JOHOR ELECTION: A GLIMPSE OF MALAYSIA'S NATIONAL MOOD?

 

JOHOR ELECTION: A GLIMPSE OF MALAYSIA'S NATIONAL MOOD?

The Johor election is not a national verdict, but it may well offer us a glimpse of what lies ahead.

Let me explain.

Malaysia's political landscape is far too diverse for any single state to represent the entire nation. Johor has always had its own political dynamics, just as the Malay heartland states of Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, and Terengganu have theirs. Sabah and Sarawak, too, operate within their own distinct political realities.

To conclude that Johor reflects the mood of the whole country would therefore be premature.

At the same time, it would be equally unwise to dismiss the possibility that something is beginning to shift. While Johor does not represent a national consensus, it may offer an early glimpse into how some Malaysians are beginning to think.

One result stands out starkly.

Barisan Nasional’s strong performance raises an important question. Are we beginning to see the return of voters who had previously abandoned Barisan Nasional - particularly traditional BN supporters who cast protest votes in recent general elections?

It is widely believed that during GE15, many traditional UMNO and Barisan Nasional supporters voted against their own coalition. They were frustrated by corruption, political instability, and the hope that a new government would bring meaningful reforms.

As I have argued before, the dominant issues in GE15 were not race or religion, but corruption, governance, and the economy.

If that reading was correct then, another question naturally follows:

Could some of those same voters now be returning?

Not necessarily because Barisan Nasional has transformed itself overnight, but because they feel the alternative has not delivered what was promised.

Political reforms have been slower than many expected, and concerns over the economy and the rising cost of living remain deeply entrenched. For some voters, disappointment may now be replacing hope. Many may even feel they were sold promises that were never fully delivered - a classic cakap tak serupa bikin moment.

There is another possibility worth considering. Are Malaysians becoming weary of the political instability that has continued even under what is called the Unity Government? The Johor election presents a fascinating paradox: two partners at the federal level went head-to-head at the state level, and the ground shifted decisively.

If stability has once again become a priority, that could alter the internal power balance between UMNO and its federal partners nationally.

The attraction of Barisan Nasional may not simply be about nostalgia. It may be about a desire for predictable governance. After years of changing governments, shifting coalitions, and political uncertainty, some Malaysians may be asking whether the predictability associated with Barisan Nasional's decades in government is something they value more today than they did a few years ago.

The resurgence of MCA also deserves close attention.

Not long ago, few would have imagined the party making such definitive gains, but the outcome in several key mixed and urban seats suggests a real undercurrent. While Johor alone cannot explain this development entirely, it indicates that some voters who previously supported DAP or PKR are actively reassessing their choices.

As polling district analyses become fully available, we will be able to compare voting patterns across predominantly Malay, Chinese, Indian, and mixed areas. However, the early signs suggest that support among non-Malay voters is becoming more discerning rather than automatic.

PH is no longer being given a blank check.

Voters seem increasingly willing to use their ballots pragmatically to signal their frustration or demand stability. Whether this represents a temporary protest or the beginning of a longer-term political realignment remains to be seen.

Of course, one election does not establish a national trend. The next crucial test is immediately upon us with the Negeri Sembilan state election on August 1st.

Unlike Johor, Negeri Sembilan will provide a clearer, more immediate indication of whether this shift in voter sentiment is traveling north and expanding beyond Barisan Nasional's traditional strongholds. Melaka will eventually offer another useful data point, although it too has historically been favorable territory for Barisan Nasional.

We should also not forget the lessons from Sabah's recent state election. Ultimately, any assessment of Malaysia's political direction must include Sabah and Sarawak, whose political dynamics remain entirely distinct from those in Peninsular Malaysia.

For now, the Johor election provides us with many important questions.

Are we witnessing the first signs of traditional Barisan Nasional supporters returning home after concluding that the alternative has not met their expectations?

Or is Johor simply behaving as Johor has always behaved?

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

 

JOHOR'S KELUARGA 69 ELECTION

 

JOHOR'S KELUARGA 69 ELECTION

If you are feeling thoroughly confused about the Johor state election, don’t worry - you are not alone. In fact, I suspect even the late, great P. Ramlee would be smiling if he were watching today’s political scene. He might even look at the screen, scratch his head, and say, "This looks familiar."

