REFLECTING ON MALAYSIAN HISTORY THIS MAAL HIJRAH

 

REFLECTING ON MALAYSIAN HISTORY THIS MAAL HIJRAH

I am beginning to appreciate more and more the reorganisation of our school history syllabus to place greater emphasis on Malaysian and Southeast Asian history. Let me explain.

Many years of speaking with educated Malaysians - lawyers, doctors, academics, professionals, and business leaders - have led me to a rather troubling observation. Despite having studied history in school, many Malaysians possess only a limited understanding of the deeper history of our country and region. For many, Malaysian history appears to begin with Parameswara and the founding of Melaka. Everything before that seems vague, distant, or altogether absent. It is almost as though the Malay Peninsula, Sabah, and Sarawak were empty lands waiting to be discovered.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Malay Peninsula was home to organised communities, trading centres, kingdoms, and civilisations long before Melaka emerged. Kedah Tua, for example, was already a thriving centre of trade more than a thousand years ago. The Kedah Sultanate traces its origins centuries before the rise of Melaka and is among the oldest continuously existing royal institutions in Southeast Asia.

Likewise, the Batu Bersurat Terengganu, dated to the early fourteenth century, predates the Melaka Sultanate. Yet many Malaysians know little about its significance. The inscription is far more than a stone monument. It demonstrates the existence of an organised political authority, a functioning legal system, and the application of Islamic principles within society. Such a document could not have appeared in isolation; it points to an established state structure already in existence and suggests the presence of a literate administrative and religious culture.

Unfortunately, many Malaysians never fully appreciate these historical findings. The result is a simplified understanding of history where Melaka appears almost suddenly, disconnected from the centuries of developments that preceded it. We learn about the greatness of Melaka, but often not enough about the foundations upon which it stood.

The same challenge exists when discussing Sabah and Sarawak. Many Malaysians possess only a superficial understanding of Sabah and Sarawak’s rich historical landscape. While Sabah and Sarawak did not develop centralised sultanates in the same way as parts of the Peninsula, they were home to vibrant societies with their own political systems, customs, trade networks, and cultural traditions. Parts of coastal Sabah and Sarawak also came under the influence of the Brunei and Sulu Sultanates, further enriching the region's historical complexity.

The histories of the Iban, Bidayuh, Melanau, Kelabit, Kadazan-Dusun, Bajau, Murut, and numerous other indigenous communities deserve far greater attention. These communities are not peripheral to Malaysian history. They are Malaysian history. A deeper appreciation of Sabah and Sarawak would also help Malaysians better understand the role played by the Brunei Sultanate and the Sulu Sultanate in shaping the political and cultural development of northern Borneo. These historical connections are essential for understanding the region as a whole.

More broadly, we need to understand that the Malay world was never confined by modern national borders. The Malay Archipelago functioned as a vast interconnected civilisational space. People, ideas, goods, languages, cultures, and rulers moved across the region for centuries. Movement between Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, the Malay Peninsula, and other islands was normal. It was not migration in the modern sense of crossing rigid national boundaries; it was movement within a shared world.

This is why some contemporary debates sound rather strange when viewed through a historical lens. Occasionally, one hears claims that Malays in Peninsular Malaysia originated from Indonesia because Parameswara came from Sumatra. Such arguments reveal a misunderstanding of how the archipelago functioned historically. To describe Parameswara as coming from "Indonesia" imposes a modern national identity upon a fifteenth-century world where such borders did not yet exist.

By that logic, one might argue that the people of Negeri Sembilan are somehow less Malay because of their historical links to Minangkabau society. Yet nobody familiar with Malay history would seriously make such a claim. The institutions of Negeri Sembilan, including the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Undang system, preserve historical connections with Minangkabau traditions dating back centuries. These connections are celebrated, not disputed. They are part of the richness of Malay civilisation within the wider Southeast Asian archipelago. History teaches us that identities evolve, cultures interact, and societies develop through continuous exchanges. The modern nation-state is a relatively recent development. The peoples of the archipelago interacted with one another for many centuries before the borders of Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Singapore, and the Philippines came into existence. Understanding this reality allows us to move beyond simplistic narratives.

Perhaps it is time to revisit how we approach Malaysian history. While our current history syllabus has many strengths, there may be value in giving greater attention to the histories of individual states, indigenous communities, regional kingdoms, and the wider archipelago. Students should learn not only about Melaka, colonialism, independence, and the formation of Malaysia. They should also understand in greater detail Kedah Tua, Langkasuka, the Batu Bersurat Terengganu, the development of Kelantan, Terengganu, Johor, Pahang, Perlis, and Kedah, as well as the histories of Sabah and Sarawak's indigenous peoples and how these societies interacted with one another. Most importantly, they should understand that the Melaka Sultanate did not emerge from a vacuum. One must also understand how Melaka interacted with existing states such as Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, Brunei, and others, rather than imagining it as developing in isolation. Our story stretches back centuries. It is a story of civilisations, kingdoms, sultanates, traders, scholars, indigenous communities, and interconnected peoples spread across the archipelago.

