GE16: LET’S PREPARE EARLY

 

𝗚𝗘𝟭𝟲: 𝗟𝗘𝗧’𝗦 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗟𝗬

I am starting my entries on GE16 today, March 8, 2026.

Let us start early this time. We need to define the narratives. We cannot depend on the politicians. They would likely disappoint us.

Let us prepare to vote with both our heart and our head. And let us learn from past experiences. We must not make the same mistake again by voting for those who say one thing before the election and do another after it.

In GE15, Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, or background, voted against one very important enemy: 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. For the second time in our history, we rose above race and religious politics and focused on a national issue.

The first time was in 1955, when we voted together for our freedom from the British. Malays, Chinese and Indians came together as one people around a national cause: 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺.

But realpolitik disappointed us.

Immediately after GE15, the very politicians who had asked us to reject corruption quickly coined terms like “Green Wave” to divide us again as soon as they could. And the other side was just as quick to play the same game.

You see, many political parties and leaders live, grow and thrive on race and religious politics. Any other narrative weakens them. When Malaysians unite around national issues, their usual tools of division lose their power.

So they will resist any movement that takes away race and religion as the main narrative for political survival. Breaking us apart is how they remain relevant.

That is precisely 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝘄𝗲 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀.

The truth is this: we voted against corruption based on our shared moral and religious values. In mosques, temples, churches, gurdwaras and other houses of worship, people were reminded that corruption does not depend on race or religion. It harms everyone: you, me and the nation.

We took that faithful step to be better Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and Sikhs. And we voted based on a real national issue.

We said NO to corruption.

Yet soon after, one group, the Muslims, were labelled the Green Wave. And we fell into the political trap. The unity we had built around a national cause slowly gave way to narratives built on sectarian lines.

Let us be wiser this GE16.

In 1955, we voted together for freedom.

In 2022, we voted together against corruption.

In GE16, let us once again unite around the issues that truly matter for Malaysia.

Let us vote on real national issues. I will be proposing them soon, one of which is the fight against corruption.

Let us vote with both our heads and our hearts.

Peace,

Anas

10 LESSONS FROM THE US–ISRAEL ATTACK ON IRAN (So Far)

 

1. Widespread ignorance about Iran

The West, and many people around the world including my fellow Malaysians, know very little about Iran’s internal politics, governance structure and political culture. For decades the West has repeated a simple narrative about Iran. Over time, many have begun to believe their own propaganda.

Those who accept these narratives without question often do so because they already carry biases about what they imagine a theocratic Islamic nation must look like.

This conflict has exposed how shallow that understanding really is.

2. The limits of relying on US protection

This episode raises an uncomfortable question for countries hosting US bases or aligning closely with US military strategy.

In moments of real crisis, the United States cannot always defend its allies. Nor is it always willing to do so at the level those allies expect.

Some Middle Eastern partners are beginning to realise that their interests do not carry the same weight. Many feel treated like secondary players, while Washington’s full strategic attention remains focused on Israel.

This could reshape how countries view US bases, not just in the Middle East but also in the Far East. The Philippines, for example, may one day have to reassess its growing military cooperation with Washington.

3. Iran’s system is more resilient than portrayed

For decades Iran has been portrayed as a fragile authoritarian system dependent on a single leader.

Reality appears more complex.

Iran operates through layered institutions: constitutional structures, clerical networks, elected offices and powerful military command systems. This architecture allows the state to absorb shocks far better than many outside observers assumed.

4. Israel appears more cunning while America carries the cost

Israel initiated the confrontation. Trump and Netanyahu announced the attack together.

Yet today the global political heat is directed mainly at Trump and the United States.

Israel appears to have played this more shrewdly. The diplomatic and reputational cost is largely borne by Washington, while Netanyahu remains relatively shielded.

In simple terms, Israel looks cunning. America looks like it has been drawn into carrying the blame.

5. Iran appears well prepared

Iran seems to have prepared carefully for this conflict.

Its responses so far appear calculated and deliberate, almost like following a strategic playbook.

Iran has also shown restraint. Despite having the capability to target major US assets such as aircraft carriers in the region, it has avoided doing so.

That restraint likely reflects a strategic decision not to push the entire American public and military establishment fully into the war.