Perhaps the best way to understand the Johor election is not by reading another heavy political analysis, but by re-watching the classic comedy Keluarga 69. For those who remember the movie, it was hilarious because absolutely nobody seemed to know who was connected to whom. Relationships became increasingly complicated, and just when you thought you finally understood what was happening, another twist appeared. It was funny precisely because it was so confusing. Yet beneath all the comedy was a serious story about ordinary people trying to navigate a hopelessly tangled situation.

Welcome to the Johor state election.

At the federal level, some parties govern together as cozy partners. Yet in Johor, those exact same partners are actively asking voters to reject one another. Then there are parties that were once bitter rivals but now appear perfectly willing to cooperate whenever the mood strikes. Add Bersatu, PAS, MUDA, Bersama, a colorful array of independents, local personalities, and multi-cornered contests into the mix, and many voters are left asking the same question: "So... who is actually fighting whom?" If you can answer that confidently without drawing a complex flowchart, congratulations - you probably deserve an honorary degree in Malaysian politics.

It is enough to make many Malaysians wonder whether they accidentally bought a ticket to a Keluarga 69 screening instead of a polling station.

The funny part is that every politician can explain exactly why their specific political arrangement makes perfect sense. They will tell you: "It is different." "It is strategic." "It is only for this election." "It is for the greater good." By the time the explanations are over, ordinary Malaysians are usually even more confused than before.

Perhaps this is why humor is sometimes the best way to process politics. Like the movie, the Johor election is highly entertaining on the surface, but it carries serious questions underneath. How should voters make sense of shifting alliances? How much importance should be given to party logos? Should yesterday’s enemy automatically become today’s friend, or today’s friend remain tomorrow’s partner?

These are legitimate questions, yet they are also developments that ordinary voters have very little control over. Politicians will continue negotiating, coalitions will keep changing, new friendships will form, and old alliances will end. That is just politics.

But there is one thing that remains entirely within the control of Johor voters: choosing the best ADUN. For Johoreans, this election is not a comedy; it is a deep responsibility.

So perhaps the ultimate lesson from Keluarga 69 is this: when everything around you becomes topsy-turvy, don’t become topsy-turvy yourself. Stay calm. Look beyond the political musical chairs. Look beyond who is hugging whom today and criticizing them tomorrow. Instead, ask the questions that really matter: Who has integrity? Who is competent? Who truly understands the needs of the constituency? Who has actually served the people instead of merely serving the party? And who will have the courage to speak up for Johor, regardless of who eventually forms the government?

The reality is that political alliances can and do change. Today’s rivals may become tomorrow’s partners, and today’s partners may become tomorrow’s rivals. Coalitions are formed and dissolved, and new political realities emerge after almost every election. Because those developments are largely beyond our control, perhaps it is time we place less emphasis on party labels and more emphasis on the quality of the individual seeking our vote.

This is Johor’s opportunity to show the rest of Malaysia the way - not by proving which party is the strongest, but by proving that voters can be wiser than party politics. Let us reward integrity, competence, service, humility, and courage. If Johoreans choose their representatives based on character, capability, and commitment to the rakyat, they may well inspire the rest of the nation to do the same in the next General Election.

Johor can demonstrate that mature voters do not merely vote for parties; they vote for the best people. After all, political parties may reorganize themselves after polling day, but a good ADUN remains a good ADUN.

So, while the politicians continue acting in their own real-life version of Keluarga 69, let Johor voters write a different ending. One where the hero is not the political party, but the voter. And if Johor gets it right, perhaps the rest of Malaysia will follow. Now that would be an ending worthy of a P. Ramlee classic.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

Kuala Lumpur

 

WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR THIS PUBLIC SPACE IN BATU FERRINGHI?

 

WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR THIS PUBLIC SPACE IN BATU FERRINGHI?

Some time ago, I wrote about a public space in Batu Ferringhi after it was suddenly closed off to the public. Following that appeal, the area was reopened. Today, on Sunday, July 5th, 2026, I returned.

Sadly, here we go again.

The parking area has once again been blocked, with no clear notice explaining why or what the long-term plans are. As the photographs show, visitors are now forced to park along a narrow access road, making it inconvenient and potentially unsafe - especially for families with young children. What saddens me even more is that this place, once full of life, is now largely empty – even on a Sunday.

Over the years, I have spent enough weekends here to appreciate what made this spot so special. This was never just an empty piece of land or a free parking lot; it was one of the few remaining places in Batu Ferringhi where ordinary Malaysians - especially families facing economic challenges - could enjoy a day by the sea without having to spend a small fortune.