I find these shallow understandings similar to how many people assume that Penang was an empty island before the arrival of Francis Light, when in reality it was already inhabited and linked to the Kedah Sultanate. Likewise, many people speak of Philippine history as though it began in 1521 with the arrival of Magellan, overlooking the rich societies and political entities that existed long before European contact.

Speaking of the Philippines, Rafael Palma titled his famous biography of Jose Rizal, The Pride of the Malay Race. Palma deliberately chose that title because he believed Rizal represented the highest potential of the Malay peoples - not only Filipinos, but the broader Malay-Austronesian world stretching across Southeast Asia. When Palma used the term "Malay race", he was employing a concept common in his time that referred broadly to the peoples of the archipelago rather than the narrower ethnic definition often used today.

Maal Hijrah is not only a time to reflect on where we are going. It is also a time to remember where we came from. A people who do not understand their past will struggle to navigate their future. By understanding the long journey of the peoples, societies, and civilisations that shaped Malaysia, we strengthen the foundations upon which we build our shared future. The more deeply we understand that story, the more confidently we can understand ourselves.

For Malaysia to become more united, we must first understand, appreciate, and develop a shared understanding of our common history.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

 

Hijrah: Hari Muhasabah dan Pelancaran Semula

 

SALAM HIJRAH

Hijrah: Hari Muhasabah dan Pelancaran Semula

Awal Muharram menandakan permulaan kalendar Islam. Ia diwujudkan pada zaman Khalifah Umar Al-Khattab, yang memilih peristiwa Hijrah—iaitu penghijrahan Nabi Muhammad ﷺ dari Makkah ke Madinah—sebagai titik permulaan takwim Islam. Hijrah bukan sekadar sebuah perjalanan fizikal. Ia merupakan detik bermulanya lembaran baharu bagi individu, masyarakat dan sebuah tamadun.

Sebab itulah Awal Muharram sepatutnya diraikan lebih daripada sekadar sambutan Tahun Baharu. Ia harus menjadi hari untuk kita bermuhasabah dan melancarkan semula diri dengan tujuan serta azam yang diperbaharui. Inilah masanya untuk kita bertanya kepada diri sendiri: Apakah yang perlu kita lepaskan untuk terus melangkah ke hadapan?

Jika kita mahu lebih banyak membaca, mungkin kita perlu mengurangkan bersembang kosong dan mengehadkan masa melayari media sosial.

Jika kita mahukan kesihatan yang lebih baik, kita mungkin perlu kurang makan dan lebih banyak bergerak.

Jika kita mahu menyimpan wang, kita mungkin perlu mengurangkan perbelanjaan yang tidak perlu.

Jika kita mahukan hubungan yang lebih erat, kita mungkin perlu mengurangkan masa menghadap telefon bimbit dan meluangkan lebih banyak masa berkualiti bersama insan-insan tersayang.

Peristiwa Hijrah mengingatkan kita bahawa kemajuan dan perubahan sering kali bermula bukan dengan menambah sesuatu yang baharu, tetapi dengan melepaskan apa yang membebankan dan menghalang kita daripada maju ke hadapan.

Allah SWT mengingatkan kita:

"Sesungguhnya Allah tidak mengubah keadaan sesuatu kaum sehingga mereka mengubah keadaan yang ada pada diri mereka sendiri."
(Surah Ar-Ra'd, 13:11)

Salam,

Anas Zubedy

Hijrah: A Day of Reflection and Relaunch

 

HAVE A MEANINGFUL HIJRAH

Hijrah: A Day of Reflection and Relaunch

Awal Muharram marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar. It was established during the time of Caliph Umar, who chose the Hijrah - the Prophet Muhammad's ﷺ migration from Makkah to Madinah - as the starting point of the Muslim calendar. The Hijrah was more than a journey. It marked the beginning of a new chapter for individuals, a community, and a civilisation.

That is why Awal Muharram should be more than a New Year celebration. It should be a day of reflection and relaunch. A time to ask ourselves: What do we need to let go of in order to move forward?

If we want to read more, perhaps we need less idle talk and less scrolling. If we want better health, we may need to eat less and move more. If we want to save money, we may need to cut back on unnecessary spending. If we want stronger relationships, we may need to spend less time on our phones and more time with the people who matter.

The Hijrah reminds us that progress often begins not by adding something new, but by letting go of something that is holding us back.

