HAVE A MEANINGFUL VAISAKHI - April 14, 2026

 

MANY LAMPS, ONE LIGHT*: SIKHISM

Introduction

Sikhism is one of the youngest major religions in the world. Its core philosophy teaches that there is One God, that all human beings are equal, and that we should lead honest lives dedicated to the service of others.

In Malaysia, the Sikh community is often recognized by their distinctive turbans, their disciplined nature, and a profound sense of service. Whether as teachers, police officers, neighbors, or friends, Sikhs have quietly and consistently contributed to the building of our nation.

Brief History

Sikhism began in the 15th century in the Punjab region of South Asia. It was founded by Guru Nanak, who lived during an era where society was deeply fractured by religion, caste, and social status.

• The Message of Guru Nanak: He travelled widely, meeting people from different backgrounds, teaching that there is only One God and that all people are equal, regardless of religion, race, or social standing. He rejected empty rituals and emphasised living a truthful and honest life.
• The Lineage: After him, nine more Gurus continued his teachings.
• The Khalsa: The tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, established the Khalsa—a community committed to courage, discipline, and equality.
• The Eternal Guide: He also declared that the holy scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, would be the eternal guide for Sikhs.

Core Beliefs

Sikhism is built on a few clear and powerful ideas:

• There is One God who is for all people.
• All human beings are equal.
• Live an honest life and earn through hard work.
• Share with others, especially those in need.
• Remember God in daily life.
• Reject injustice and stand up for what is right.

Practices & Rituals

Sikhs live their faith through action:

• Prayer: They pray and remember God daily.
• Worship: They gather at the Gurdwara (place of worship).
• Scripture: They read from the Guru Granth Sahib.
• Seva: They practise seva, which means selfless service.
• The Langar: One of the most beautiful practices is the langar, a free kitchen in every gurdwara where anyone can come and eat, regardless of race, religion, or status.

Sikhs also follow important life practices such as naming ceremonies, marriage rites, and funeral prayers, all guided by their teachings.

Festivals & Celebrations

The most important Sikh festival is Vaisakhi.

• Vaisakhi marks the founding of the Khalsa by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699. It is a day of courage, commitment, and identity. Sikhs gather at gurdwaras, pray, share meals, and celebrate together.
• Gurpurabs: Other important occasions include birth anniversaries of the Gurus, especially Guru Nanak’s birthday.

In Malaysia, these celebrations are often open and welcoming, where people from all backgrounds are invited.

Values We Can Learn

There is much we can learn from the Sikh community to strengthen our nation:

• Stand for justice, even when it is difficult.
• Treat everyone as equal.
• Be disciplined in life.
• Work hard and earn honestly.
• Serve others without expecting anything in return.
• Be brave, but also humble.

Cultural Expressions

Sikh culture is rich and distinctive:

• The Turban: Represents dignity, responsibility, and identity.
• Traditional Attire: Reflects modesty and discipline.
• Music (Kirtan): An important part of worship.
• Food: Plays a central role, especially in langar.

The Sikh identity is not just about belief, but about living those beliefs openly and consistently.

Misunderstandings & Clarifications

Understanding these points helps us respect one another better:

• Distinct Faith: Sikhism is a distinct religion with its own teachings; it is not a branch of another faith.
• The Turban: It is a symbol of honour, equality, and commitment.
• Hair: Sikhs do not cut their hair as part of their discipline and identity.

Dos and Don’ts When Visiting or Meeting Sikhs

Meeting a Sikh:

• A common greeting is “Sat Sri Akal,” which means “Truth is eternal.”
• A simple smile and handshake are also acceptable.
• Do not touch a Sikh’s turban.

Visiting a Gurdwara:

• Remove your shoes before entering and cover your head as a sign of respect.
• Dress modestly and maintain cleanliness.
• Remain calm and respectful; you may bow or stand quietly when the Guru Granth Sahib is present.
• Sit respectfully and avoid pointing your feet towards the Guru Granth Sahib.
• Do not bring alcohol or cigarettes into the gurdwara.

During Langar:

• Sit together with others regardless of background.
• Accept the food served and avoid wasting it.
• Ik Onkar: Remember that the central expression of Sikhism is Ik Onkar—"There is One God" - reflecting unity and oneness.

Sikhism in Malaysia

Sikhs arrived in Malaya during the British period, serving with distinction in the police and military. They were known for their reliability and courage.

• Today: Malaysian Sikhs serve in law, education, business, and public service.
• Contribution: They have contributed significantly to nation-building, maintaining law, order, and public trust through their strong traditions of service.

Interesting Facts

• Guru Nanak worked as an accountant before beginning his mission.
• He travelled thousands of kilometres to spread his message.
• His close companion was Bhai Mardana, a Muslim Sufi musician who played the rabab while Guru Nanak sang.
• Sikhism rejects caste and social hierarchy.
• The langar system feeds millions of people around the world daily.

Voices from the Tradition (Guru Granth Sahib)

• “Earn by honest work and share with others.” (Ang 1245)
• “Truth is high, but higher still is truthful living.” (Ang 62)
• “No one is my enemy, no one is a stranger.” (Ang 1299)
• “By egotism all are corrupted; through humility, one is saved.” (Ang 466)
• “Make good deeds your body, and faith your support.” (Ang 4)
• “Let self-control be your furnace, and patience your goldsmith.” (Ang 8)

10 Beautiful Things We Can Say About Them

1. They stand up for what is right.
2. They treat everyone as equal.
3. They are highly disciplined.
4. They value honest labor.
5. They feed the hungry through langar.
6. They protect the weak.
7. They serve the community quietly.
8. They are proud of their identity.
9. They are incredibly welcoming.
10. They remind us that humanity is one.

Moving Forward Together

We hope that this brief look at Sikhism helps Malaysians to better know, understand, and appreciate one another. When we take the time to learn from each other’s traditions and values, we move closer as a people. And when we move closer, we become stronger as one nation.

Peace, anas

* Note - Beginning this Vaisakhi, we launch Many Lamps, One Light — a project dedicated to sharing the beauty of our different religious traditions. By learning about one another, we hope Malaysians will grow in understanding, appreciation, and unity as one people.

 

THANK YOU PAKISTAN

 

Kudos and respect to Pakistan for stepping forward as a mediator between the United States and Iran. This is not a small role. It carries immense risk.

To stand between two powerful adversaries at such a volatile moment takes courage and conviction. Those who push for war rarely welcome peace, and history shows that mediators often become targets - politically, diplomatically, or worse. It is well known that Israel has, many times, hijacked peaceful diplomatic efforts by targeting mediators.

Yet, choosing dialogue over destruction is always the higher path. May wisdom prevail, and may those working for peace be protected.

Thank you.

Peace, anas zubedy.

THE QUESTION OF ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO EXISTENCE

 

Few questions in modern geopolitics are as emotionally charged, politically loaded, and repeatedly invoked as this: Does Israel have a right to exist? It is a question that appears almost reflexively whenever Palestinian rights are raised. Before one can speak about occupation, settlements, or human suffering, one is often asked to answer this foundational question. Yet, curiously, very few other nations, many of them newer than Israel, are subjected to the same test. To understand why, we must first examine the arguments as they are presented, and then carefully consider the tensions and inconsistencies that arise.

From the Israeli perspective and its supporters, the argument rests on several pillars. First, rightly or wrongly, there is the historical and religious connection to the land. Jews trace their roots to ancient kingdoms in the region, and for many, this connection is not merely historical but spiritual. Second, and perhaps most powerfully, is the legacy of the Holocaust. The systematic murder of accordingly six million Jews stands as one of humanity’s darkest chapters. It is often argued that this tragedy demonstrated, beyond doubt, the need for a Jewish homeland where Jews would no longer be at the mercy of others. Third, there is international recognition. The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine proposed the creation of both a Jewish and an Arab state. Following its declaration of independence in 1948, Israel was recognized by many countries and admitted into the United Nations. Finally, there is the principle of self-determination. If other peoples are entitled to form nation-states, why not the Jews? Taken together, these arguments form a coherent case. Israel exists, it is recognized, and its people, like any other, seek security and sovereignty.

Yet, there is another side to this story, one that raises difficult and often uncomfortable questions. Before 1948, there was already a land known as Palestine, inhabited by its people. While there were ancient kingdoms known as Israel and Judah, there was never a modern sovereign state of Israel in the way we understand states today. The Balfour Declaration, issued by a colonial power, supported the establishment of a Jewish homeland in that land. To many, this was not a neutral legal act but a colonial intervention that set the stage for conflict. It is also worth recalling that early Zionist thinking, led by figures such as Theodor Herzl, did not initially fixate solely on Palestine. Alternatives such as Uganda and Argentina were seriously considered. This suggests that the justification for Palestine, while later framed as historical or biblical, was, at one stage, also pragmatic.

Furthermore, if the claim is ultimately rooted in a biblical idea of Israel, then it must also be measured against what the Bible demands. The biblical concept is not one of a modern democratic nation-state that selects certain elements while discarding others. It is a covenantal framework, grounded in obedience, moral responsibility, and divine law. One cannot invoke the promise of the land while setting aside the conditions attached to it. To claim a biblical basis, yet operate outside its full demands, raises a fundamental inconsistency: is this a modern political project, or a true continuation of a biblical model?