These families do not come only from Batu Ferringhi or Penang. I have met people from Kedah and other neighbouring states who make the trip simply because it is affordable. Many times, I have seen small cars packed with parents, grandparents, and children. They bring their own mats, pack their own food or buy simple meals from nearby hawker stalls, let the children play, and spend precious time together.

Perhaps even more heartwarming is what this place represents. It is one of those rare spaces where Malays, Chinese, Indians, and others naturally come together. Nobody organises it. Nobody plans it. It simply happens. People from different backgrounds sit under the same trees, enjoy the same sea breeze, and share the same public space. This is grassroots nation-building at its best.

Please don't misunderstand me. I enjoy Batu Ferringhi's newer developments like Feringghi Bay. My family and I recently had dinner at Santai there  and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. But not every Malaysian family can afford RM40 or RM50 per person for a meal. Parking alone there could cost RM30 if you stay for a few hours! For many households, that amount is enough to feed the entire family.

A world-class tourist destination should not only cater to tourists and those who can afford premium dining. It should also make room for ordinary Malaysians.

When I asked people around the area why the place had been closed again, I received various answers. Some shared rumors that the land may eventually become another commercial or higher-end development, like Ferringhi Bay. I do not know whether that is true.

That is precisely why I respectfully appeal to the Chief Minister of Penang, the Member of Parliament, and the State Assemblyman responsible for this area. Please tell us: What is the plan for this site?

If redevelopment is planned, announce it openly. The people deserve to know. If nothing is happening in the immediate future, why not reopen the space for public use until work actually begins?

And if this land is eventually developed, another crucial question deserves an answer: Where is the equivalent space for ordinary Malaysians?

Where is the large, comfortable, clean, well-planned, Astaka-style food court with ample free or affordable parking, where families of modest means can enjoy Batu Ferringhi with dignity? Not a small corner. Not a temporary arrangement. Not an afterthought. We need a proper public space designed with the rakyat in mind.

Development is important. Investment is important. Tourism is important. But so is ensuring that Batu Ferringhi remains a place for all Malaysians, not only for those who can afford premium experiences.

The true measure of a developed society is not simply how many luxury projects it builds. It is whether it continues to make room for ordinary people.

I sincerely hope our leaders will clarify the future of this site - and, equally importantly, explain how the interests of B40 and middle-income Malaysian families will continue to be protected in Batu Ferringhi.

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

Penang

 

MATURE VOTERS CREATE GREAT POLITICIANS

 

MATURE VOTERS CREATE GREAT POLITICIANS

Every election season, Malaysians spend endless hours criticizing politicians. We complain about corruption. We complain about incompetence. We complain about empty promises. We complain about racism and religious politics. While these complaints are entirely valid and remain matters of grave concern, perhaps it is time we asked ourselves a much harder question.

What if the real problem is not only our politicians? What if the real problem is also us, the voters?

Democracy is a mirror. The quality of our politicians will rarely rise above the maturity of the people who elect them. If voters reward competence, integrity, and service, political parties will field better candidates. Conversely, if voters reward fear, personality cults, and racial or religious emotions, political parties will continue producing exactly those kinds of politicians.

Furthermore, many of us judge political parties with broad brushes instead of assessing individual leaders fairly. We assume an entire party is either inherently good or bad, and we stop looking at the person standing before us. In doing so, we ignore those who struggle to do their best and do things right within their respective organizations - individuals who may even be suppressed or pushed aside because they are seen as change agents who might dilute the current power structure, self-interest, and bureaucracy.

Let us look at some objective examples.

Some dismiss PAS as backward simply because it is an Islamist party. Yet, under Sanusi Md Nor’s administration, Kedah has attracted significant foreign investment from multinational companies. Investors are interested in execution, stability, and productivity - not stereotypes. Furthermore, Dr. Ahmad Samsuri Mokhtar, their likely Prime Minister-in-waiting, is an aerospace engineer.

On the other hand, there are Malaysians who continue to see DAP as nothing more than a Chinese chauvinist party. Yet, leaders such as Hannah Yeoh have consistently tried to project a more inclusive and Malaysian approach. Whether one agrees with her politics or not, she should be judged on her own words, actions, and record - not simply by old labels attached to her party. The same applies to other capable talents within the party, like Yeo Bee Yin and Liew Chin Tong.

