WHEN TO MENTOR, COACH OR SUPERVISE - STARBIZ 13/06/26

Dear Captains,

If we observe carefully across organisations, a consistent pattern emerges. One of the biggest drains on managerial time is not the workload itself, but how that time is allocated.

Many leaders spend a disproportionate amount of time dealing with low performers. This often comes from good intentions. They want to help. They want to nurture. They want to be seen as supportive leaders. But we must ask: is this truly in line with the organisation’s success?

The truth is, most managers do not fail because they lack effort. They fail because they apply the wrong approach, at the wrong time, to the wrong person. Leadership is not just about intention. It is about making the right judgment calls for the right individual at the right time.

Spending excessive time trying to change an uninterested low performer brings limited returns. Redirect that same time to someone ready to learn and grow, and the results can be exponential.

As Captains, this is not something we can leave to chance. We must guide how leadership time and attention are used across our organisations. We must ensure that our leaders mentor stallions to run faster, coach eagles to fly higher, and appropriately supervise those who are not yet ready.

We begin by seeing our people clearly. Sound judgment must be based on capacity, actual performance, and future potential.

USING THE BELL CURVE

In most organisations, performance follows a familiar pattern. While not exact, a basic bell curve helps us see our people more clearly.

At the top, about 10 percent consistently deliver and often exceed expectations. These are our A and B-plus performers. They are rare, highly capable, and often drive disproportionate results. At the bottom, another 10 percent struggle to meet minimum standards. These are our E performers. They face both capability and attitude challenges and often require close supervision.

The real challenge lies in the 80 percent in between. This group is too large and too varied to be treated as one. To lead effectively, we must break this middle into three segments.

First, about 15 percent sit close to the top. These are our B and C-plus individuals. They are strong contributors, not far from moving up, and represent a critical pool of future talent.

Next, the largest group, about 50 percent, forms the steady core. These are our C performers. They ensure stability, continuity, and reliability. They perform as expected. While not all aspire to move up, they remain essential. The role of leadership here is to sustain performance and, where possible, lift it incrementally.

This is where leaders must learn to engage and negotiate effectively. After all, C performers are already giving us exactly what we asked for. They are performing as expected.

This is where strong negotiation skills become important. The challenge is to negotiate for a little more. Not dramatically more. Just an additional five to ten percent. If even a portion of this group moves towards C+, the impact is significant. Because this is the largest segment of the workforce, small gains across a large group create meaningful organisational improvement.

Finally, about 15 percent sit just above the lower end. These are our C-minus and D performers. They are inconsistent. At times, they may perform well, but they lack discipline and consistency. Left unattended, they risk declining further.

When we see this clearly, several truths emerge.

A and B-plus performers are difficult to find and even harder to retain. Yet they remain critical to performance and innovation. The B and C-plus group is often overlooked. In reality, this is our most important talent pipeline. With the right development, they can grow into future high performers and are more likely to stay and grow with the organisation.

C performers are the backbone of execution. The C−minus and D group requires structure and discipline to stabilise performance. And our lowest performers require firm supervision.

Once we see our people through this lens, we must accept a simple truth. Not everyone should be led the same way.

THE THREE HATS MODEL – MENTOR, COACH, AND SUPERVISOR

Before deciding when to mentor, coach, or supervise, we must be clear on what each role requires.

When we wear the hat of a mentor, our role is to guide and develop the individual beyond immediate tasks. Mentoring is relationship-focused and long-term. It is about shaping the person, not just improving performance. It happens through periodic, meaningful engagement and often begins with the talent. The mentor helps the individual see what they may not yet see.

When we wear the hat of a coach, our role shifts to improving performance. Coaching is task-focused and job-specific. It requires the most time and attention from leaders. It involves regular interaction to build skills, close gaps, and move individuals to the next level.

When we wear the hat of a supervisor, our role is to ensure that work meets required standards. Supervision is directive and structured. It is immediate and frequent, but should take the least amount of time. The focus is on discipline, clarity, and ensuring minimum standards are met quickly and consistently.

WHEN TO MENTOR, COACH, OR SUPERVISE

With this understanding, we can now be clear on when to apply each approach.

At the top 10 percent, our A and B-plus performers, the primary role is to mentor. These individuals do not need instruction. They need perspective, challenge, and growth beyond their current role.