As Allah reminds us:

"Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is within themselves." (Quran 13:11)

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

BEYOND TVET: ANOTHER PATHWAY TO LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT ( The STAR 16/06/26)

 

More than half a million Malaysians are currently unemployed according to the recent DOSM report. More concerning is that approximately three-quarters of them are below the age of 30. While the government's investment in Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) is helping to create opportunities for technically inclined Malaysians, there may be value in developing another pathway that receives far less attention but offers substantial employment opportunities: sales and services.

At any given time, thousands of vacancies exist across sales, customer engagement, account management, business development, customer support, and related functions. These roles span almost every sector of the economy and can provide opportunities not only for fresh graduates, but also for displaced workers, non-technical graduates, and aspiring entrepreneurs.

TVET is an important response to the needs of industry. However, it naturally serves those whose strengths and interests are aligned with technical and vocational careers. Malaysia's workforce is much broader than that.

Every year, our universities and colleges produce graduates from business, communications, social sciences, arts, humanities, and many other non-technical disciplines. At the same time, automation and artificial intelligence are reshaping many clerical, administrative, and routine jobs. As a result, a growing number of Malaysians will need practical pathways into occupations that rely more on human interaction, relationship building, communication, and customer engagement.

Sales and services can provide such a pathway.

The demand already exists. Across manufacturing, technology, healthcare, banking, logistics, tourism, retail, and professional services, organisations continue to seek individuals who can engage customers, support business growth, manage relationships, and deliver excellent service. These opportunities are not confined to a single industry. They are present throughout the economy and across locations in the country. This is particularly relevant today as many young Malaysians, including Gen Z job seekers, increasingly prefer employment opportunities closer to home, while many parents share similar aspirations for their children.

More importantly, they offer an avenue for many Malaysians who may not naturally gravitate towards technical careers but who have the potential to excel in market-facing and customer-facing roles.

Furthermore, this pathway can support future entrepreneurship and self-employment. Many successful entrepreneurs begin not with technical expertise, but with an understanding of customers, markets, relationships, and opportunities. These capabilities can be learned, developed, and strengthened through structured training and practical experience.

Of course, the pathway must be developed carefully. The objective should not be to produce transactional or high-pressure salespeople. Nor should it be dominated by the usual "rah-rah" motivational programmes that create temporary excitement but little lasting change. We already have too many "kem bina semangat" programmes and not enough "kem bina tabiat" initiatives.

Instead, the focus should be on developing professionals with strong fundamentals, sound ethics, disciplined habits, and a customer-centric mindset. Participants should learn how to understand customer needs, provide solutions, create value, and build long-term relationships. Such training can prepare individuals not only for successful corporate careers in sales and services, but also for roles as intrapreneurs, entrepreneurs, and self-employed professionals.

In an increasingly competitive economy, trust, service, and customer experience matter more than ever.

Just as TVET provides a structured pathway for technical talent, a Sales and Services Pathway can provide a structured pathway for people-oriented talent. The two are not competing priorities. They complement one another and serve both job seekers and employers.

Malaysia needs engineers, technicians, and skilled tradespeople. We also need professionals who can connect organisations to customers, markets, and opportunities. Both contribute to economic growth, job creation, and national competitiveness.

By complementing TVET with a Sales and Services Pathway, Malaysia can create additional opportunities for unemployed youth, displaced workers, aspiring entrepreneurs, and many others seeking meaningful careers. In doing so, we strengthen not only employability, but also the resilience and adaptability of our workforce in a rapidly changing economy.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

MALAY UNITY AND NON-MALAY FEARS

 

Dear Fellow Malaysians,

Thank you to all my readers for your ongoing feedback. Keep it coming. You are my teachers, and your insights greatly help me understand what it takes to unite Malaysians and make our country successful.

Following my recent articles on Malay unity, a number of readers raised a crucial question: What does Malay unity mean for non-Malays?

These concerns should not be dismissed. In fact, they deserve to be heard, understood, and discussed respectfully and openly.

Many non-Malays worry that a more united Malay community might result in less space for others. Some fear political dominance. Others worry about cultural marginalisation, economic opportunities, or whether their voices will continue to matter in national conversations.

There is also a significant religious dimension. Because Malay identity in Malaysia is constitutionally and culturally intertwined with Islam, discussions about Malay unity inevitably raise questions about faith. Many non-Muslims wonder what kind of Islam a stronger Malay unity might promote, worrying that it could lead to a narrower, more restrictive understanding of religion dominating public life. Their perceptions are often shaped by political debates and media coverage that focus heavily on punishment, restrictions, and religious enforcement.

Whether these fears are entirely justified is not the point. The point is that they exist. And if we are serious about building a united Malaysia, we must begin by listening with deep empathy.

