berasaskan Hormat). Ia merupakan satu bentuk "kengganan dalaman" untuk melanggar piawaian yang telah ditetapkan oleh seorang pemimpin yang dipercayai, konsisten, serta memiliki kewibawaan moral.

Kegentaran ini timbul daripada kesedaran bahawa mengecewakan pemimpin sedemikian akan membawa kesan yang mendalam. Walaupun ketegasan ini jarang dipamerkan secara terbuka, "kuasa" tersebut tetap wujud. Ia jarang perlu dikuatkuasakan secara keras kerana ia terbentuk daripada akar umbi kewibawaan moral dan konsistensi, bukan sekadar jawatan semata-mata. Melalui asas ini, lahirnya kawalan kendiri dan kekangan secara sukarela dalam kalangan kakitangan. Mereka bertindak dengan betul bukan kerana dipantau, tetapi kerana mereka memandang serius terhadap pemimpin, peranan mereka, serta organisasi tersebut.

Kesan Terhadap Kecekapan Organisasi

Apabila respectful fear wujud, keperluan untuk penyeliaan berterusan akan berkurangan secara drastik. Amalan pengurusan mikro (micromanagement) dapat dikurangkan, manakala proses membuat keputusan menjadi lebih pantas kerana jangkaan sudah pun difahami dengan jelas. Pemimpin tidak perlu meluangkan masa yang lama untuk membetulkan tingkah laku asas, sebaliknya boleh memberikan fokus penuh untuk memastikan gerak kerja berada pada landasan dan rentak yang betul. Akibatnya, organisasi memperoleh kepantasan dan koheren tanpa perlu meningkatkan birokrasi.

Lebih penting lagi, keberadaan respectful fear ini secara langsung meningkatkan piawaian etika dan profesionalisme. Ia membentuk budaya yang teguh tanpa memerlukan penguatkuasaan yang keras; di mana tahap kepercayaan adalah tinggi, selari dengan tahap jangkaan yang ditetapkan. Ini bukanlah model kepimpinan yang mengelak konflik atau merendahkan piawaian demi menjaga keharmonian luaran, sebaliknya ia adalah kepimpinan yang memiliki wibawa yang kental dan dipandang serius oleh semua pihak

Instrumen dan Disiplin Dalaman

Dalam konteks ini, sasaran, KPI, insentif, dan polisi tetap menjadi instrumen penting. Namun, mekanisme tersebut akan berfungsi dengan jauh lebih berkesan apabila disokong oleh sesuatu yang lebih utuh. Respectful fear beroperasi pada tahap yang lebih tinggi kerana pemimpin yang berkesan menggerakkan organisasi melalui disiplin dalaman (internalised discipline). Apabila ini wujud, sistem sedia ada akan memperkukuhkan tingkah laku positif secara automatik, dan bukannya bergelut untuk membetulkan kegagalan.

Respectful fear melahirkan Penguatkuasaan Secara Senyap (Silent Authority) -suatu kuasa yang tidak perlu diisytiharkan tetapi kehadirannya dirasai melalui tindakan dan kepatuhan sukarela. Oleh kerana piawaian dan akibat telah difahami, pemimpin tidak perlu memberi peringatan berterusan. Maka, pengaruh kepimpinan beroperasi secara konsisten di seluruh organisasi.

Manifestasi pada Pelbagai Tahap

1. Tahap Pelaksanaan Tugasan: Penguatkuasaan secara senyap memastikan tindakan mengambil jalan pintas dirasakan sebagai suatu kesalahan moral. Kualiti terjaga tanpa perlu pemeriksaan rapi. Sebagai contoh, dalam sebuah firma pembuatan, seorang penyelia yang menyedari sedikit penyimpangan kualiti akan membetulkannya serta-merta walaupun tiada sesiapa memerhati. Beliau melakukannya bukan kerana takutkan hukuman, tetapi kerana tahu piawaian kualiti CEO adalah sesuatu yang tidak boleh dikompromi. Jabatan pemeriksaan kini menjadi lapisan pengesahan, bukannya benteng keselamatan utama.
2. Tahap Tingkah Laku Pasukan: Budaya akan menggantikan peranan "kepolisian". Kawal selia rakan sejawat (peer regulation) berlaku secara semula jadi. Rakan sejawat akan saling menegur sekiranya terdapat ahli yang bertindak di luar nilai organisasi. Contohnya, jika seorang ahli pasukan jualan menjanjikan tempoh penghantaran yang tidak realistik, rakan sejawatnya akan menegur: "Itu bukan cara kita bekerja di sini." Pembetulan dilaksanakan secara mendatar, bukan menegak. Pasukan melindungi kredibiliti organisasi kerana jangkaan pemimpin telah sebati dalam diri mereka.
3. Tahap Prestasi Individu: Penanda aras dalaman meningkat melalui motivasi intrinsik. Usaha dipacu oleh rasa bangga, tanggungjawab, dan rasa kepunyaan (ownership). Seorang penganalisis yang bekerja secara bebas tahu bahawa data yang tidak sahih akan mengakibatkan tindakan yang salah. Walaupun tanpa penyeliaan, beliau akan menyemak semula datanya kerana memahami bahawa kredibiliti yang terjejas memberi kesan lebih besar daripada sekadar ralat pada hamparan kerja.