At the bottom 10 percent, the role is to supervise. The focus is on discipline, structure, and minimum standards. Supervision should consist of frequent, short, structured check-ins, but it should not consume excessive time. The objective is to bring them up to the required level as quickly as possible. Put simply, the goal is to shape them up or shift them out.

The real work of leadership lies in the 80 percent in between.

For the 15 percent just below the top, our B and C-plus group, a hybrid approach is required. Leaders must both coach and mentor. Coaching builds capability, while mentoring provides perspective. This is our most important pipeline into future high performers and talents.

At the centre, the 50 percent C performers, coaching is critical. This is where leaders must invest most of their time, or delegate the responsibility to capable seniors. Improving this group, even marginally, creates significant organisational impact.

For the 15 percent just above the lower end, our C−minus and D group, another hybrid is required. Leaders must combine coaching and supervision. Coaching builds skill, while supervision ensures discipline and consistency.

This is where leadership becomes demanding. It is not about choosing one style, but about knowing when to shift, and when to combine.

Dear Captains, this is why it is critical that our leaders know when to mentor, when to coach, and when to supervise. The ability to apply the right approach to the right person at the right time is what separates an average manager from an effective leader-manager. 

Peace,

anas zubedy

 For previous StarBiz articles go here - https://letusaddvalue.blogspot.com/2026/05/purpose-before-productivity-most.html 

 

MALAY UNITY OR MALAYSIAN UNITY?

  

Dear Fellow Malaysians,

Following my recent article, "Why Malaysians Should Support Malay Unity," several readers raised an important and very fair question: "Why focus on Malay unity? Shouldn't we focus on Malaysian unity instead?"

It deserves a thoughtful response.

As someone who has spent much of my adult life investing time, energy, resources, and attention toward promoting Malaysian unity, I naturally support the idea of a more united Malaysia. In fact, that has been a central theme of my work for many years - including the very article in question.

Let me explain the connection.

Many Malaysians unintentionally overlook a simple reality: the Malays are Malaysians too.

This may sound obvious, but it is a point that is often forgotten in our public discourse. In fact, I remember writing and speaking about this more than a decade ago. The tendency to treat "Malay" and "Malaysian" as though they belong to entirely different, mutually exclusive categories is not new. It is understandable, but unfortunate. Over time, we have cultivated an ethnic-based mental model that rigidly governs our worldview.

When we talk about Malay unity, we are not talking about a group that exists outside the Malaysian family. We are talking about a community that forms the clear majority of Malaysians.

The mathematics is straightforward. If Malays constitute more than 50 percent (and rising) of the population, then discussions about Malay unity are inevitably discussions about Malaysian unity. The two cannot be completely separated. Simply put, there will never be true national cohesion without Malay unity.

This does not mean that Malay unity alone is sufficient to create Malaysian unity. It is not.

Malaysia’s ultimate strength depends on all of its communities. It depends on unity among Malays, Chinese, Indians, Sabahans, Sarawakians, and Orang Asli communities - and, most importantly, unity across these communities. However, it is difficult to imagine a highly united Malaysia if its largest community is deeply fragmented into warring factions. A nation cannot ignore the internal cohesion of its majority population and still expect to achieve broad, stable national cohesion.

That is why I do not see Malay unity and Malaysian unity as competing ideas. Rather, they are deeply interconnected.

Malaysian unity remains the larger, ultimate goal. But Malay unity is one of the indispensable building blocks that helps make that goal achievable. To put it simply, one cannot remove the majority of the equation and still expect the mathematics to work.

The real question, therefore, is not whether we should pursue Malay unity or Malaysian unity. The more useful and constructive question is: How can Malay unity contribute positively to Malaysian unity?

That, I believe, is the conversation worth having.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to share their views on my last piece. Our willingness to engage, disagree, express our emotions, and lean into difficult conversations is healthy. What matters is that we do so with adab (mutual respect and courtesy).

If we can continue to give each other feedback and disagree respectfully, it will be a positive step not only for Malaysian unity, but toward building a more meaningful and successful Malaysia.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

 

WHY MALAYSIANS SHOULD SUPPORT MALAY UNITY

  

Malay unity is for Malaysia, not just for the Malays. Let me explain.

Since before Merdeka, the call and quest for Malay unity has been championed almost exclusively by Malays. Furthermore, for many years, discussions surrounding Malay unity have revolved strictly around elections, political parties, coalitions, parliamentary seats, and power. While these discussions are undoubtedly important, they are far too narrow.