Then comes the moral question of the Holocaust itself. The atrocity was committed by Nazi Germany, not by Palestinians or other Middle Eastern peoples. If restitution or compensation was required, why was it not borne by those responsible? Why was a different population made to carry the consequences? This is not to diminish the horror of the Holocaust. It is to ask whether justice for one people can be built upon the dispossession of another.

Since 1948, the world has seen the birth of many new states. Malaysia gained independence in 1957. Brunei followed in 1984. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, countries such as Moldova, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan emerged. More recently, South Sudan became independent in 2011. Yet none of these nations are routinely asked, “Do you have a right to exist?” In most cases, independence meant that the people already living on the land became citizens of a new state. There was continuity. There was no large-scale displacement tied to the creation of the state itself. In the case of Israel, however, two peoples laid claim to the same land, and the Jews were mostly brought from across Europe. For Palestinians, 1948 is not only a moment of independence for another people, but also a moment of loss. This unresolved tension continues to echo into the present.

Another layer of complexity lies in the question of borders. Unlike most modern states, Israel’s final borders have never been fully settled. After the Six-Day War, Israel took control of territories including the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Since then, settlements have expanded, and the status of these lands remains deeply contested. Today, Lebanon is also a target. This creates a perception, particularly among critics, that the “right to exist” is not merely about the existence of a state, but about a state whose geographical scope continues to evolve. It looks more like a right to colonized. Supporters of Israel reject this interpretation. They argue that the right to exist is about sovereignty and security, not expansion, and that borders were always meant to be finalized through negotiation. Yet, from the outside, the reality on the ground raises a difficult question: where does existence end and expansion begin?

In many discussions, asking “Does Israel have a right to exist?” functions less as a philosophical inquiry and more as a gatekeeping tool. It shifts the conversation away from present realities and places the burden on the speaker to first declare a position. In doing so, it reframes debates about human rights, justice, and policy into a binary test of legitimacy.

History is filled with immense human suffering. The Holocaust stands as one of the most horrific, but it is not the only tragedy. Millions perished in World War II beyond the Jewish community. The Soviet Union alone lost approximately 27 million people. In colonial contexts, policies such as those during the Bengal famine under Winston Churchill have been cited as contributing to mass deaths. Yet, in none of these cases was a new state created on another people’s land as a form of redress. This raises a broader moral question: are we applying consistent standards when we speak of justice, restitution, and the rights of nations?

The debate does not end with history. It returns, forcefully, to the present. Even if one accepts that Israel has a right to exist as a state, a deeper and more uncomfortable question arises: What does that right mean in practice today? Is it simply the right to exist within secure and recognised borders, like any other nation? Or has it, over time, come to include actions that go beyond self-defence and into the realm of continuous conflict?

A state’s right to exist cannot be detached from its responsibility. The perception among many observers is that Israeli leadership, particularly under Benjamin Netanyahu, plays a decisive role in shaping the trajectory of conflict in the region. The concern is not influence alone, but whether that influence consistently pushes toward escalation rather than resolution. Across decades, there is a recurring claim that moments of potential diplomacy in the Middle East often collapse before they can mature. From negotiations involving Yasser Arafat to repeated attempts at a two-state solution, many observers argue that efforts toward peace are frequently undermined by actions on the ground that make those efforts harder to sustain. Recent events with Iran appear to support this view. Mediators are targeted, and just before a diplomatic solution is about to bear fruit, Israel is perceived to act in ways that derail it. Even the current ceasefire has been strained by Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon.

Supporters of Israel reject this view, pointing to real security threats and the role of multiple actors in the region. Yet the perception persists that military action often overtakes diplomacy at critical moments. What troubles many is not a single incident, but what appears to be a pattern of recurring conflict involving neighbouring regions and countries such as Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Each conflict has its own context and justification. But taken together, they raise a broader question: at what point does constant conflict begin to define the character of a state’s existence?

To bring this into sharper focus, consider a simple analogy. Imagine a school. Every kid has a right to “exist” as a student. In that school, there is a student who constantly creates problems. He bullies others, takes what does not belong to him, harms smaller students, and shows no regard for rules. He even murders one of his classmates. Each time he does this, a powerful authority figure protects him. No matter what happens, there are no real consequences. In fact, he is given the tools to cause even more harm.

Now the question is straightforward. Do we allow this to continue? Do we say that the student has a right to be in the school, and therefore nothing more can be done? Do we allow other students to continue being harmed in the name of protecting that one student? Should our first response be to ask whether the bully has a right to be a student, instead of first taking his harmful acts seriously? Or should he be expelled as quickly as possible?