---

Membina Kewibawaan: Konsep "Sat"

Persoalannya, bagaimanakah Pemimpin-Pengurus membina sifat ini? Satu sudut pandangan yang berguna boleh dilihat melalui konsep masyarakat Cina iaitu "Sat" (saat hei dalam Kantonis atau shā qì dalam Mandarin). Ia merujuk kepada karisma atau aura yang dapat dirasai serta-merta - suasana menjadi sunyi apabila pemimpin tersebut melangkah masuk ke dalam bilik. Sat menzahirkan kegentaran yang dihormati: keseriusan tanpa lakonan, penguatkuasaan tanpa gangguan, dan kuasa tanpa tayangan.

Kehadiran (presence) ini tidak boleh dilakonkan. Ia dibina melalui peredaran masa, bermula dengan sejati  (authenticity) dan konsistensi antara kata dengan perbuatan. Seorang pemimpin mesti sanggup membuat keputusan sukar, mengekalkan kawalan emosi, dan menunjukkan rekod prestasi yang adil serta tekal. Paling utama, ia memerlukan kewibawaan moral (moral seriousness), bukannya sekadar pesona (charm).

Para Kapten Industri dan Peneraju Sektor Awam sekalian,

Confucius merumuskan idea ini dengan ringkas: "Pemimpin yang memerintah dengan etika dan nilai murni adalah ibarat Bintang Utara; ia kekal stabil di lokasinya, manakala bintang-bintang lain secara semula jadi akan menjajar di sekelilingnya."

Respectful fear atau Kegentaran Berasaskan Hormat berfungsi dengan cara yang sama - ia tidak diperoleh melalui paksaan, tetapi melalui penghormatan yang diraih. Apabila pemimpin membina kewibawaan moral, konsistensi, dan kawalan diri, organisasi akan menjajar secara semula jadi. Kepantasan meningkat, dan disiplin tetap utuh walaupun pemimpin tiada di sisi.

Inilah kekuatan sebenar seorang Pemimpin-Pengurus: membina kegentaran berasaskan hormat yang mengekalkan kecemerlangan melangkaui keberadaan fizikal kita di dalam sesebuah bilik.

Salam, anas zubedy

IRAN HAS LAUNCHED THOUSANDS OF DRONES AND MISSILES. BUT…

Iran has launched more than 5,000 drones and missiles in this conflict. Yet, based on what has been clearly verified so far, not a single school, hospital, or place of worship has been directly hit.

Yes, there have been civilian casualties. Yes, some strikes have landed in populated areas. But there is no consistent, credible evidence of deliberate targeting of these civilian institutions.

Now, contrast this with the US–Israel side. On the first day of the US–Israel attacks, a missile strike hit an elementary school in Minab, Iran, killing between 168 and 180 people—including more than 100 children. Reports identified 66 boys and 54 girls among the dead.

From the very beginning of this war, strikes have hit civilian infrastructure. Schools sheltering children have been struck. Hospitals have been damaged or rendered non-functional. Places of worship have not been spared. And this does not even account for the years of conflict in Gaza or its current devastating phase.

What is the most important distinction?

Iran’s strategy appears focused on military targets, with civilian harm being largely indirect. In contrast, the US–Israel strategy operates within urban battlefields where civilian infrastructure is repeatedly hit. Whether this is "justified" remains heavily debated, but the reports are clear: schools, hospitals, and civilian buildings have been impacted.

When it happens once, we may call it a mistake. When it happens repeatedly, it becomes a pattern. And when we see a pattern, can anyone be blamed for concluding that these actions are intentional?

The Chosen People?

More than 5,000 missiles and drones, yet not a single confirmed strike on a school, hospital, or house of worship. On the Iranian side, there appears to be a conscious effort to avoid civilian deaths. On the US–Israel side, children were killed on day one.

Coupled with the thousands of children killed in Gaza since October 7th and over the years, one is compelled to ask: while Zionist Israelis may claim to be God’s chosen people, are the Iranians the ones acting as such by avoiding the killing of children and civilians?

Peace,

Anas Zubedy