But if heavier American weapons are used, escalation may follow.

6. Trump abandoned his own negotiating principles

Ironically, Trump contradicts many principles he himself wrote about in The Art of the Deal.

The book emphasises preparation, doing your homework, understanding the opponent, building leverage and securing alliances before making a move.

Most importantly, every negotiation must have a clear endgame.

In this case there appeared to be no clear objective from the start. Instead, new goals seem to be invented along the way.

7. China and Russia are likely watching closely

There are growing perceptions that China and Russia are quietly assisting Iran behind the scenes.

China in particular is likely studying this conflict very carefully.

For Chinese strategists, this war is a real-world laboratory to observe how American military systems perform under actual combat conditions.

Some observers even believe Chinese experts may be working alongside Iranian specialists to assist and learn at the same time.

8. India may be drifting into a Zionist trap

India may be bending too far toward Israel instead of playing the nuanced and statesmanlike role it historically held.

Prime Minister Modi recently described Israel as the “father” and India as the “mother”.

As support for the idea of “Greater Israel” becomes more controversial and questioned even inside the United States, Israel may begin looking for another major power to anchor its political support.

India could become that partner.

Some observers even speculate that lobbying structures similar to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) could one day emerge in India. An Indian version, perhaps called “IIPAC”, could attempt to shape policy debates and influence Indian politics in similar ways.

9. The biggest winner may be China

The biggest long-term winner of this conflict may not be the United States, Israel or even Iran.

It may be China.

From Beijing’s perspective, this war provides a live laboratory to study American military capabilities, logistics and limits.

China may conclude that the United States is not as dominant as previously assumed.

If Iran can produce thousands of drones and sustain prolonged confrontation, China’s industrial capacity could scale that capability dramatically.

For Chinese strategists, this conflict may simply be a rehearsal for the future.

It will also be interesting to see how China evaluates its options regarding Taiwan reunification.

10. Malaysians are still trapped in race and religious political lenses

Many Malaysians still cannot break free from our race and religious political mindset. Too many people choose sides not based on what is right or wrong, but based on their own internal biases.

There are those who celebrate the death of Khamenei simply because he promoted the hijab and traditional Islamic values, which they see as oppressive to women. Yet they fail to consider that a more US-friendly leadership could easily resemble the same elite class associated with scandals like Epstein, where power and privilege protect those who exploit young girls. The experience of the Shah of Iran and the Western-backed elite of that era seems to have been forgotten.

On the other side, there are those who support Iran simply because it is a Muslim country. Yet some Muslims hesitate to support Iran because it is Shia while Malaysians are largely Sunni.

Both reactions miss the bigger picture.

This war is not fundamentally about Sunni or Shia. It is not about headgear or religious rituals. At its core, it is about the geopolitical project of Greater Israel, and Iran has been one of the major obstacles standing in its way.

Peace, anas

 

THE SINDHU CONNECTION: How Iran Shaped the Words India and Hind

 

India under Modi has been silent about the US–Israel attack to date. Ironically, the very name India, along with Hind, Hindu, and Hindi, carries a linguistic link to ancient Persia (today’s Iran).

The Sanskrit word Sindhu (Indus River) became Hindu/Hind in Persian because Persians pronounced the “s” as “h.” The Greeks later turned it into Indos, which eventually became India.

Historically, there was also no single religion called “Hinduism.” The term Hindu was originally a geographical label for people living beyond the Indus. Many traditions were better described as Sanatana Dharma – the eternal way.

In other words, even the modern name “Hinduism” is linguistically linked to Persia.

Peace, anas

Note : The link Sindhu → Hind → India is a small reminder of a much deeper Persia–India civilizational connection spanning trade, culture, and ideas for over two millennia.

WHY KILLING THE AYATOLLAH WOULD BE A STRATEGIC BLUNDER

 

Firstly, if leaders like Trump and Netanyahu believed that removing the Ayatollah would cause the collapse of Iranian leadership, it would reflect a serious misunderstanding of Iran’s political structure.

