IS ISRAEL PLANNING ANOTHER ATTACK ON IRAN SOON?

 

Recently, AIPAC launched what it calls, ironically, an “America First” advertising campaign — a rebranding exercise that seeks to present itself as an American-rooted movement. In this advert, AIPAC goes to great lengths to portray the United States and Israel as inseparable — as the Malay idiom says, “isi dengan kuku” (like flesh and nail).

Iran was once again mentioned, though this time more subtly — framed as part of a shared U.S.–Israel challenge. Yet beneath its polished tone, the ad carefully weaves the destinies of both nations together, wrapping Israel’s security narrative within the language of American patriotism.

I do not believe the United States — nor Trump himself — wants another war, especially with Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is far too critical to global trade and energy supply; any conflict there risks catastrophic economic disruption. But for Israel, Iran remains an existential threat — as the Twelve-Day War reminded us. Tel Aviv cannot accept a powerful adversary so close to its borders. And yet, Israel cannot act alone; it would need American firepower. Furthermore, with each passing day, Iran could reorganize its defense and war readiness — for example, improving its air power, which was notably lacking during the Twelve-Day War.

Could the current peace deals be a precursor to such a move — a way to decouple Iran from the Palestinian cause, which still enjoys broad global sympathy?

Would the timing of an attack, if it happens, be planned to avoid clashing with the U.S. midterm elections? Or conversely, could striking Iran be used to rally domestic support for Trump — with Iran once again cast as the convenient bogeyman?

Is such a war inevitable — merely a matter of time?

Most importantly, how can we work to prevent any war, especially one with Iran? The consequences — both immediate and long-term — would reverberate across the entire world.

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

Kuala Lumpur.

 

The FAM Fiasco Is More Than Meets the Eye

 

“It is better to lose than to cheat.”

The recent FIFA–FAM scandal is not just about football — it mirrors something much deeper within us: our national psyche. If we do not reflect and act on it, this pattern may lead us toward greater failures and even catastrophe.

As a nation, we have developed certain bad habits. These habits have been passed down from generation to generation, quietly shaping the way we think, work, and respond to challenges. Today, they have become strongholds of a negative culture — a Bad Kitaran that repeats itself across our institutions, communities, and hearts.

In this article, let us pause and ask ourselves a few honest questions. The answers may reveal why this scandal happened — and why similar ones keep happening. Have we failed to see that it is better to lose than to cheat? Have we lost our pride in growing and developing our own abilities, choosing instead to cheat to win? Are we so poorly in touch with our inner self that we can no longer be honest with ourselves first?

Our Negative Kitaran

What is a KITARAN?

A Kitaran, or “cycle,” refers to a repeating chain of events or behaviours that reinforce themselves over time, creating a loop. These loops exist in every organisation and community. Sometimes they drive improvement and innovation — a Positive Kitaran. But at other times, they lead to decline and decay — a Negative Kitaran.

What makes these cycles so powerful, and at times so dangerous, is that they often go unnoticed. Because we operate within familiar routines, we may not realise when we are trapped in a loop, repeating actions and decisions that no longer serve us. We tell ourselves that “this is how it’s always been done.” Over time, this habit becomes an invisible prison that limits our growth and blinds us to new possibilities.

The FIFA–FAM scandal is a painful but clear example of how our Negative Kitaran operates. It exposes the cultural and psychological habits that quietly drive us to repeat the same mistakes — not only in sports, but across many aspects of Malaysian life.

The Psychology Behind Our Negative Kitaran

At the root of our Bad Kitaran lies our high power distance. We have been conditioned to respect titles more than truth. We fear questioning those in authority, even when something is clearly wrong. From young, we are taught to obey rather than to think, to follow rather than to question. Over time, this deference becomes cultural — we keep quiet even when our conscience stirs. As a result, mistakes go uncorrected, and those in power rarely hear the truth they need to hear.

This fear of challenging authority is closely tied to our avoidance of conflict. We prefer peace on the surface to honesty in the heart. We choose comfort over correction, harmony over hard truth. But this false calm hides dysfunction. It allows rot to spread quietly beneath polite smiles.

Then there is our love for shortcuts. We chase quick wins rather than long-term strength. We want to look successful more than we want to be strong. We justify wrongs by calling them “technical” or “misunderstanding.” Over time, we lose the ability to distinguish right from wrong.

Because we rarely hold anyone accountable, blame becomes scattered. Everyone shares a little fault, so no one bears responsibility. We become reactive, only fixing problems when they explode — and when they do, we treat them as drama instead of lessons. Each new leader repeats old mistakes, convinced the problem began yesterday.

As this continues, public cynicism grows. When truth rarely wins, people stop believing it matters. We become comfortable in our silence, telling ourselves that nothing will change anyway. Deep inside, many of us also avoid facing our own flaws. We deny, deflect, or distract instead of reflecting. And when someone gives us feedback, we take it personally, turning it into issues of race, religion, or politics. This inability to handle truth — from others or from within — keeps us trapped in the same emotional loop as a nation.

What Can We Do?

We need to work on a few habits that create a Positive Kitaran.

Building the Positive Kitaran

A healthy nation begins where its people are willing to lose with integrity rather than win with deceit. When we are prepared to say, “I would rather fail honestly than succeed dishonestly,” we reclaim our moral centre. Winning through cheating destroys not only credibility but also the soul of the game — and the soul of the country. True strength is not measured by the scoreline, but by the honesty of the effort. When we can lose with dignity, we create a foundation for real growth and lasting respect.

We must also rebuild our sense of pride. Real pride does not come from trophies, rankings, or titles; it comes from steady growth — from developing our own skills, systems, and souls. When we cheat to look good, we remain small. But when we grow through patience and integrity, we become strong. Progress achieved honestly may take longer, but it lasts longer. Whether in football, business, or governance, growth through genuine effort is the only victory that truly matters.

The Good Kitaran begins within each of us. We cannot build honest systems if we are dishonest within ourselves. Being in touch with the self means having the courage to face our flaws without excuse or denial. Before we point fingers, we must ask, “What part of this problem lives in me?” A nation improves when its people are brave enough to look inward. When individuals become truthful with themselves, institutions naturally heal and strengthen.

To build a healthier culture, we must also stop the habit of blaming and deflecting whenever we are caught in mistakes or wrongdoing. The mature response to error is not denial or distraction — it is ownership. Taking responsibility is not a sign of weakness; it is the highest expression of strength. When we admit our faults, we learn, grow, and restore trust. When we deflect, we remain trapped in the same old cycle of shame and cover-ups. A Good Kitaran can only thrive when honesty replaces blame, and humility replaces ego.

In the Good Kitaran, truth stands above title. The moment we start believing that position determines right and wrong, we lose our moral balance. We must relearn to respect truth more than hierarchy. A junior who speaks honestly is worth more than a senior who hides the truth. A great nation is not one where leaders stand tallest, but one where everyone bows to the truth. When truth is above power, leaders become servants — and servants become the guardians of integrity.

Finally, we must train ourselves to listen to truth, not to who is saying it. Too often, in the old Bad Kitaran, we ask, “Who said it?” before deciding whether to listen. In the Good Kitaran, we ask, “Is it true?” When truth becomes our guide — not race, not religion, not rank — unity and wisdom follow naturally. The ability to accept truth even from those we dislike, and to reject falsehood even from those we admire, is emotional maturity at the societal level. It is the foundation of justice, fairness, and trust — the true marks of a healthy Malaysia.

Who Must Take the First Step?

All of us. No matter who we are — from national and state leaders to the rakyat jelata. Every time, all the time. Responsibility is not a burden reserved for others; it begins with each of us.

As for the FAM–FIFA issue, what would be exemplary is if Sports Minister Hannah Yeoh were to say, “As Minister, I take responsibility for ensuring this never happens again.” That single act of ownership would set the tone for the entire system. Instead, she has treated the scandal as a wake-up call for FAM alone, rather than for Malaysian sports governance as a whole. That subtle distinction matters — it keeps the ministry safe, but the system unchanged.

Hannah should be careful. More and more, DAP ministers and leaders are being seen as “Tai Chi Masters” — appearing on the ground, deflecting and blaming others instead of taking responsibility. Such behaviour mirrors the very Negative Kitaran we are trying to break.

I sincerely hope she will come forward with a stronger statement — one that acknowledges the ministry’s shared responsibility, apologises for failing to keep proper oversight, and commits to building a new Good Kitaran within her ministry. That would be true leadership: humble, accountable, and transformative.

Majulah Sukan Untuk Negara

Peace,
Anas Zubedy
Penang

 

HISTORY AS PLATFORM FOR UNITY

 

My friend Eddin and KJ launched a very pertinent podcast recently. It deals with our history. I hope you will support and watch them. This is the first episode. I consider this podcast more important than KELUAR SEKEJAP.

Click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=l0_SQ59vhcE

Why?

We have been a nation for almost seven decades, yet we have not agreed on our history. We are like the six blind men and the elephant — each one sees history narrowly instead of seeing it as a whole.

To move forward, we need to agree on our history. We need to accept certain fundamentals and understand how we have evolved to be who we are today.

We must look at history from a larger perspective and use wisdom to accept it — whether it suits our liking or not. We have to look at the facts. We need to form a history with truth as our guide. To do that, we need to ponder these questions:

• When and where does our history start?
• What is the importance of the Proto-Malays to our history?
• How have the early Hindu and Buddhist influences affected our history?
• What are the significances of the Old Kedah Sultanate and the evolution of all the other Malay sultanates?
• What is the role of Islam in shaping the Malay sultanates, culture, and traditions?
• How did the Portuguese, Dutch, British, and Japanese colonization affect us — especially the British era leading up to the formation of our modern nation?
• What about the history of Sabah and Sarawak? How do they form a part of our current history?
• Where do we place the history of ordinary folks from every community — be they the majority or the minorities?
• Why did 1957 and 1963 happen? What is the meaning of 1957 and 1963? How do 1957 and 1963 colour our recent history?
• What does our Constitution say about our historical framework? How does our Constitution capture our history and turn it into a social contract for us to create new history?

I hope this podcast will deal with these questions in one way or another.

AGREEING ON OUR SHARED HISTORY

We are who we are today because of our shared history. To live in peace and progress, we need to agree on a shared history and understand it. Only then can we create a better and more united future.

As we reflect on history, we are still creating it. In creating history, we must decide what we want for our children and our children’s children. Our decisions today will create our tomorrow. Let us be wise.

It is crucial that we do not hold a myopic and naïve view that our nation simply emerged out of the blue in 1957, and thereafter in 1963, without accepting and appreciating its long, illustrious history that spans thousands of years. This attitude will rob and negate the history of the land and its people.

To do so, one would need to pretend that everything about Semenanjung Tanah Melayu before 1957, and Sabah and Sarawak prior to 1963, is irrelevant. This is the main obstacle to putting together a balanced, fair, and truly inclusive national history — and consequently affects how we see and interact with each other as its people.

WHAT MUST WE DO?

Let us understand, accept, absorb, and immerse ourselves in our history wholeheartedly — from the beginning of human migration to our evolution: from hunter-gatherers who practiced animism, shamanism, and ancestor worship, to the time when we were Hindus and Buddhists, and through the many hundreds of years till the present, when Islam became our main narrative.

When we do this with vigour, we will be able to appreciate how our early beliefs, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and even Christianity have left socio-religious and cultural imprints on our ways of life and common shared values today.

Let us look at our national history in at least two main parts.

Firstly, our history before 1957 and 1963 — the Malay World — the history of the people of the Malay Archipelago that includes the Orang Asli and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, which rightly has to be Malay-centric. At the same time, we must accept that the immigration history of our people from the east and the west is as real as the Malay-centric experience and forms part of our national history too.

Secondly, our post-Merdeka modern history that starts in 1957 and expanded, gaining depth and breadth in 1963 when Malaysia was born — our new history as its people.

We need to hold our Constitution as the just and balanced centre of reference that connects the dots between our past, present, and future. The constitutional provisions recognise the special position of the Malays and other natives — the Orang Asli, Sabahans, and Sarawakians — while at the same time safeguarding the rights and legitimate interests of the other communities. Islam is the religion of the Federation, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony.

Without constitutional provisions to ensure that their interests are protected, natives across the world will be helpless against demands for “equality,” because the descendants of colonial and immigrant communities tend to have a bigger advantage. Equality in the loose sense will favour the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and weak — whether in terms of economic justice or in drawing the historical chronicles of the people.

Peace,
Anas Zubedy
Penang

ISRAEL: The Irony of Claiming the Biblical Promise While Practicing Modern Statehood

 

What is a State?

Before we speak of irony, we need clarity. Many people — unless they have studied politics — may not know that the idea of the “modern state” is fairly new in human history.

For most of human history, societies were organized through tribes, clans, kingdoms, empires, and religious communities. Borders were fluid, loyalties shifted, and people identified themselves by kinship, faith, or language — not by the rigid notion of a state.

This changed in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, which gave birth to the modern state system. A state became defined by fixed territorial borders, centralized authority in the form of a government and bureaucracy, sovereignty free from outside interference in internal affairs, and international recognition by other states.

When the State of Israel was declared in 1948, it was created as such a modern, