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

 

IS CALLING IT THE "GREEN WAVE" A FORM OF CLOSET ISLAMOPHOBIA?

 

IS CALLING IT THE "GREEN WAVE" A FORM OF CLOSET ISLAMOPHOBIA?

We must revisit what happened immediately after GE15 in 2022 because we cannot afford to let history repeat itself. Millions of Malaysian voters - who went to the ballot box with hope and clear principles - found themselves outmaneuvered by political leaders whose primary hunger was for power.

When politicians readily compromise on their own core promises and manipulate public sentiment just to secure office, citizens must look back and dissect how it was done. Understanding the birth of the "Green Wave" myth is essential if we want to protect our democratic choices from being weaponized against us in the future.

Immediately after that election, I wrote that what Malaysia had witnessed was not a "Green Wave." I still hold that view today.

To understand why, we must look at what happened before Malaysians went to the polling stations during GE15.

For months leading up to the election, something remarkable was taking place. For the first time in decades, Malaysians from every race, religion, and background were talking about one issue above all else: corruption.

This conversation did not originate from politicians. It came from civil society, ordinary citizens, and religious organizations. One of the most significant efforts was led by #RasuahBusters through its Satu Jari campaign. Together with hundreds of NGOs, community organizations, and concerned citizens, they successfully pushed integrity and anti-corruption to the top of the national agenda.

The message cut across all faiths:

• In mosques: Friday sermons frequently reminded Muslims that corruption is a betrayal of amanah (trust).
• In churches: Sermons spoke about integrity and the moral responsibility to reject corrupt practices.
• In temples and gurdwaras: Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, and Taoist communities drew upon their own scriptures to emphasize honesty, justice, and ethical leadership.

Something extraordinary had happened. Malaysia was not united by ethnicity; we were united by values.

Every community expressed that conviction through their own lens. Muslims opposed corruption because they wanted to be good Muslims. Christians opposed it because they wanted to be good Christians. Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and Taoists did exactly the same to live up to their own spiritual teachings.

Different faiths. Different languages. One moral conclusion.

That is why I argued then - and still argue now - that GE15 was not a Green Wave. It was a Red, White, Blue and Yellow Malaysian Wave. It was millions of citizens arriving at the exact same ethical destination through different spiritual paths.

The Architecture of a Distraction

Then, almost immediately after the election, the national conversation was hijacked. The profound focus on corruption and integrity vanished overnight. A new label began to dominate the media and political commentary: the "Green Wave."

The person or group of persons who coined and popularized this term did a massive disservice - not just to Islam, but to the entire nation.

Malaysians are smart enough to look past the surface and ask: why was this label manufactured in the first place? What was the true intent behind it?

When we analyze the immediate aftermath of GE15, two political motivations become clear:

First, certain political actors realized a terrifying truth: if cross-cultural values, integrity, and anti-corruption became the primary drivers for voters, the old political playbook was dead. For decades, many had depended entirely on race and religious division to maintain power. A united Malaysian population voting on shared ethical principles meant these parties would lose their grip on the electorate. They needed to force the conversation back into the familiar territory of fear and identity politics.

Second, the label provided a convenient, manufactured crisis. In the post-election scramble for power, certain factions needed a powerful justification to go back on their solemn campaign promises. Just days prior, they were loudly campaigning against corruption and promising never to work with certain figures. Yet, suddenly, they were "buddy-buddy" and forming a government together.

To hide this hypocrisy, they needed an imaginary monster. By inventing and stoking the fear of a looming "Green Wave," they created the perfect pretext to justify their sudden political realignment. It allowed them to pretend they were saving the country, when in reality, they were simply securing power.

Let me be absolutely clear: I am not a member of any political party, and I am certainly not a member of PAS. But we must realize that when political opponents attack PAS by weaponizing Islam and using loaded terms like "Green Wave," it triggers a dangerous chain reaction. It distorts how non-Muslims view Islam, and it inevitably provokes a defensive reaction from Muslims who feel their faith is being demonized.

This is incredibly damaging for a nation like ours. If we want to build a Malaysia that genuinely accepts diversity, finds compromise, and seeks ways to harmonize our different religious beliefs and ethnic backgrounds, this calculated polarization must stop. When leaders pretend to forget their own principles and manufacture fear to cover their tracks, it reveals a profound lack of integrity. These are the maneuvers that should make citizens deeply cautious about the leadership we trust.

The Impact of the Label

Once the election results were successfully framed as a Green Wave, the story was no longer about millions of Malaysians rejecting corruption. Instead, attention was forced onto one community, one religion, and one color. The narrative moved from shared values back to identity politics. From unity back to division.

Public discussion stopped asking why Malaysians had united against corruption and instead began debating whether this "Green Wave" was something to be feared.

This double standard remains deeply troubling:

• If Christians vote against corruption based on Christian values, nobody calls it a "Christian Wave."
• If Buddhists vote against corruption based on Buddhist values, nobody calls it a "Buddhist Wave."
• If Hindus or Sikhs vote based on their teachings, nobody labels it a "Hindu or Sikh Wave."

So why, when Muslims vote according to Islamic values against corruption, does it suddenly get labeled a "Green Wave"? Were they not simply trying to be good Muslims, just as others were trying to be faithful to the moral teachings of their own traditions?

When a political label repeatedly associates a democratic choice with a color strongly identified with Islam - and frames that choice as an existential threat - does it merely describe reality? Or does it actively encourage people to associate Islam with fear?

That is why I ask whether calling GE15 the "Green Wave" became a form of closet Islamophobia.

I am not suggesting that every person who uses the term intends it maliciously. But the effect of the term is undeniable: it shifts the public consciousness away from a cross-cultural rejection of corruption and replaces it with suspicion toward one religious community.

Malaysia deserves better than this lazy, divisive framing. Our greatest achievement in GE15 was not which coalition won or lost. It was that, for a brief moment, Malaysians from every race and faith found common moral ground.

That is the wave we should choose to remember.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

Penang

 

UMNO MALAYS AND CINA DAP?

 

UMNO MALAYS AND CINA DAP?

As the Johor state election approaches, one thing has become increasingly obvious: UMNO and DAP have once again managed to dominate the political narrative. It is almost as though Johor is witnessing the same old political battle that Malaysians have been fed for decades.

But Johor 2026 is not the Johor of the past.

This election is not simply Barisan Nasional versus Pakatan Harapan, nor merely UMNO versus DAP.

Johoreans will also choose among candidates from Perikatan Nasional and Pakatan Harapan with myriad of political parties - PAS, Bersatu, PKR, Amanah, MUDA, Wawasan, BERSAMA and other political parties, as well as independents. There are more players, more choices and more political ideas than ever before. Yet somehow, we are once again being drawn back into the familiar UMNO-DAP storyline.

Why?

Because once politics becomes an UMNO-DAP contest, racial narratives inevitably return. Before long, we hear phrases such as "UMNO Malays" and "Cina DAP" being casually thrown around.

That should concern every Malaysian.

Both terms, when used maliciously, are racist remarks. Adding a political label before the words Malay or Chinese does not suddenly make racism acceptable. It merely disguises it.

I know many UMNO Malays who are decent, fair-minded and genuinely believe in a multi-racial Malaysia. Likewise, I know many Cina DAP who reject racism and sincerely want what they believe is best for the country. Political membership does not determine whether someone is racist.

Unfortunately, many closet racists have discovered a convenient way to hide their prejudice.

Instead of attacking Malays, they attack "UMNO Malays."

Instead of attacking Chinese, they attack "Cina DAP."

It sounds political.

It sounds sophisticated.

But often, it is nothing more than racism dressed in political clothing.

It is an effective political strategy because politicians and their supporters can pander to racial sentiments while maintaining the appearance of being non-racist. They simply claim they are criticising supporters of a political party. Yet the message received by many people extends far beyond politics.

The labels "UMNO Malays" and "Cina DAP" have become convenient political weapons. They allow racial prejudice to be propagated while hiding behind a supposedly multi-racial façade.

That may well be the most dangerous form of racial politics because it is subtle, indirect and easily denied.

Malaysians should reject this tactic regardless of who uses it.

Whether it comes from UMNO, DAP, PKR, PAS, Bersatu, Amanah, WAWASAN, BERSAMA, MUDA or any other political party should make no difference.

Racism remains racism.

As Johor prepares to vote, let us not fall into the trap of believing this election is simply another chapter in the endless UMNO-DAP rivalry. There are many parties. There are many candidates. More importantly, there is only one Malaysia.

Let us reject racial labels. Let us reject targeted racial politics. It is not good for UMNO or DAP either if they truly aspire to lead Malaysia and be seen as national parties, rather than parties identified primarily with one community.Let us judge every candidate by integrity, competence and ideas - not race.

Malaysia deserves nothing less.

Anas Zubedy
Penang

 

IDIOT'S GUIDE TO MALAYSIAN POLITICS :)

 

IDIOT'S GUIDE TO MALAYSIAN POLITICS :)

Note : Wrote this in March 2013. Do you think it is still relevant today?

1. Cronyism is only wrong when it is practised by the other side.
2. Corruption is only wrong when it is practised by the other side. But if he or she joins us, everything becomes halal again.
3. If it was the ABC Government that proposed an underground tunnel in Penang, XYZ would oppose it  - and vice versa.
4. Factories are dangerous when the other side builds them - and vice versa.
5. When the other side talks about race, they are racist. When we talk about race, it's because we care.
6. Big projects are wasteful ONLY IF they are mooted by the other side. When we moot them, it's smart economics.
7. A Satan is a Satan as long as he is on the other side. Join us, and immediately Satan becomes an angel.
8. If you are not with us, you are against us  - even if you are right.
9. My party and I speak on behalf of God. If you don't follow us, you will go to hell.
10. All my leaders are smart; all your leaders are idiots.
11. When my children move up the political ladder, they are smart. When your children do the same, it's nepotism.
12. My research shows we have more support and will win the next general election. Your research that says otherwise must have been done wrongly.
13. My forensic expert is better than your forensic expert.
14. When our two leaders debate, my leader will always be better, no matter how stupid he or she sounds.
15. My ulamak is better than your ulamak, even if my ulamak never quotes the Quran.
16. Our idiots are smarter than your experts.
17. When I disagree, it is democracy. When you disagree, you are rude, stupid, bought over, influenced, etc., etc.
18. Green is blue when you say it. Blue is green when I say it.
19. When I give handouts, it is because I care. When the other side does it, they are buying votes.
20. Only jokes about the other side are funny.

Note: Siapa makan cili, dia terasa pedasnya.

Anas Zubedy
(March 2013)

KERUSI AHLI PARLIMEN BUKAN HAK MILIK PERIBADI - Sinar Harian 20/06/26

 

KERUSI AHLI PARLIMEN BUKAN HAK MILIK PERIBADI

Perkembangan mutakhir yang melibatkan Rafizi Ramli dan Nik Nazmi telah membangkitkan satu persoalan demokrasi yang sangat fundamental untuk kita renungkan bersama: Siapakah pemilik sebenar kerusi seseorang Ahli Parlimen (MP)? Adakah ia milik mutlak ahli politik itu sendiri, kepunyaan parti yang diwakilinya, atau hakiki milik rakyat yang telah mengundi mereka?

Bagi saya, jawapannya cukup jelas. Seseorang MP atau ADUN mungkin bertanding di bawah panji sesebuah parti, namun sebaik sahaja mereka dipilih, kesetiaan dan tanggungjawab utama mereka adalah kepada para pengundi yang telah memberikan kepercayaan. Prinsip inilah yang membentuk tiang seri sesebuah sistem demokrasi.

Antara Keabsahan Teknikal dan Keabsahan Moral

Dari sudut perundangan dan perlembagaan, Malaysia mengamalkan sistem Parlimen Westminster. Secara teknikal, setelah dipilih, seseorang MP tidak terikat di sisi undang-undang untuk menuruti setiap kehendak pengundi; sebaliknya mereka tertakluk kepada Perlembagaan Persekutuan, peraturan mesyuarat parlimen, dan disiplin parti.

Namun, kita harus beringat bahawa demokrasi tidak terbina di atas keabsahan teknikal semata-mata, melainkan di atas keabsahan moral (moral legitimacy). Dari segi moral, mandat yang dipegang oleh seseorang wakil rakyat datangnya langsung daripada rakyat.

Atas dasar itulah undang-undang antilompat parti diperkenalkan di Malaysia, selepas kita mengharungi fasa ketidakstabilan politik yang panjang akibat tindakan berpaling tadah dan percaturan sang penguasa. Semangat sebenar di sebalik undang-undang tersebut adalah untuk memastikan mandat pengundi tidak sewenang-wenangnya diperlekehkan pasca-pilihan raya. Ini secara tidak langsung mengiktiraf bahawa kerusi yang dimenangi bukanlah harta peribadi seseorang ahli politik.

Membezakan Letak Jawatan Parti dan Kosongkan Kerusi

Oleh itu, kita perlu membezakan secara jelas antara tindakan meletak jawatan daripada parti politik dengan tindakan mengosongkan kerusi Parlimen atau DUN. Kedua-dua perkara ini tidak sama.

• Jika seseorang MP tidak lagi sehaluan dengan pucuk pimpinan, tidak bersetuju dengan hala tuju perjuangan, atau berasa tidak lagi serasi dengan dinamika parti, mereka mempunyai hak sepenuhnya untuk keluar atau meletak jawatan daripada parti tersebut. Itu adalah hak politik individu.
• Namun, tindakan mengosongkan kerusi adalah perkara yang jauh berbeza. Dari sudut moral, kerusi tersebut membawa amanah dan mandat demokrasi rakyat. Sebab itulah ahli politik tidak boleh sewenang-wenangnya mengosongkan kerusi Parlimen atau DUN semata-mata disebabkan oleh krisis dalaman parti, perebutan kuasa, pergolakan puak, atau pelan strategi politik sesama mereka.

Sekiranya wujud perjanjian dalaman parti yang menetapkan bahawa sesiapa yang keluar parti perlu membayar denda kompensasi—sama ada RM10 juta atau apa-apa jumlah sekalipun—maka itu adalah urusan komersial dan kontrak peribadi antara ahli politik tersebut dengan partinya. Rakyat tidak sepatutnya dijadikan 'mangsa keadaan' (collateral damage) akibat aturan politik dalaman sedemikian.

Jika seseorang wakil rakyat mahu keluar parti kerana tidak lagi sehaluan, mereka harus menanggung sendiri implikasinya secara peribadi, termasuk membayar apa-apa penalti yang telah dipersetujui dalam 'kontrak perniagaan politik' mereka. Mandat awam yang telah diberikan oleh pengundi tidak boleh dikorbankan separuh jalan hanya kerana kemelut dalaman parti.

Kesan Kepada Pengundi dan Isyarat Bahaya Kepada Demokrasi

Perkara ini menjadi lebih kritikal sekiranya peletakan jawatan itu berlaku selepas dua tahun pertama pilihan raya umum. Mengikut amalan semasa, apabila tempoh Parlimen sudah menghampiri penghujungnya, kekosongan kerusi tidak semestinya akan membawa kepada Pilihan Raya Kecil (PRK).

Dalam situasi sebegini, kawasan Parlimen berkenaan akan terbiar tanpa mempunyai wakil rakyat untuk tempoh tertentu, hanya disebabkan oleh percaturan politik yang langsung tiada kena-mengena dengan kebajikan pengundi. Ini satu penganiayaan. Rakyat turun mengundi untuk diwakili bagi tempoh satu penggal penuh, bukannya untuk kehilangan suara akibat perselisihan faham atau perkiraan strategik sesebuah parti politik.

Jika tidak, apakah mesej yang sedang kita sampaikan kepada rakyat Malaysia?

1. Adakah undi mereka tidak sepenting rundingan bilik belakang parti?
2. Adakah percaturan politik dalam kalangan elit lebih utama daripada mandat rakyat?

Ini adalah isyarat yang sangat berbahaya kepada sistem demokrasi kita. Apabila wakil rakyat mula menganggap kerusi yang dimenangi sebagai alat permainan catur politik dan bukannya amanah, lambat-laun rakyat akan hilang kepercayaan kepada sistem pilihan raya itu sendiri.