The Ayatollah is not a dictator. Iran is a theocratic republic with layered institutions, constitutional mechanisms, clerical oversight and military command structures. Like any political system, there would be a period of uncertainty during a transition. But the system itself would not collapse overnight. Its political culture, institutional continuity and chain of command would take over. We have already seen how quickly state responses can be activated and counter offensive took place within hours of his death.

For decades, Western narratives have often portrayed the Ayatollah as a singular authoritarian figure. When a narrative is repeated long enough, it can begin shaping policy assumptions. Decisions then risk being made based on caricature rather than structural reality.

But even that is not the deeper issue.

The deeper miscalculation lies in failing to understand the religious and historical dimensions of Shia identity.

The Ayatollah, as Supreme Leader within Iran’s Shia framework, holds a position that many followers view as more than political. His role carries spiritual weight. In Shia theology, leadership is not merely administrative. It is connected to the legacy of the Imams and to a long history shaped by martyrdom and moral resistance. To help a non-Shia reader understand, his position is sometimes likened to the Caliphate in Muslim history and spiritually to the Pope in Catholicism.

Shia history is profoundly shaped by the assassination of Ali ibn Abi Talib, regarded as the first Imam, and even more decisively by the tragedy of Karbala, where Husayn ibn Ali stood against what he viewed as unjust rule and was killed.

Within Shia spirituality, suffering is not seen as meaningless but can carry redemptive meaning; standing for justice, even at personal cost, is regarded as a sacred obligation; and martyrdom is viewed as the highest form of faithfulness to God and truth.

If such a leader is killed, he is not merely removed from office. He is elevated within a spiritual narrative that has defined Shia consciousness for centuries.

There are roughly 200 to 300 million Shia Muslims globally. A killing framed as martyrdom does not weaken such a tradition. It can deepen solidarity and emotional resolve. It may also resonate beyond sectarian lines, particularly among Sunni Muslims who view defiance against global superpowers or Israel through a political lens of resistance.

Furthermore, stories of a leader refusing personal safety and choosing to remain alongside his people strengthen that martyr narrative. Whether fully verified or not, such accounts spread rapidly in today’s digital ecosystem and become powerful symbols. Symbolism often outlives strategy.

Already, many Muslims across different denominations are sharing the Qur’anic verse:

“And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah, ‘They are dead.’ Rather, they are alive, but you perceive it not.”
Qur’an 2:154

In such a framework, death is not defeat. It becomes transcendence.

The Ayatollah, in that narrative, does not disappear. He becomes morally amplified. And that amplification can carry consequences long after immediate military calculations fade from view.

Strategic actions taken without deep historical and theological understanding risk producing effects far beyond their intended goals.

Peace,
Anas

 

 

HICKORY – A Place to Read, Write, Think, Reflect

 

A month ago, during my birthday week, I spent almost a week at Hickory, Penang Hill. It has been my norm for decades to travel somewhere during my birthday. My gift to myself has always been time. Time to read. Time to write. Time to think. Time to reflect.

When I was married for a while, my ex-wife once asked what birthday present I wanted. I told her, “A whole day to read.” That day, I read The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg from cover to cover. That was my celebration.

This year’s gift was solitude at Hickory.

Each day followed a simple rhythm. Wake up. Breakfast. Write. Lunch. Write again. Workout. Dinner. Write again. Day in and day out. I did not leave Hickory.

Hickory itself is a gift. A serene environment with cool weather at about 700 metres above sea level. The staff are friendly. The owner is calm and clearly not doing this merely for money. There is a genuine love in the way the space is curated. It is clean. Organised. Thoughtfully detailed. The rooms are beautifully done. The entire bungalow feels like a heritage art piece, quietly standing in time.

They were flexible with food from the menu, accommodating my preference to avoid pastries, chips and wedges in exchange for more vegetables. Coffee and tea are complimentary throughout the day.

The sunrise is mesmerising. Every morning feels fresh and purposeful. And at night, the cool air refreshes the soul. From 700 metres up, Penang truly lives up to its name as the crown jewel, its lights glowing gently across the night sky.

I highly recommend Hickory to anyone looking for a place to think and reflect. If you are seeking reflective energy in silence, this is it.

God willing, I will be back again right after Hari Raya.

Thank you, Raj, Durin and the entire team at Hickory.