Or do we recognise a basic principle: that a student’s place in the school is tied to behaviour, that rights come with responsibility, and that repeated harm cannot be ignored. In any functioning system, there must be consequences. Limits must be imposed. Harmful behaviour must be restrained. Protection cannot become permission. No school can function if rules apply to everyone except one. The student would have been expelled.

Israel exists today, a reality that cannot be ignored. But existence, in the modern world, is not a blank cheque. It is tied to responsibility, restraint, and adherence to norms that allow others to live with dignity and security. If a state refuses to define its borders, and its territorial footprint continues to expand in practice, then a difficult implication follows. Expansion cannot be a one-way logic. If a state can grow beyond its original lines without clear limits, then by the same principle, it can also be restricted, reduced, and contained when its actions consistently undermine peace. This is not about denying a people’s existence. It is about the limits of state power.

The Jews have experienced many cycles of “Arrival → coexistence → distinct identity and roles → tension in crisis → restriction → displacement” throughout history. Many times, they were scapegoated and were the victims. But today, Zionism is not Judaism. The cycle may turn faster. If these Zionist playbooks continue, displacement may happen again.

Large segments of the American public are already questioning their leaders’ emphasis on Israel’s well-being instead of prioritising America first. Increasingly, even among traditional allies, there are signs of discomfort. Some European leaders have begun to view Israel not as a stabilising force, but as a source of tension in an already fragile global landscape.

Beyond the North Atlantic, many countries in the Global South have long been uneasy. While they may have tolerated Israel’s actions for strategic or diplomatic reasons, the underlying sentiment has often been one of dissatisfaction. At the ground level, across continents, the mood is clearer. Large segments of the global public are increasingly angered by what they see happening to the Palestinians. This is no longer a regional issue. It is shaping global perception, public discourse, and future alignments.

These are signs to come. 

As for me personally, I do believe Israel has a right to exist, but not on Palestinian land. And given the Zionist behaviour, just like the school bully mentioned, one should also question their moral right to exist as a state.

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

Penang.

 

BEYOND RACE: WHAT MALAYSIAN VOTERS REALLY WANT IN GE16

 

For decades, race has been one of the sharpest tools in Malaysian politics. It shaped narratives, influenced alliances, and determined how campaigns were run. Closely linked with religion, it became the default lens through which voters were understood and mobilised. But something has been changing.

If we study the last general election carefully, we will notice a shift. Race did not disappear, but it was no longer the only, or even the most decisive, factor. Another force began to rise above it. That force is values.

The Universal Moral Alignment

Across Malaysia, people from different races and religions began to converge on a shared position: Corruption is wrong. A Muslim sees it as a betrayal of amanah. A Christian sees it as a failure of integrity. A Hindu sees it as a violation of dharma. A Buddhist sees it as a failure of right conduct. A Taoist sees it as a disruption of harmony. A Sikh sees it as a violation of justice and righteous living.

Different traditions. Same conclusion. This is not political alignment; this is moral alignment. And it is reshaping how Malaysians judge their leaders.

The Failure of the Old Formula

Yet many political commentators and practitioners remain trapped in an old mental model. They still believe that to win elections, one must mobilise along race. It has become an automatic response, a familiar strategy repeated over decades. So when they analyse current developments, they fall back on the same explanations.

Take the Prime Minister. Many say he is trying to win back Malay votes. Since taking over the government, he has been widely perceived, and often criticised, as making a strong push towards the Malay electorate. The narrative is that this is necessary because Malay support remains with the opposition, particularly Perikatan Nasional. At the same time, another claim is made: that in doing so, he is gradually losing his non-Malay base.

On the surface, this appears to be a straightforward political calculation. But it is not working. Malay votes have not significantly shifted. At the same time, there is visible unease among segments of non-Malay voters. Many observers immediately conclude that this is a racial balancing issue. But this is an oversimplification; it reflects a failure to recognise what is actually happening on the ground.

Credibility Over Identity

The dissatisfaction we are seeing today is not primarily about race or religion. It is about credibility, consistency, and trust. Malaysians are asking simple but powerful questions: Did you keep your promises? Did you say one thing before the election and do another after? Are you applying the same standards to everyone? Are you sincere?

This is not a racial judgement. This is a values judgement. There is a growing feeling across the country that Malaysians are tired of being lied to, talked down to, and taken for granted. There is a deep sense that we have been "played out."

Over the years, we have seen promises made and not kept, positions taken and later abandoned, and principles applied selectively depending on who is involved. This is what frustrates Malaysians. Not race. Not religion. But hypocrisy.

A More Conscious Electorate

Malaysians today are more exposed, more informed, and more aware. We are no longer evaluating leaders based only on identity. We are evaluating them based on whether they are real leaders. Do they keep their word? Are they capable? Can they manage the economy? Are they serious about improving our schools, our infrastructure, and our daily lives?

People understand that not everything can be perfect. We know resources are limited. But we want to see fairness, balance, and proportion. It is not always what is done that frustrates people; it is how it is done. When actions appear excessive, selective, or politically calculated, trust erodes.

MAHAL: The New Standard

At its core, the demand is simple. Malaysians are looking for authentic leadership - leaders who remove uncertainty and whose words and decisions are aligned. We want leaders who are not hypocrites. This is the minimum standard.

Yet, many feel this standard has not been met. Over the past 10 to 15 years, repeated cycles of over-promising and under-delivering have made Malaysians more sensitive than ever to being misled. Trust has become fragile. And once broken, it is not easily repaired.

This is why a simple idea captures the current mood: MAHAL. Malaysians Against Hypocrisy and Lying. This is not a slogan; it is a reflection of how many Malaysians already feel. We are not asking for perfection. We are asking for honesty, consistency, and fairness.

The Real Question for GE16

Until politicians understand this, they will continue to use the wrong formula. They will continue to overplay race and identity, and they will fail because they are missing the real point. The issue is not whether a leader is "pro-Malay" or "pro-non-Malay." The issue is whether the leader is credible.

As we move towards GE16, race and religion will still be present, but they will no longer be as sharp. Malaysians are asking a deeper question: Can we trust you? Will you act fairly? Will you do the right thing, consistently? We are no longer just listening to what you say; we are watching what you do.

At the end of the day, the expectation is simple. We want a working government. One that gets things done, improves the economy, and applies the law fairly - not one that chooses who to protect and who to punish.

Just a government that does the right thing. Consistently.

Is that too much to ask?

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

Penang.

 

SIAPA LEBIH MENGHARGAI WANITA

 

- analisis perbandingan antara era Shah dan Ayatollah

Ramai individu di seluruh dunia, termasuk di Malaysia, sering kali terperangkap dalam persepsi yang terpesong terhadap Iran dan kepimpinannya akibat dominasi naratif Barat. Keberatan untuk meneliti fakta daripada sumber yang seimbang menyebabkan ramai yang sekadar menerima propaganda satu pihak atau cenderung kepada pandangan yang berat sebelah.

Salah satu kepercayaan popular yang jarang dipersoalkan adalah dakwaan bahawa Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi mempunyai pendirian yang lebih progresif terhadap wanita berbanding kepimpinan Ayatollah. Namun, apabila kita meneliti kenyataan lisan dan data empirikal, realitinya jauh lebih kompleks daripada apa yang digambarkan oleh media arus perdana.

Dalam satu temu bual ikonik pada tahun 1973 bersama wartawan Itali, Oriana Fallaci, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi secara terbuka meluahkan pandangan yang mencerminkan kepercayaan beliau terhadap ketuanan lelaki. Walaupun beliau mengakui kesetaraan wanita dari sudut undang-undang, beliau berhujah bahawa wanita tidak setanding lelaki dari segi keupayaan mental dan kepimpinan.

Bagi Shah, nilai seseorang wanita lebih tertumpu kepada aspek estetika seperti kecantikan, keanggunan, dan pesona kewanitaan. Secara tidak langsung, pemikiran patriarki yang menebal ini menunjukkan bahawa beliau melihat peranan utama wanita adalah sebagai pelengkap rupa paras, bukannya sebagai penggerak intelektual atau pemimpin Masyarakat - suatu ironi besar bagi seorang pemerintah yang sering dijulang sebagai simbol kemodenan.

Sebaliknya, perspektif yang dibawa oleh Ayatollah Khamenei menekankan prinsip kesetaraan potensi antara jantina. Beliau menegaskan bahawa walaupun terdapat perbezaan fizikal yang nyata, namun dari segi keupayaan intelektual dan rohani, kedua-dua jantina memiliki potensi yang tidak terbatas. Dalam pandangan beliau, lelaki dan wanita berhak bersaing secara adil dalam mengejar ilmu pengetahuan. Beliau turut menyangkal tanggapan bahawa lelaki lebih berilmu, malah menekankan bahawa sepanjang sejarah, wanita telah membuktikan kehebatan mereka dalam bidang sains, kesenian, dan inovasi. Bagi Ayatollah, penyertaan wanita dalam bidang politik, ekonomi, dan sosial bukan sekadar satu pilihan, malah dalam sesetengah keadaan, ia merupakan satu tanggungjawab yang seharusnya dipikul.

Tiada masalah, Anas. Ini adalah terjemahan penuh bagi bahagian tersebut, termasuk ayat pengenalan yang menekankan kepentingan data dan fakta. Saya telah menyesuaikan bahasanya agar kedengaran lebih berwibawa dan meyakinkan:

Apa yang lebih penting, kita perlu berpaksikan kepada data dan fakta yang boleh diukur. Kita harus meneliti hasil yang nyata dan objektif.

Di bawah pemerintahan Shah, pendidikan wanita kekal terhad dan tidak saksama. Kadar celik huruf dalam kalangan wanita hanya berada di sekitar 24% hingga 35%, yang bermakna lebih daripada 60% wanita masih buta huruf, terutamanya di kawasan luar bandar. Malah di peringkat pendidikan tinggi, akses adalah terbatas dengan wanita hanya merangkumi kira-kira 28% daripada keseluruhan pelajar universiti. Hal ini menunjukkan bahawa walaupun peluang pendidikan wujud, ia sebahagian besarnya hanya memberi manfaat kepada kelompok elit di bandar berbanding masyarakat awam yang lebih luas. Kita juga harus mengambil kira bahawa semasa era Shah, tiada sebarang sekatan ekonomi yang dikenakan oleh komuniti antarabangsa.

Sebaliknya, di bawah Republik Islam, termasuk di bawah kepimpinan Ayatollah Khameini, bidang pendidikan telah berkembang secara drastik merentasi seluruh lapisan masyarakat. Kadar celik huruf wanita melonjak kepada sekitar 80% hingga 90% ke atas, dengan kadar penamatan pendidikan rendah bagi kanak-kanak perempuan mencecah hampir 99%. Peningkatan dalam penyertaan universiti adalah jauh lebih ketara, iaitu daripada kira-kira 3% pada tahun 1978 kepada sekitar 59% ke atas, malah wanita membentuk majoriti pelajar dalam beberapa tahun kebelakangan ini. Ini mencerminkan peralihan besar daripada akses yang terhad kepada pendidikan massa bagi wanita di seluruh negara. Segala pencapaian ini berjaya diraih di bawah tekanan sekatan antarabangsa yang ketat, dengan sumber yang jauh lebih terhad.

Amat malang sekali apabila perbincangan sering kali disempitkan kepada soal etika berpakaian sahaja, sehingga membayangi isu-isu yang jauh lebih penting. Fokus yang hanya tertumpu kepada aspek ini adalah sangat terbatas dan cetek.

Kita perlu melihat gambaran yang lebih besar dan mengutamakan perkara-perkara yang lebih krusial, sepertimana yang di tetekankan dalam Al Quran Surah Al-A‘raf, 7:26.

“Wahai anak-anak Adam! Sesungguhnya Kami telah menurunkan kepada kamu pakaian untuk menutup aurat kamu dan sebagai perhiasan; tetapi pakaian takwa itulah yang terbaik. Yang demikian itu adalah antara tanda-tanda (kekuasaan) Allah, supaya mereka mengambil peringatan.”

Salam,

Anas Zubedy

Kuala Lumpur

 

SOCIAL CONTRACT IN COMPANIES - TODAY STARBIZ PAGE 15

 

DEAR CAPTAINS of Industry and Public Institutions

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT: A CEO’s FIRST DUTY

Dear Captains,

The first duty of a CEO is to ensure that the organisation’s social contract is understood, accepted and internalised. The beginning of the year is the most natural time to reaffirm it, or whenever the organisation needs to regroup around shared values, standards and spirit.

What is a social contract?

A social contract is a shared understanding of how we agree to work together. It defines what we expect from one another when we are trying to achieve something as a group. It is not limited to organisations. It exists in marriages, families, partnerships, corporations and even nations. Wherever people must cooperate, expectations must be made clear.

We must not mistake a social contract for the company handbook.

The employee handbook tells you the rules.
The social contract tells you the spirit.
The handbook is compliance-driven.
The social contract is culture-driven.
A social contract is not HR paperwork. It rests with the CEO.

As such, it is not just a policy document or an employee handbook exercise. It includes the company’s core values but goes further by explaining how those values are practised in everyday work. It is about shaping behaviour. It shapes how people treat one another, how decisions are made and how accountability is carried. It moves employment beyond a legal arrangement and turns it into a mutual commitment. Most importantly, it sets the tone for how people engage in every direction, whether managing upwards, leading downwards or working alongside peers and external stakeholders.

Most organisations focus almost entirely on the legal contract. Salary, working hours, leave entitlement and confidentiality clauses are clearly documented. Yet the real tension in organisations rarely comes from these clauses. It comes from expectations that were never clearly expressed.

Employees expect fairness, recognition and opportunities to grow. Managers expect ownership, loyalty, followership and performance. Employees look for dignity and development. Leaders look for accountability and results. None of these expectations are unreasonable. Problems arise when they are assumed instead of discussed.

When expectations are unclear, resentment builds quietly. Emotions replace structure. Small misunderstandings turn into fixed narratives. Making the social contract explicit reduces ambiguity. It removes guesswork. It replaces silent frustration with shared clarity.

Most new employees skim through the handbook, sign the document, file it away and rarely revisit it unless there is a dispute or disciplinary issue. The handbook outlines what is punishable. It asks only for the minimum standard required. The social contract clarifies what is honourable. It shows us how we can grow as individuals, as a team and as a company. The difference is profound.

A leader’s role is not merely to enforce rules but to align people. The social contract becomes the shared understanding that guides daily behaviour beyond compliance. It helps transform a workplace into a functioning community, creating an environment where performance benefits both employer and employee.

This is especially relevant in today’s workforce. As a younger generation enters organisations in greater numbers, expectations are shifting. Many younger employees seek meaning, regular feedback, fairness, growth and psychological safety. Employers, in turn, expect accountability, professionalism, adaptability and respect for structure. Without deliberate conversation, these expectations collide rather than complement one another.

Clarifying the social contract should therefore be the first management conversation each year. It comes even before onboarding and KPI reviews. Expectation alignment must come before strategy presentations.

A simple exercise can be transformative. Based on corporate goals and a clear understanding of what success requires, management lists what it expects from employees. Employees list what they expect from management. Both sides discuss these openly. This builds shared ownership.

It is crucial that the CEO defines the playing field of the social contract based on the company’s needs, not merely on management preference or employee desire. A social contract must rest on what needs to be done for the organisation to succeed, not simply on what any party wishes to do. Once a refined set of mutual expectations aligned with corporate needs is documented, it becomes the team’s compass. It may or may not be legally binding, but it must be upheld culturally and morally.

The need for a clear social contract becomes even more urgent when the nature of work itself changes. One of the most obvious examples in recent years is Working from Home (WFH).

WFH is not just a logistical arrangement. It forces us to rethink how we work and what work means. When presence is no longer visible, trust, accountability and performance must be redefined. Without an explicit social contract, assumptions quickly replace clarity.

Some employees see WFH as the flexibility to work from anywhere, whether their hometown or even a holiday destination, as long as they remain reachable and deliver their work. Employers, on the other hand, may interpret WFH to mean that employees are working from home and should be available to come into the office at short notice if required.

Others may view WFH as similar to flexible working hours, where they can step out to run errands or do their grocery shopping as long as their tasks are completed on time. Employers, however, may see WFH and flexible hours as two separate arrangements with different expectations.

Without a clearly defined social contract, these differing interpretations can easily lead to frustration on both sides and affect company performance.

Dear Captains,

The social contract is a crucial exercise. It is our first duty. It sets the environment for performance by helping us agree on how we work and live together within an organisational community. It not only defines behavioural parameters but also builds relationships that support performance. It explains how we communicate, how we give feedback and how we get things done.

Once a company-wide social contract is established, it becomes the responsibility of the heads of department to cascade it further. Each department should develop its own social contract based on the company’s foundation while adding expectations that are specific to the way the department operates, both within the team and in its interaction with other departments.

Social contracts should be revisited yearly, with fresh commitment breathed into their spirit. Every new employee must be clearly introduced to it so they understand what it means to belong and contribute to their new community. This discipline is vital for any organisation and, by extension, any society.

Clear expectations align people. Aligned people build institutions.

For previous StarBiz articles go here - https://letusaddvalue.blogspot.com/2026/03/starbiz-yesterday-why-leader-managers.html 

 

GE16: PEMIMPIN–PEMIMPIN YANG TAK BOLEH PAKAI

 

Please share if you agree, thanks.

Dear Malaysian voters, peace.

We can disagree on many things in politics. Policies, priorities, even ideology. We may support different political parties, come from different ethnic groups or religious affiliations, be young or old, rich, middle class or poor, from Sabah, Sarawak, or Semenanjung.

But let us agree on some basic standards of leadership that should not be negotiable.

We need the best individuals. We must set the highest standards for the 222 who will represent us in Parliament. They will shape our nation over the next five years, and the future of our next generations.

Let us agree not to vote for these dirty dozen.

First, those who cakap tak serupa bikin. Leaders who lack authenticity, where words and actions do not align. Trust is the foundation of leadership. Once broken, everything else becomes questionable. If we cannot rely on their word, we cannot rely on their leadership. They are not difficult to spot. Look at what they promised before GE15 and what they did after. In today’s digital world, there is more than enough audio and visual record to judge them fairly. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Second, those who are corrupt, protect the corrupt, or remain silent. Corruption is not just about money. It steals opportunity, fairness, and the future of the rakyat. Every ringgit lost is a classroom not built, a university place denied, a hospital under-resourced, a burden shifted to the people. Integrity is not negotiable. These individuals are easy to identify. Before elections, they speak loudly about accountability. After elections, they become friendly, fall silent, or accept positions that benefit from that silence. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Third, those who say one thing and do another, especially once in power. Before elections, they speak of reform, accountability, and change. After gaining power, the narrative shifts. Consistency is a minimum requirement. Power should reveal character, not reverse it. This is a litmus test of who we can trust and who we should not trust again. Listen to their language. Do they justify inaction with phrases like “reforms take time,” claim their hands are tied, or blame the very people they aligned with to gain power? TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Fourth, those who disrespect other people’s religious beliefs, institutions, and practices. Malaysians have a deep connection to their faith, and respect for others is paramount, even when we disagree. This is the soul and fabric of our nation. When leaders use unkind words to belittle or attack, or employ double-edged language to elevate themselves by putting others down, that is not leadership. Worse still is when they coin terms to divide and segment the nation, keeping race and religion alive as political fuel. They are not strengthening society. They are weakening it.

We must recognise them and refuse to vote for them. They are among the most dangerous individuals in a multi-religious society like ours. Left unchecked, they erode the very foundation of our nation. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Fifth, those who abuse their position for family and their own people’s benefit. Public office is a trust, not a family enterprise. When opportunities, contracts, and positions are given based on connections rather than capability, the system suffers. Public funds are not personal assets. These individuals are not hard to identify. Look at who benefits. Review contracts. Follow the distribution. Patterns will reveal themselves. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Sixth, those who place politics above the needs of the rakyat. When decisions are delayed, diluted, or distorted to protect political positions, it is the people who pay the price. Leadership is about solving problems, not managing narratives. Power over people is unacceptable.

Yes, politics is part of the job. But when politics comes first, trust is broken. Ask a simple question: are they willing to risk their position to uphold their principles? If not, power has become the goal, not service. We become pawns in their game. Why should we vote for them again? TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Seventh, those who are arrogant. Leaders who believe they have all the answers and refuse to listen. No one has a monopoly on wisdom. Arrogance shuts out feedback, and mistakes are repeated instead of corrected. Leadership requires humility.

This is easy to spot. Observe how they speak, behave, and respond to questions, complaints, and feedback. Arrogance is hard to hide. You know who they are. Do not vote for them. And remember, during elections, they may suddenly appear humble and caring. Do not be fooled. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Eighth, those who talk about unity but practise division. They speak of togetherness, yet play race and religious politics when it suits them. Unity cannot be a slogan used to gain power. When unity becomes a tool for power, instead of power being used to build unity, we have a serious problem.

Watch their language. They question loyalty, whether as citizens or as members of an ethnic group. They frame it as a choice: are we Malaysian first or defined by ethnicity? This is a false divide. We are both. When leaders blur this to create tension, they are not uniting the nation. They are weakening it. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Ninth, those who practise double standards. One rule for themselves and their own people, another for everyone else. Justice loses its meaning when applied selectively. When fairness disappears, trust in institutions follows.

This is easy to identify. Observe how they exercise power. Who gets more, who gets less. Who is punished, and who walks free. The pattern will be clear. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Tenth, those who blame others and avoid responsibility. When things go wrong, they point fingers instead of stepping forward. Leadership begins with ownership. Without accountability, there is no learning, and without learning, no progress.

Listen to how they respond when things go wrong. Do they take responsibility or shift blame? Their response tells you everything. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Eleventh, those who sacrifice principles for outcomes. The idea that the ends justify the means is flawed. Short-term gains achieved through wrong methods create long-term damage. The journey matters as much as the goal.

These are the individuals who justify compromise, even on the very principles they once fought for and used to earn your support. They explain it away and expect acceptance. In doing so, they assume we will forget.

There is a saying often shared in Chinese, “sik sei gai hou taai.” It refers to how it is easiest to slaughter the chicken that does not see you as a threat. Those who trust you most are often the easiest to take advantage of. In politics, the easiest people to mislead are those who trusted you the most. We must not allow ourselves to be misled. TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Finally, those who talk a lot but do little. Incompetence disguised as rhetoric. Announcements, slogans, and speeches mean little without execution. The rakyat do not live on promises. They live with results. Good intentions are not enough.

Compare what they say with what has been delivered. The gap will be clear. We should not vote for NATOs. No Action, Talk Only. BETUL-BETUL TAK BOLEH PAKAI.

Peace.
Anas Zubedy