Malay Unity: Lessons From The Past

To understand where we are going, history offers us a vital perspective.

The modern story of Malay unity arguably began in 1946 with the widespread opposition to the Malayan Union. For many Malays, the British proposal threatened the future of the Malay Rulers, the Malay states, and the political position of the community. In response, Malays from different states, backgrounds, and social classes mobilized in an unprecedented manner.

The result was the formation of UMNO and the eventual withdrawal of the Malayan Union. More importantly, this victory gave the Malays confidence.

This distinction is critical: When communities feel secure, they tend to become more open. When they feel insecure, they tend to become defensive.

Having secured what they considered their fundamental interests, Malay politics gradually shifted from resistance to cooperation. The Alliance model emerged through partnership between UMNO, MCA, and MIC.

One important historical fact is often overlooked: The Alliance could not have succeeded unless Malays were willing to vote for non-Malay candidates. In a democratic system, MCA and MIC candidates could not have won many constituencies without significant Malay voter support. For decades, this model thrived because Malay voters accepted and supported the role of non-Malays within the governing coalition.

This suggests something worth reflecting upon: One of the strongest periods of Malay unity also produced one of the strongest periods of cross-ethnic political cooperation.

A Remarkable Exception to the Global Rule

As independence approached, the Malays were politically united, demographically secure, and represented by strong institutions. Yet, the leaders of the day did not choose to create an exclusive, exclusionary nation-state. This is something truly special.

To appreciate the significance of this decision, we must look at the global context of the era. The decades following the Second World War were marked by the decline of colonial empires and the fierce rise of ethno-nationalism. Across Europe and Asia, dominant communities sought self-determination by building states strictly reflecting their own identity. The Romanians built Romania. The Greeks built Greece. The Poles built Poland. On the Indian subcontinent, competing national aspirations fractured a region into India and Pakistan. This was the global spirit of the age.

Against this backdrop, the path chosen in Tanah Melayu was remarkable.

The Malays had the demographic advantage, historical legitimacy through the Malay Rulers, and the political momentum to insist on an exclusive Malay nation-state. The mood of the era would have given them historical justification.

Yet, they chose a different path.

Instead, the founding leaders negotiated a constitutional settlement that granted citizenship to millions of Chinese and Indians, establishing an independent Federation of Malaya that was proudly multi-ethnic.

The Malays did not cease being Malays. The Chinese did not cease being Chinese. The Indians did not cease being Indians. But together, they agreed to become Malayans.

A confident, united Malay society accepted something extraordinary for that period of history: they chose not to define the new nation solely in ethnic terms.

This does not mean the arrangement was perfect, nor that every issue was resolved. But it demonstrates that the founding generation of Malay leaders possessed a level of confidence that enabled them to think beyond mere communal survival and toward true nation-building.

Confidence produces accommodation; insecurity produces defensiveness. The confidence generated by Malay unity in the post-war era helped create the very conditions that made the Malaysian project possible.

The Responsibility of Modern Leadership

This brings us to the present. The question is no longer whether Malay unity is good or bad. The more important question is: Where will Malay unity lead?

Will it become a force that narrows the Malaysian space, or a force that strengthens it?

This is where leadership matters. Malay leaders cannot aspire to be merely Malay leaders; they must be Malaysian leaders. "Hidup Melayu" cannot be separated from "Hidup Malaysia."

Therefore, the burden of Malay leadership is greater than most. A statesman must be able to unite the Malays while simultaneously building trust among non-Malays. They must protect legitimate Malay interests while ensuring that every single citizen feels they have a rightful, secure place in this nation’s future.

History proves that this is entirely possible. Our founding generation already demonstrated it.

Looking Towards Wawasan 2057

As we approach August 31, 2027, Malaysia will be exactly 30 years away from 2057 - the centenary of our independence.

Perhaps it is time for us to think beyond the next election, beyond the current political cycle, and look toward a new national aspiration.

A Wawasan 2057.

We need a vision that recaptures the confidence, courage, and nation-building spirit of our founders. A spirit that unites the Malays, gives them deep confidence in their security, and enables them to work hand-in-hand with all communities to build a successful Malaysia.

The ultimate challenge before us is not simply to unite the Malays. The challenge is to forge leaders capable of uniting Malaysians—Malays, Chinese, Indians, Sabahans, Sarawakians, Orang Asli, and every citizen who calls this country home.

That, I believe, is the unfinished work of our nation-building.

In conclusion, a united Malay leadership must also take seriously the concerns and fears of non-Malays. The responsibility of leadership does not end with uniting the majority community.

A good Malay leader unites Malays. A great Malay leader unites Malaysians.

“Our future depends on how many different kinds of people can live and work together.”  -  Tunku Abdul Rahman, Bapa Malaysia

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

 

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