Peace, anas

 

MANDELA, GANDHI AND MODI

 

It is no surprise that Madiba and Gandhiji became close confidantes in heaven. They both stood for doing what is right even when it was hard, treating every human being with dignity, and believing that justice must apply to everyone, even those you disagree with.

So they made it a point to meet for tea every now and then. They would sit quietly under a wide tree, cups in hand, and look down at the earth below. From there, they could see cities glowing at night, borders drawn and redrawn, leaders speaking, crowds marching.

Like two old friends who had once carried the weight of nations on their shoulders, they would talk about the world they had left behind.

Today was Gandhiji’s turn to host.

He prepared the tea the way it is done on the streets of India where he once walked. Strong. Boiled with milk. Touched with ginger. Poured back and forth to cool before serving. The steam rose gently into the still air of heaven.

Madiba arrived with his familiar warm smile.

“You look serious today, my friend,” he said, taking the cup.

Gandhiji nodded. He stirred his tea slowly, paused for a while, then stirred it again.

“Yes, Madiba,” he replied softly. “Something is troubling my heart.”

Madiba waited, giving Gandhiji the space to speak when he was ready.

“It is about Modi… and where he is leading India,” he continued.

“He speaks of Jews finding refuge in India centuries ago. Of no history of antisemitism in Indian civilisation. Of cultural respect between Hindus and Jews.” He paused and took a sip of the tea. It was still too hot.

“That part is true,” he continued. “India gave refuge. We did not persecute Jews. That is something I am proud of.”

Gandhiji looked at Madiba’s face, searching for any reaction. Mandiba, knowing it was not yet his time to speak, simply said, “Go on.”

“Offering refuge to a persecuted people is noble. Supporting policies that displace another people is different,” Gandhiji said, his voice firmer now. Madiba could feel the pain behind his words.

Madiba then asked gently, “Have you spoken with Maulana Azad and Jawaharlal about this?”

“No. Not yet,” Gandhiji replied. “I thought I would speak to you first. I am sure Maulana would be very unhappy.”

Madiba pressed his palms together and said, “Let me play devil’s advocate for a moment.”

“Modi frames it as strategic partnership. Defense cooperation. Technology. Counter-terrorism. Especially after October 7.”

He took a sip of tea before continuing.

“The world changed after October 7. Security language now dominates.”

He looked at Gandhiji carefully.

“When you spoke of Palestine, there was no state of Israel yet. It was before the Nakbah. But Israel exists now. That is reality. The question is how to secure justice within that reality.”

Gandhiji looked down, sad but steady.

“I know that after me, Jawaharlal supported a two-state solution. Yet the tone today is no longer what it was under him. Modi now speaks much more openly in support of Israel.”

He paused.

“You know, Madiba, if I were still alive, I would never agree to taking land away from the Palestinians. I was clear then, and I am just as sure now. A homeland cannot be imposed through power. Empire cannot manufacture moral legitimacy.”

Madiba gave a gentle smile.

“You were always harder on governments than I was.”

Gandhiji laughed softly.

“I condemned violence in my time. I would condemn the killing of civilians today, whoever commits it. But justice cannot be selective.”

“I would drink to that,” Madiba said, lifting his cup. They gently touched their cups together and sipped. Then they sat in silence for a while, each lost in his own thoughts.

Madiba finally broke the silence.

“Do you think India has betrayed you?”

There was a long pause. Gandhiji took his time.

“No nation is permanently pure,” he said slowly. “But when the oppressed look for a moral voice and do not clearly hear it from India… that troubles me.”

Madiba waited.

Gandhiji’s final words were calm, but heavy.

“I am not proud of the India I died for with its current behaviour.”

Peace, anas

 

KE ARAH PENGUASAAN KERJA-HIDUP

SINAR HARIAN ms 14 hari ini.

𝗞𝗘 𝗔𝗥𝗔𝗛 𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗚𝗨𝗔𝗦𝗔𝗔𝗡 𝗞𝗘𝗥𝗝𝗔-𝗛𝗜𝗗𝗨𝗣

Untuk mudah baca klik di sini

https://www.sinarharian.com.my/.../ke-arah-penguasaan...

Salam, anas