The same principle applies to UMNO. The party deserves criticism for the corruption scandals and abuses of power that have damaged public confidence over the years; those criticisms are entirely justified. At the same time, mature voters must recognize another historical reality: from Merdeka until today, every single Prime Minister of Malaysia has either come from UMNO or received significant political training and experience within it, including Anwar Ibrahim. For decades, UMNO operated as one of the country’s principal leadership schools, producing not only Malay leaders but many who carried national responsibilities as Malaysian leaders. Leaders such as Idris Jusoh and Ahmad Shabery Cheek are clear examples of politicians respected for their capability, commitment, and public service, regardless of whether one agreed with every policy they championed.

A mature voter is able to hold both truths at the same time. Reality is rarely black and white. People are nuanced; parties are not.

Unfortunately, we have seen capable leaders lose not because they suddenly became ineffective, but because they were swept away by national narratives and emotional waves. Shabery Cheek is a case in point. Whatever one’s political preference, few would deny his commitment as both a minister and a Member of Parliament, particularly in preparing Kemaman for floods and serving his constituency. Yet, he lost during a period when national emotions overpowered personal performance.

The same happened to Saifuddin Abdullah. Although widely respected for his moderation and intellectual depth, standing as the UMNO–Barisan Nasional candidate, he lost the Temerloh parliamentary seat in GE13 to PAS Information Chief Nasrudin Hassan. Ironically, many voters who chose PAS over UMNO in that instance would ordinarily have disagreed with many of Nasrudin’s positions. Yet, the political narrative of the day proved stronger than an objective assessment of the individual candidate. When mature leaders lose simply because they belong to the "wrong" party, everyone loses.

Political parties are intensely practical organizations. They observe who wins, they observe who loses, and more importantly, they observe why.

If voters reward racial rhetoric, parties will produce more racial champions. If voters reward fear, parties will manufacture more fear. If voters reward personalities, parties will promote celebrities. But if voters consistently reward integrity, competence, inclusiveness, and service, every political party - whether PAS, UMNO, DAP, PKR, Bersatu, Amanah, Warisan, MUDA, or any other - will gradually promote more leaders who embody those qualities.

There is another vital reason why mature voting matters: every vote strengthens a specific current inside a political party.

When voters repeatedly support leaders like Hannah Yeoh because they believe inclusive politics deserves encouragement, they strengthen that progressive current within DAP. When voters reward leaders like Sanusi Md Nor for effective administration and economic performance, they strengthen the results-oriented faction within PAS. When voters support capable leaders such as Saifuddin Abdullah, Shabery Cheek, Idris Jusoh, and many others because of their competence and character, they send a powerful signal that Malaysians value quality leadership above blind party loyalty.

In time, these leaders become more influential within their own organizations. Others begin to notice, and political parties adapt. That is how succession planning works - not only in corporate companies, but also in politics.

The succession planning of great political leadership begins with mature voters. Every mature vote is an investment - not just in one candidate, and not just in one election, but in the future leadership of that political party and, ultimately, the future leadership of Malaysia.

Perhaps that is the uncomfortable truth we must face. The next election is not merely a test of political parties; it is a test of us.

If enough Malaysians vote beyond race, religion, personalities, fear, and blind party loyalty, every political party will eventually receive the exact same message: "If you want our vote, send us your best women and men."

Only then will we consistently raise the quality of Parliament. Only then will we consistently raise the quality of government.

Because mature voters create great politicians.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

 

CHOOSE POLITICIANS WITH VALUES, NOT TRANSACTIONS

 

CHOOSE POLITICIANS WITH VALUES, NOT TRANSACTIONS

One of the biggest mistakes voters make is assuming that politicians and political parties are driven primarily by values. More often than not, politics is driven by interests.

History offers many examples.

During the Cold War, the United States saw Communist China as an important strategic partner in balancing the Soviet Union. Washington and Beijing found ways to cooperate despite having fundamentally different political systems and values. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, that strategic need gradually disappeared. Today, China is increasingly viewed by the United States as its principal geopolitical competitor.

The lesson is simple. In politics, today's ally can become tomorrow's adversary, and yesterday's enemy can become today's partner. Relationships are often transactional.

Malaysia is no different.

The Johor election reminds us that political calculations change according to circumstances. Parties that once criticised one another may find common ground when it suits their immediate objectives. Parties that once worked together may suddenly become bitter opponents.

This is not unique to one political party.

PAS, DAP, UMNO, PKR, Bersatu and others have all, at different points in our political history, adjusted their alliances or positions in response to changing political realities. Each side explains its decision as being in the nation's interest. Sometimes those explanations may be genuine. Sometimes they may simply be political necessity.

That is the nature of politics.

The real question, therefore, is not whether politicians behave transactionally. Many do. The real question is whether citizens recognise it.

This is why voters must stop becoming emotionally attached to political parties and start paying closer attention to the individual candidate.

Before asking which party deserves our vote, we should first ask whether the person seeking to become our Member of Parliament deserves our trust.

• Is this person consistent?
• Does this person have integrity?
• Is this person competent?
• Does this person have the courage to speak up, even when it is uncomfortable?
• Will this person put the rakyat above party interests?

Only when we elect men and women of strong character can we begin to improve the quality of our politics. Good people can exist in any political party - or even as independents.

Take Wong Chen, Hassan Abdul Karim and Saifuddin Abdullah as contemporary examples. Voters may agree or disagree with the parties they belong to, or the political decisions they have made. That is perfectly legitimate. Yet many Malaysians regard them as politicians who are willing to speak their minds, ask difficult questions, and remain relatively consistent with their principles, even when it is uncomfortable.

In earlier generations, leaders such as Lee Lam Thye and Tan Chee Khoon earned public respect not merely because of the parties they represented, but because of their integrity, courage and commitment to the public interest.

These are the kinds of people we should be looking for.

Whether such individuals are in PAS, UMNO, DAP, PKR, Bersatu, MCA, Amanah, Bersama, or whether they contest as independents, should be secondary. Character should come first. Party should come second.

Strong institutions begin by electing strong individuals.

If politicians choose transactions, then the rakyat must choose values.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

 

BILA MASA UNTUK MENJADI MENTOR, COACH ATAU PENYELIA - Sinar Harian Hari Ini

 

BILA MASA UNTUK MENJADI MENTOR, COACH ATAU PENYELIA

Yang dihormati Kapten Industri,

Jika kita perhatikan mana-mana organisasi dengan teliti, satu corak yang sama akan jelas kelihatan. Antara perkara yang paling banyak membazirkan masa pengurus bukanlah beban kerja itu sendiri, tetapi bagaimana masa tersebut dibahagikan.

Ramai pemimpin menghabiskan terlalu banyak masa untuk melayan pekerja yang berprestasi rendah. Selalunya, ini bermula dengan niat yang baik. Mereka mahu membantu, mahu mendidik, dan mahu dilihat sebagai pemimpin yang sentiasa menyokong. Namun, kita harus bertanya: adakah tindakan ini benar-benar membawa kebaikan kepada kejayaan organisasi?

Hakikatnya, kebanyakan pengurus gagal bukan kerana mereka kurang berusaha. Mereka gagal kerana mereka menggunakan pendekatan yang salah, pada masa yang salah, dan kepada orang yang salah. Kepimpinan bukan sekadar tentang niat yang baik, tetapi tentang kebolehan membuat keputusan yang tepat untuk individu yang tepat pada masa yang sesuai.

Menghabiskan masa yang lama untuk mengubah pekerja berprestasi rendah yang tiada minat mendedahkan kita kepada pulangan yang sangat sedikit. Alihkan masa yang sama itu kepada seseorang yang sedia belajar dan berkembang, dan anda akan melihat hasil yang berlipat kali ganda.

Sebagai Pemimpin, ini bukanlah sesuatu yang boleh kita biarkan begitu sahaja. Kita mesti mengatur bagaimana masa dan perhatian kepimpinan digunakan di seluruh organisasi kita. Kita perlu memastikan para pemimpin kita menjadi mentor kepada Sang Kuda Liar agar berlari lebih pantas, menjadi pembimbing (coach) kepada Sang Helang agar terbang lebih tinggi, dan menyelia dengan sewajarnya mereka yang masih belum bersedia.

Semuanya beraluh dengan melihat pekerja kita secara objektif. Penilaian yang matang mestilah bersandarkan kepada kapasiti, prestasi semasa, dan potensi masa hadapan mereka.

MENGGUNAKAN LENGKUNG BELL (BELL CURVE)

Dalam kebanyakan organisasi, taburan prestasi pekerja biasanya mengikut corak yang serupa. Walaupun tidaklah 100% tepat, model lengkung bell asas dapat membantu kita melihat kedudukan pekerja dengan lebih jelas.

• Kelompok Atasan (10%): Mereka sentiasa memberikan hasil kerja yang cemerlang dan sering melangkaui jangkaan. Ini adalah pekerja gred A dan B+. Mereka sukar dicari, sangat berkebolehan, dan sering menjadi pemacu utama kepada kejayaan besar organisasi.
• Kelompok Bawahan (10%): Mereka bergelut untuk memenuhi piawaian minimum. Ini adalah pekerja gred E. Mereka berdepan dengan masalah kompetensi serta isu sikap, dan sering memerlukan penyeliaan yang ketat.
• Kelompok Pertengahan (80%): Cabaran sebenar terletak pada kumpulan ini. Kelompok ini terlalu besar dan terlalu pelbagai untuk dilayan dengan cara yang sama. Untuk memimpin dengan berkesan, kita mesti membahagikan kumpulan pertengahan ini kepada tiga segmen:
• Segmen Atas-Pertengahan (Anggaran 15%): Mereka berada hampir dengan kelompok atas. Ini adalah individu gred B dan C+. Mereka adalah penyumbang yang kuat, tidak jauh daripada kenaikan pangkat, dan merupakan rantaian bakat masa depan yang sangat penting.
• Segmen Teras (Anggaran 50%): Kumpulan terbesar yang menjadi tunjang kestabilan. Ini adalah pekerja gred C. Mereka memastikan kestabilan, kelangsungan, dan kebolehpercayaan operasi. Mereka bekerja seperti yang diharapkan. Walaupun tidak semua beraspirasi untuk naik pangkat, peranan mereka tetap penting. Peranan pemimpin di sini adalah untuk mengekalkan prestasi mereka dan, jika boleh, melonjakkannya sedikit demi sedikit.

Di sinilah pemimpin perlu belajar cara berinteraksi dan berunding dengan berkesan. Lagipun, pekerja gred C sudah memberikan apa yang kita minta, dan mereka bekerja mengikut jangkaan. Cabarannya adalah untuk berunding dengan mereka untuk memberikan kelebihan sedikit. Bukan secara drastik, memadai sekadar tambahan 5 hingga 10 peratus. Jika sebahagian kecil daripada kumpulan ini beralih ke gred C+, impaknya amat besar kerana saiz kumpulan ini yang besar.

• Segmen Bawah-Pertengahan (Anggaran 15%): Mereka berada sedikit sahaja di atas kelompok bawahan. Ini adalah pekerja gred C- dan D. Prestasi mereka tidak menentu. Kadang-kadang mereka boleh bekerja dengan baik, tetapi mereka kurang disiplin dan konsistensi. Jika dibiarkan tanpa perhatian, prestasi mereka berisiko merosot dengan lebih teruk.

Apabila kita melihat situasi ini dengan jelas, beberapa hakikat mula timbul:

Pekerja gred A dan B+ sukar dicari dan lebih sukar untuk dikekalkan. Namun, mereka sangat penting untuk memacu prestasi dan inovasi. Kelompok B dan C+ pula sering terlepas pandang; sedangkan realitinya, mereka adalah pelapis bakat yang paling penting. Dengan kaedah pembangunan yang betul, mereka boleh dibentuk menjadi pekerja berprestasi tinggi masa hadapan dan lebih cenderung untuk setia serta berkembang bersama organisasi.

Pekerja gred C adalah tulang belakang kepada pelaksanaan kerja. Kelompok C- dan D pula memerlukan struktur dan disiplin untuk menstabilkan prestasi mereka. Manakala pekerja di kedudukan paling bawah memerlukan penyeliaan yang tegas.

Sebaik sahaja kita melihat pekerja kita melalui lensa ini, kita mesti menerima satu hakikat mudah: Bukan semua orang boleh dipimpin dengan cara yang sama.

MODEL TIGA TOPI – MENTOR, COACH, DAN PENYELIA

Sebelum memutuskan bila masa untuk memegang peranan sebagai mentor, coach, atau penyelia, kita mesti jelas tentang apa yang diperlukan oleh setiap peranan tersebut.