Keperluan Undang-Undang yang Lebih Tegas

Mungkin sudah tiba masanya untuk Malaysia memikirkan secara serius undang-undang yang lebih tegas mengenai perkara ini. Sekiranya seseorang wakil rakyat mengosongkan kerusi secara sukarela atas sebab perselisihan politik dalaman, pergolakan puak, atau aturan peribadi parti, maka individu tersebut sewajarnya dilarang daripada bertanding semula sekurang-kurangnya untuk satu atau dua kitaran pilihan raya akan datang. Tindakan mengosongkan kerusi tanpa sebab yang kukuh mendatangkan implikasi dan kos yang amat besar kepada negara, antaranya:

• Kos Kewangan: Belanja besar untuk menguruskan PRK yang tidak sepatutnya berlaku.
• Kos Pentadbiran: Pembaziran sumber manusia dan logistik agensi kerajaan.
• Ketidakstabilan Politik: Mengganggu fokus tadbir urus negara.
• Kelesuan Emosi Awam (Public Fatigue): Rakyat menjadi mual dan muak dengan kerenah politik.
• Gangguan Khidmat Kawasan: Terjejaskanya kebajikan dan penyampaian bantuan kepada penduduk setempat.

Dan yang paling utama, ia mencemari kesucian mandat yang telah diamanahkan oleh para pengundi.

Kesimpulan

Sudah tentu, ini bukan bermakna MP atau ADUN langsung tidak boleh melepaskan jawatan mereka. Wujud sebab-sebab munasabah yang boleh diterima akal, seperti masalah kesihatan yang serius, ketidakupayaan fizikal untuk berkhidmat, pelanggaran etika dan salah laku yang berat, atau situasi peribadi mendesak yang benar-benar menghalang mereka daripada menjalankan tugas. Itu sesuatu yang kita fahami.

Namun, politik dalaman parti sama sekali tidak boleh dijadikan alasan mudah untuk memulangkan kembali mandat awam yang telah diamanahkan oleh ribuan pengundi.

Mungkin erti 'reformasi' pada hari ini bukan lagi sekadar menukar kerajaan atau mengubah gabungan politik. Reformasi hari ini menuntut kita untuk memperkukuh dan menjaga kesucian mandat rakyat itu sendiri. Kerana pada akhirnya, kita perlu sedar dan beringat: kerusi seorang Ahli Parlimen tidak sesekali boleh dilayan seperti harta milik peribadi.

Salam

Anas Zubedy

 

 

AMERICA HAS THE CARDS. IRAN HAS THE TRUMP.

AMERICA HAS THE CARDS. IRAN HAS THE TRUMP.

President Donald Trump and his team, including Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio, like to use card metaphors.

"Iran doesn't have the cards." "They don't hold a strong hand." "We have the cards."

Whether discussing war, sanctions, or negotiations, the poker metaphor comes up repeatedly. It reflects the American strategic mindset. Americans love poker, so they think in terms of hands, bluffs, and leverage.

But there is an irony here.

Iran is unlikely to be intimidated by poker talk of hands, bluffs, and leverage. Their civilisation has been playing card games much longer. Long before the idea of an America existed. Well before Christopher Columbus.

Historians believe playing cards originated in China. They invented paper. From there, they travelled west through Central Asia and reached Persia. Sitting at the crossroads of East and West, Persia was likely one of the major routes through which card games eventually reached Europe, and later, North America. Long before poker became an American pastime, cards passed through Persia.

Which brings us back to today.

One of Iran's most popular traditional card games is Hokm.

The word hokm means authority, command, decree or, in the game of cards, TRUMP! In the game, it refers specifically to "the trump suit" - the suit that beats cards that would otherwise be stronger. In Hokm, a weak card in the trump suit can defeat a powerful card from another suit.

The lesson is simple: having the trump matters more than just having more cards. In modern politics, that is called leverage. In military language, it is called asymmetric strategy.

American politicians say success belongs to whoever has the cards. The Iranians play a game that teaches that having the cards is useful, but having the hokm - the Trump - is what wins.

Each time President Trump says Iran doesn't have the cards, many Iranians are probably smiling to themselves. They have been playing Hokm for generations.

Because they know that America may have the cards.

But Iran has the Trump. 😊

Peace, Anas Zubedy