The real question is not whether Malays should unite. The real question is why.

My answer is simple: Malay unity should be pursued because it contributes directly to the long-term stability, prosperity, and success of Malaysia. As such, it is a Malaysian concern, not just a Malay one.

This is especially critical because Bumiputeras, particularly Malays, will remain the largest community in the country for the foreseeable future. In fact, demographic trends suggest they will form an even larger proportion of the population over time. The issue here is not whether this trend is inherently good or bad. Demography is simply demography. The real question is what kind of political dynamics and behavior will emerge from that demographic reality.

If the majority community becomes increasingly united around nation-building, leadership development, institutional strength, economic progress, and social stability, then Malaysia stands to benefit enormously. However, if a larger majority becomes increasingly fragmented into competing political centers that rely heavily on ethnic and religious outbidding to win support, the consequences will become increasingly serious for the nation as a whole.

Lessons From History: Sri Lanka’s Ethnic Outbidding

Those who follow politics - and perhaps many middle-aged and older Malaysian Tamils - may remember the Sri Lankan experience and understand why it deserves our close attention.

When Sri Lanka gained independence, the Sinhalese formed roughly three-quarters of the population; they were the overwhelming majority. The Tamil minority made up less than one-fifth. Yet over time, political competition between the two major Sinhalese parties increasingly revolved around who could appear more protective of Sinhalese interests. Instead of competing primarily on governance, economic development, institution-building, and national progress, politicians found it easier to exploit ethnic issues.

Gradually, a dangerous incentive emerged: whoever sounded more pro-Sinhalese gained votes. Moderation began to look like weakness. Compromise became politically risky. The political reward increasingly went to those who could project themselves as the strongest defenders of Sinhalese identity and interests.

The irony was that the Tamil minority, despite being much smaller in number, increasingly became a political football in the competition between the two rival Sinhalese parties. Tamil issues became tools through which one Sinhalese party attempted to outbid the other. As this continued, ethnic tensions deepened, and trust eroded.

The consequences did not stop there. Many Tamils began to feel that moderation was producing few results. If compromise brought little progress, why remain moderate? Over time, more hardline voices gained influence within the Tamil community. Tamil groups and leaders also began competing among themselves over who could better defend Tamil interests and aspirations.

What began as Sinhalese parties outbidding other Sinhalese parties gradually evolved into Tamil groups outbidding other Tamil groups as well. The political center shrank. Moderates on both sides became weaker, while hardliners grew stronger. Eventually, the country paid a terrible price.

The lesson is not that majorities are dangerous or that minorities are problematic. The lesson is that when political competition revolves around ethnic identity rather than governance, institution-building, economic development, and nation-building, every community is eventually pulled into the same destructive cycle of outbidding.

The Fragmented Malaysian Landscape

Malaysia is not Sri Lanka. Our history is different, our institutions are different, and our social fabric is unique. However, political incentives matter—and we can already "smell" the smoke of Sri Lankan-style ethnic outbidding here at home.

For much of our post-independence history, UMNO functioned as the dominant political center among Malays. Today, the political landscape is fragmented. Malays now support multiple political centers, including UMNO, PAS, Bersatu, PKR, Amanah, and others.

Competition itself is not the problem. Healthy competition can generate new ideas, produce new leaders, and improve accountability. The danger arises when competition begins rewarding ethnic and religious outbidding. Instead of asking who can strengthen education, improve productivity, develop talent, reform institutions, or grow the economy, politicians may increasingly ask who is "more Malay," who is "more Islamic," or who is more willing to defend the community against perceived external threats.

When this happens, issues that should be resolved through competent administration and good governance quickly morph into existential ethnic or religious disputes.

• A pig farming issue becomes a Malay-Chinese conflict.
• An educational decision, like introducing Khat into the syllabus, becomes a communal battlefield.
• A local administrative matter becomes a crisis of national identity.
• An operational problem becomes a communal provocation.

The dynamic does not stop there. When one community begins outbidding internally, other communities naturally respond in kind. Within the Malay community, parties compete to demonstrate who is the stronger defender of Malay and Islamic interests. Within the Chinese community, parties may increasingly compete to demonstrate who is the fiercer defender of Chinese interests—a dynamic we have seen throughout the histories of DAP and MCA.

Each side reacts to the other. Each side hardens its position. Each side becomes more suspicious. Gradually, the political center begins to shrink.

The biggest loser is not the Malays, the Chinese, the Indians, the Kadazans, Ibans, Muruts, Kayans, Bidayuhs, or Kelabits. The biggest loser is Malaysia.

Instead of discussing how to create a stronger economy, a more productive workforce, a world-class education system, a professional public sector, or a larger pool of future leaders, we spend our collective time debating issues through rigid ethnic and religious lenses. This is precisely why we need to support Malay unity: we want less ethnic and religious outbidding, and more focus on building a successful nation.

Defining Malay Unity Correctly

Malay unity is not an end goal. It is a platform.

It is a platform that helps the Malay community consistently produce capable leaders, strong institutions, and a stable environment that benefits all Malaysians. The ultimate objective is not Malay dominance; the ultimate objective is national success.

A strong Malaysia requires strong leadership. Because Malays form the largest community in the country, the quality of Malay leadership matters profoundly to every single citizen. However, the leaders we need cannot merely be Malay leaders; they must become Malaysian leaders.

If Malay unity is to truly benefit Malaysia, it must consistently produce leaders who embody five critical qualities:

1. Effective Leader-Managers

They must be able to inspire people, provide clear direction, and unite society around a common purpose. At the same time, they must possess the managerial capacity to execute plans, deliver concrete results, build robust systems, and ensure accountability. Leadership without execution is empty rhetoric; management without leadership lacks vision. Malaysia desperately needs both.

2. The Ability to Translate Islamic Values into Positive National Outcomes

It is not enough to simply speak about Islam. True leaders must understand how Islamic values can be translated into better lives for ordinary people and a stronger nation. A mature understanding of Islamic leadership begins with building the conditions that help people succeed. It means reducing poverty, expanding educational opportunities, strengthening families, promoting justice, creating economic opportunities, protecting human dignity, and ensuring that every citizen has a fair chance to contribute and prosper.

It means building a society where fewer people are pushed toward crime, corruption, addiction, and family breakdown in the first place. Too often, discussions about Islamic leadership focus heavily on punitive measures after people have done wrong. A more fundamental question is what leaders should do to help people do right. The best leaders focus on prevention before punishment, opportunity before enforcement, and development before discipline. Justice and accountability remain essential, but they are part of a larger framework aimed at creating a knowledgeable, ethical, compassionate, and prosperous society.

3. Strong Economic Competence

They must understand how nations create wealth, improve productivity, attract high-value investment, encourage innovation, develop entrepreneurs, and prepare citizens for an increasingly competitive global market.

At the same time, they must avoid the trap of extreme capitalism, where economic growth benefits only a small segment of society while the majority struggle to keep up. Economic success cannot be measured solely by the wealth of the richest; it must be measured by whether ordinary citizens are progressing. A successful Malaysian economic leader ensures wealth participation alongside wealth creation. Regardless of race, religion, geography, or social background, people must have a fair opportunity to improve their lives through education, enterprise, and upward mobility.

4. A Commitment to Developing Future Leaders

Strong nations do not depend on a handful of exceptional individuals; they build sustainable leadership pipelines. They create systems that continuously identify, nurture, and develop talent generation after generation. One of the greatest responsibilities of leadership is ensuring that capable successors are always being prepared to succeed even more than those before them.

A Malaysian leader must therefore be concerned not only with developing Malay leaders, but with developing future leaders from every community and every region of the country. The best talent must be identified and nurtured whether they come from Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, or Sarawak; whether they are Malay, Chinese, Indian, Orang Asli, Iban, Kadazan, Bidayuh, Melanau, or from any other community. A leader who truly loves Malaysia wants every community to succeed and contribute its best talent to the nation.

5. An Understanding of Strong Institutions and National Inclusion

Governments and politicians come and go, but the civil service, teachers, healthcare workers, engineers, technical experts, and public institutions remain. A mature leader understands that the public sector is the bedrock of nation-building. The role of political leadership is not to weaken professional institutions, but to strengthen them by respecting merit, professionalism, and institutional succession planning.

Furthermore, these leaders must earn the trust of all Malaysians. They must understand Malay concerns while deeply empathizing with the hopes and aspirations of Chinese Malaysians, Indian Malaysians, Sabahans, Sarawakians, Orang Asli communities, and every other citizen who calls this country home.

The highest achievement of a Malay leader is not merely becoming the leader of the Malays, but becoming a leader whom all Malaysians can trust.

Conclusion

This article is not about how Malay unity should be achieved. That is a separate discussion entirely. Reasonable people can disagree on whether Malay unity should come through one dominant political party, cooperation among several parties, a shared national agenda, or another mechanism altogether. Those questions deserve their own forum.

The purpose of this article is much simpler: it is to explain why Malay unity matters.

My argument is that Malay unity is vital not merely because it benefits Malays, but because it can anchor national stability, eliminate the incentives for ethnic and religious outbidding, refocus our energies on nation-building, and help produce the capable leaders and strong institutions that Malaysia will need in the decades ahead.

In other words, Malay unity is not the destination.

Malaysia is.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

 

WAWASAN 2057

 

On 31 August 2057, Malaysia will celebrate its 100th anniversary of independence.

That milestone is just over 30 years away. Regardless of our political landscape - whether the current Unity Government remains or a new administration takes the helm in the years ahead - we must come together as a nation and think seriously about 2057. It is time to ask ourselves a simple but momentous question: Where do we want Malaysia to be when it turns 100?

To answer this, we must first have the courage to undertake an honest assessment of where we stand today. We need to clearly recognize our strengths and our weaknesses, celebrating what we have done well while confronting where we have fallen short. More importantly, we must identify the habits, attitudes, and behaviors that continue to hold us back. What are the repeated actions preventing us from reaching our full potential? We must determine what mindsets to preserve because they have served us well, and what mindsets to abandon because they no longer serve us. We must ask what we should continue doing, and what we must stop doing.

Only with this clarity can we begin to define what we want Malaysia to become by 2057. We must ask: What does an excellent and great nation look like? What kind of society do we want to build, what kind of economy do we want to create, and what kind of citizens do we hope to nurture? Most importantly, what concrete goals should we set for ourselves over the next 30 years?

This crucial conversation cannot be left solely to politicians, political parties, or the government of the day. To lift this dialogue above partisan politics, it is time to establish a non-partisan national council under royal patronage. This council must bring together Malaysians from every corner of society: representatives from both government and opposition, academia, business, labour, youth, civil society, the professions, and stakeholders from every state and federal territory.

Standing above election cycles, its ultimate loyalty would not be to any party or ideology, but to Malaysia and future generations of Malaysians.

The task of this council would be focused and profound: to study where Malaysia has come from, to understand where it stands today, to revisit the foundational spirit and principles of our Federal Constitution, to identify the challenges and opportunities ahead, and to propose a shared vision of what Malaysia should aspire to become by 2057.

Once we have clarity on that destination, we can begin the hard work of getting there. Thirty years is a long time - it is long enough to transform a nation, correct past mistakes, build new strengths, develop talent, and fortify our institutions. But we cannot journey without a destination, and we should not be afraid to dream big. Very big.

A nation celebrates its 100th birthday only once. The goals we set for Wawasan 2057 must be ambitious enough to inspire us to rise above daily political quarrels, narrow communal interests, and short-term thinking. They should compel us to think not as members of political parties, ethnic groups, religious communities, professions, or regions, but first and foremost as Malaysians.

Great nations are built when their people are willing to look beyond personal, communal, and partisan interests and ask what is best for the nation.

Wawasan 2057 must challenge us to think in exactly those terms. What kind of Malaysia do we want to leave behind for future generations? What sacrifices are we willing to make today so that our children and grandchildren can inherit a better nation tomorrow? If we are going to chart the next 30 years, let us not think small. Let us set goals worthy of a nation approaching its first century.

The time to begin is now.

Peace,

Anas  Zubedy

 

BEING CHINESE IS BIGGER THAN DAP

 

DAP does not have a monopoly on what it means to be Chinese, just as UMNO does not have a monopoly on what it means to be Malay.

Being Chinese is bigger than DAP. Being Malay is bigger than UMNO.

We should not assume that being anti-DAP is anti-Chinese, just as we should not assume that being anti-UMNO is anti-Malay. That is a fundamental political mistake.

In fact, many politicians encourage this confusion because it serves their political interests. If a party can convince voters that it represents an entire race, then criticism of the party can be portrayed as criticism of the race itself. Likewise, support for the party can be portrayed as loyalty to the race.

This is one of the oldest tricks in politics. It is also one of the most damaging for a diverse country like Malaysia.

Just as PAS cannot claim to be the sole representative of Islam and Muslims, no political party can claim ownership of an entire race, religion, or community.

No race or religion belongs to any one party. A race is a community. A religious community is also a community. A political party is merely a vehicle.

The argument is even more difficult to sustain in DAP's case. For decades, DAP leaders have presented their party as a multiracial party that speaks for all Malaysians. If that is true, then criticism of DAP cannot automatically be equated with criticism of the Chinese community.

One cannot claim to be a multiracial party when convenient and then claim to exclusively represent one race when under attack. You cannot have the cake and eat it too.

The Chinese community is not a branch of DAP, just as the Malay community is not a branch of UMNO.

The Chinese community existed before DAP, and it will remain long after DAP is gone.

Being Chinese is bigger than DAP. The two should never be conflated.

It is my hope that Anthony Loke, Tan Sri Lim Kit Siang, and other senior DAP leaders will step forward and reaffirm this simple principle: no political party has a monopoly over any race, religion, or community.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

HARI INI DI SINAR HARIAN

 

https://www.sinarharian.com.my/article/782859/khas/pendapat/siapakah-yang-bakal-menerajui-malaysia-pascapru16

RAFIZI RAMLI AND ANWAR IBRAHIM: A Question of Collective Responsibility

 

Rafizi Ramli has gone to town attacking Anwar Ibrahim. This sharp turn has been highly visible since Rafizi was sidelined during the PKR internal elections, losing the Deputy Presidency to Anwar’s daughter, Nurul Izzah. For those with a clear head and a long memory, this public onslaught begs a few fundamental questions.

Before proceeding, let me be entirely transparent. I have been consistently critical of Anwar Ibrahim’s suitability to become Prime Minister since the 1990s. I have stated this clearly in my writings, talks, and discussions for over three decades. My position has never been that he lacks talent. Rather, his strengths are not the ones most critically required in a Prime Minister. For more than thirty years, my assessment held true, until he finally assumed the office in 2022.

However, I have always maintained that when an individual is given a responsibility, they deserve a fair opportunity to prove themselves. Likewise, when a coalition is handed the mandate to govern, it must be given the space and time-ideally a full term-to demonstrate its capability and deliver on its promises.

A Prime Minister is, in many ways, the CEO of a nation. The role demands conceptual thinking, strategic clarity, the capacity to manage both today’s crises and tomorrow’s vision, and the ability to build systems, structures, and processes that unite diverse groups of people. It requires reducing uncertainty and fostering trust across society. This cannot be achieved through personality alone-which has often been Anwar’s primary modus operandi. It requires institutional strength, a healthy administrative culture, consistency over time, and a talented team of successors to sustain the journey.

People need to know where the nation is heading; they must trust that today’s policy will not be contradicted tomorrow. Leadership at the highest level is about creating stability and predictability through consistent decisions. Anwar’s true strengths lie elsewhere. He is an exceptional communicator, a man who can inspire and mobilize masses- a fantastic salesman. But even the best salesperson requires a robust marketing machinery, innovation, manufacturing, strict general management, and an effective delivery system behind them.

If Anwar had spent his career championing reform, justice, and the Palestinian cause strictly on the global stage, he would have excelled without measure. My long-standing question has never been whether he is gifted, but whether his specific gifts fit the office of the Prime Minister.

The Collective Silence

Now, let us turn to Rafizi Ramli.

I established my view on Anwar first because I do not want what follows to be mistaken for a defense of the Prime Minister, or an endorsement of the current administration's policies. My inquiry is much narrower: Why is the spotlight now focused almost entirely on Anwar Ibrahim? And why now?

Rafizi speaks today as though the multi-faceted problems he highlights can be traced solely to the Prime Minister. Certainly, Anwar bears the largest share of accountability; that is the burden of the office. But a government is not a one-man show. It is run by a Cabinet, a coalition, party leaders, ministers, and senior decision-makers.

Rafizi was no bystander. For years, he was one of Anwar’s closest political allies and among the most influential architects within PKR. He stood beside Anwar during major political campaigns, engineered core strategies, and shaped national narratives. He was a key player in the September 16 takeover attempt and deeply involved in the Kajang Move. He defended and promoted the exact positions, promises, and political arguments that are now being questioned.

More importantly, after 2022, he moved from outside critic to inside operator, sitting at the highest echelons of executive power as the Minister of Economy.

This is the logical disconnect. If Anwar abandoned certain positions, compromised on core principles, or failed to deliver on reforms, Rafizi was in the room. He was part of the leadership team, part of the discussions, and part of the compromises. He remained in government and continued to serve. To attack these collective decisions now, as though they belonged solely to Anwar Ibrahim, is difficult to reconcile with Rafizi's own history.

Where is the criticism of the other senior leaders who sat around that very same table? Where is the accountability for senior PKR, DAP, and Amanah leaders, or ministers like Anthony Loke, who continue to serve in government today? If mistakes were made and promises broken, responsibility cannot be conveniently singularized.

The timing also raises legitimate questions. Why are these criticisms peaking only now? Why were they not articulated with this same intensity when Rafizi held peak influence as Deputy President of PKR and a senior minister?

Consider the case of Azam Baki. Before the 2022 general election, Rafizi repeatedly used the MACC Chief as a symbol of systemic failure. Ceramah after ceramah created a powerful public expectation that decisive action would follow once power was secured. Yet, when Pakatan Harapan entered government and Rafizi became Minister of Economy, Azam Baki remained in office.

If this issue was as fundamentally non-negotiable as Rafizi suggested before 2022, what changed after? Why was there no public ultimatum? Why was there no resignation on principle? Why did the issue lose urgency while he was in power, only to regain relevance after his internal party influence waned?

The same can be asked regarding UMNO. Before 2022, Rafizi aggressively dismantled UMNO’s credibility. Post-election, UMNO became a governing partner. Realpolitik often requires compromise, but the question remains: was the public given a realistic picture before power was obtained, and were the same standards applied afterward?

These are not questions asked to shield Anwar Ibrahim. They are questions about intellectual and political consistency. Governments rise and fall as teams. Decisions are made collectively, policies are defended collectively, and failure must be owned collectively.

The Path to Redemption

Having said that, if I were in Rafizi's shoes, I would likely share his frustration. As a fellow man, I can understand how political setbacks, coupled with personal dynamics, can leave one feeling disappointed or betrayed. Politics is one thing; family is entirely another.

Perhaps the most critical factor we must acknowledge is the abhorrent attack directed at his young son. Most decent people will agree that children must remain strictly off-limits in the blood sport of politics. A politician is fair game; their children are not.

When a politician’s child is targeted, the state apparatus should leave no stone unturned. The investigation should be visible, thorough, and beyond reproach, regardless of whether the parent is Rafizi, Anwar, Muhyiddin, Hadi Awang, or Anthony Loke. If Rafizi felt that this deeply personal matter was not met with the urgency and seriousness it deserved by the authorities, it is completely understandable why it would leave a profound, permanent scar. Such an experience can cause any parent to radically reassess relationships, loyalties, and politics itself.

If Rafizi has genuinely changed his mind about his past compromises and political alliances, he should say so openly. There is no shame in admitting a shift in position, nor is there shame in admitting one was wrong.

However, this is a broader challenge facing every politician across the spectrum - from PKR and DAP to UMNO, Bersatu, and PAS - who promised one thing on the campaign trail and executed another upon entering Putrajaya. How does a politician regain public trust after disappointing the voters who believed in them?

The answer does not lie in another podcast, an analytical thread, or a fiery ceramah. It begins with genuine humility.

The first step is to apologize.

Not a token, calculated political statement designed to reframe the narrative. Not an apology followed by a hundred justifications. But a real, unconditional apology that openly states: “I promised one thing, and I did another. I asked for your trust, and I failed to live up to it. I was wrong.”

Many voters cast their ballots, argued with friends, and campaigned based on those foundational promises. When politicians do the exact opposite upon gaining power, the public's feeling of betrayal is entirely valid.

Politicians who want a second chance must earn it by lowering themselves, swallowing their pride, and asking for forgiveness with genuine remorse. I have far more respect for a leader who stands before the nation and admits, "I made promises I could not keep; please forgive me," than one who spends years pretending the goalposts never moved.

Only after that vulnerability can the conversation about redemption truly begin.

Furthermore, if leaders want voters to believe they have genuinely reformed, they must offer a binding commitment for the future. They must assure the electorate that if they make a promise in the next election and later find it compromised by coalition friction or party pressure, they will not simply sit quietly to preserve their titles.

They must be prepared to stand by their principles, speak up publicly, and if necessary, have the courage to walk away.

Only then will the apology carry weight. Only then will voters believe the lesson has been learned. Only then can trust begin to be rebuilt.

The ball is in your court Rafizi “ dan ahli-ahli politik yang sama waktu dengannya 😊”

Peace,

Anas Zubedy.