• Apabila kita memakai topi sebagai MENTOR: Peranan kita adalah untuk membimbing dan membangunkan individu melangkaui tugas hakiki mereka. Mentor berfokuskan hubungan peribadi dan bersifat jangka panjang. Ia adalah tentang membentuk jati diri dan sahsiah individu, bukan sekadar memperbaiki prestasi kerja. Proses ini berlaku melalui interaksi berkala yang bermakna dan biasanya dimulakan oleh pekerja itu sendiri. Mentor membantu individu melihat potensi atau ruang yang mungkin tidak dilihat di mata mereka sendiri.
• Apabila kita memakai topi sebagai COACH: Fokus kita beralih kepada usaha meningkatkan prestasi kerja. Sesi bimbingan (coaching) ini berfokuskan tugasan dan khusus kepada skop kerja. Proses ini memerlukan paling banyak masa dan perhatian daripada seorang pemimpin. Ia melibatkan interaksi kerap untuk membina kemahiran, merapatakn jurang kompetensi, dan membawa individu ke tahap yang seterusnya.
• Apabila kita memakai topi sebagai PENYELIA (SUPERVISOR): Peranan kita adalah untuk memastikan kerja-kerja yang dilakukan memenuhi piawaian yang ditetapkan. Penyeliaan bersifat mengarah dan berstructured. Ia perlu dilakukan secara serta-merta dan kerap, tetapi sepatutnya mengambil masa yang paling sedikit. Fokus utamanya adalah pada disiplin, kejelasan, dan memastikan standard minimum dipenuhi dengan cepat dan konsisten.

BILA MASA UNTUK MENJADI MENTOR, COACH, ATAU PENYELIA

Dengan pemahaman ini, sekarang kita boleh melihat dengan jelas bila masa untuk menerapkan setiap pendekatan tersebut.

• Untuk 10% Kelompok Atasan (Pekerja A dan B+): Peranan utama kita adalah sebagai mentor. Mereka tidak memerlukan arahan kerja. Apa yang mereka perlukan adalah perspektif baharu, cabaran, dan peluang perkembangan di luar skop peranan semasa mereka.
• Untuk 10% Kelompok Bawahan (Pekerja E): Peranan kita adalah sebagai penyelia. Fokus harus diberikan kepada disiplin, struktur, and standard minimum. Penyeliaan harus melibatkan sesi semakan yang kerap, pendek, dan berstruktur, tetapi jangan sampai ia memakan masa anda yang terlalu banyak. Objektifnya adalah untuk membawa mereka ke tahap yang diperlukan secepat mungkin. Dalam bahasa mudah: sama ada mereka meningkatkan prestasi, atau mereka keluar (shape up or shift out).

Kerja sebenar seorang pemimpin terletak pada 80% kelompok pertengahan.

• Untuk 15% Segmen Atas-Pertengahan (Pekerja B dan C+): Pendekatan hibrid (gabungan) amat diperlukan. Pemimpin mesti bertindak sebagai coach sekaligus mentor. Sesi bimbingan (coaching) membina keupayaan, manakala mentorship memberikan perspektif luas. Ini adalah saluran pelapis utama kita untuk menjadi pekerja berprestasi tinggi masa hadapan.
• Untuk 50% Segmen Teras (Pekerja C): Sesi bimbingan (coaching) adalah sangat kritikal. Di sinilah para pemimpin mesti melaburkan sebahagian besar masa mereka, atau menyerahkan tanggungjawab ini kepada pekerja senior yang berkebolehan. Membantu kumpulan ini meningkat, walaupun sedikit, akan memberikan impak yang sangat besar kepada organisasi.
• Untuk 15% Segmen Bawah-Pertengahan (Pekerja C- dan D): Satu lagi pendekatan hibrid diperlukan. Pemimpin mesti menggabungkan elemen bimbingan (coaching) dan penyeliaan. Bimbingan berfungsi membina kemahiran, manakala penyeliaan memastikan adanya disiplin dan konsistensi.

Di sinilah kepimpinan menuntut komitmen yang tinggi. Ia bukan tentang memilih satu gaya kepimpinan sahaja, tetapi tentang mengetahui bila masa untuk mengubah rentak, dan bila masa untuk menggabungkannya.

Para Pemimpin sekalian, inilah sebabnya mengapa sangat penting untuk pemimpin kita tahu bila masa untuk menjadi mentor, bila untuk melatih, dan bila untuk menyelia. Kebolehan untuk menerapkan pendekatan yang betul kepada orang yang betul pada masa yang tepat adalah garis pemisah antara seorang pengurus yang biasa dengan seorang pengurus-pemimpin yang luar biasa.

 

GE16 NARRATIVES (1): DEVELOPMENT MINUS CORRUPTION

 

GE16 NARRATIVES (1): DEVELOPMENT MINUS CORRUPTION

As Malaysia moves towards GE16, one important question deserves far more attention than who is attacking whom. Who gets to define the election narratives?

If we, the rakyat, do not define what truly matters, politicians will do it for us. And when politicians define the narratives, they may choose the issues that help them win elections rather than the issues that help Malaysia move forward. They manufacture fear. They may create issues that favor outrage that make us emotional so we fail to think rationally. They personalize politics, making us choose personalities instead of policies. They reduce complex national challenges into endless battles between personalities, political parties, races, and religions. In the end, Malaysians spend months arguing over politicians and political parties while the country's real problems receive far less attention.

We must take charge. Like in GE15, we must insist on real national issues that are important to the nation as a whole.

In the last election, we, the voters, managed to do something truly extraordinary. For decades, our voting styles have almost always been fragmented along lines of race, ethnicity, and religion. But in the last round, we broke the mold. We united around a core value: a shared, deep-seated disagreement with corruption. We made anti-corruption the main narrative, and it brought us together to create a great change. Unfortunately, it lasted only a few days before we were outmaneuvered by politicians who cared more about their own selves and power base. But we did prove one vital point: values can transcend communal divisions at the ballot box.

For the coming election, we must do the exact same thing. We need to kickstart the narrative-building process ourselves, and the very first narrative we must redefine is how we talk about corruption.

Let us be clear: we are not just talking about being against corruption in a vacuum. We want DEVELOPMENT MINUS CORRUPTION.

No sensible Malaysian is against development. We want the government to spend money. We want to excite the economy, build up the infrastructure, and elevate our standard of living. We want good schools, modern hospitals, efficient public transport, and world-class digital infrastructure. We need the economy to breathe, grow, and create meaningful, well-paying jobs for us and our children. But what we reject is corruption disguised as development. Development should exist entirely because it benefits the rakyat, not because it creates big projects designed to serve as a money-making agency for commissions, kickbacks, or political favors.

Why is corruption so destructive to this vision? Because it gets in the way of productivity. True productivity means using the least resources to produce the most results. Corruption does the exact opposite—it injects massive waste and guarantees that the wrong person gets the job. When contracts are awarded based on connections rather than competence, costs skyrocket, quality declines, and the final product is never up to par. Every single ringgit lost to a kickback is a ringgit that could have equipped a hospital or built a classroom.

To make development minus corruption work, we must update how we fight this battle.

True freedom means having a system where justice is entirely blind. Right now, our anti-corruption fight is perceived as deeply flawed because it changes based on who is in power. We seem stuck in a cycle where we only catch those who are not in power. Do we really need to change the government every five years just so one side can investigate the other? No. That is not a forward-moving nation. Until and unless we can break this cycle, Malaysia is not truly a free country. We are colonised by corruption!

We need a Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) that is completely independent and professional. They must do their job without wearing party colors. They must have the teeth and the autonomy to go after those currently in power just as fiercely as those who are out of power. When the government spends money on massive projects to stimulate the economy, we must have robust checks and balances during the execution phase. We need an independent MACC constantly hovering at the top - acting as a professional shield to catch anyone attempting to siphon public funds while the projects are underway.

Ultimately, laws and institutions are only the first line of defense. The final line of defense lies squarely on us, the individuals. While society can build legal frameworks, a nation cannot eliminate corruption through enforcement alone. It requires you and me to refuse to offer a bribe, refuse to accept one, and refuse to use backdoor influence - even if it is just to settle a police summons.

WHAT WE WANT FROM FUTURE MPs

If you are offering yourself as an MP in this coming election, you need to understand that the rules of engagement have changed. We are no longer buying into manufactured fear, race, or religion.

During this upcoming election campaign, this is what we want from you:

• Talk about development minus corruption. Do not give us vague promises of progress without explaining the guardrails. Show us your concrete plans for growth coupled with strict, professional checks and balances.
• Tell us how you will correct the mistakes. We want to hear exactly how you plan to fix the structural vulnerabilities that have allowed our national wealth to be siphoned for decades.
• Remove the uncertainties. Give us a reason to trust you. Prove to us that you are very, very clearly against corruption, while at the same time demonstrating the actual capability to build and develop this nation.
• Ensure we are not outmaneuvered again. Tell us how you will protect the mandate of the rakyat so that our desire for value-driven governance is never again hijacked by backroom political games.

We will only vote for those who can deliver on these fronts. Show us how you will deliver development without corruption. Because that is the kind of narrative worth fighting for, and that is the only kind of Malaysia worth voting for.

Anas Zubedy

Penang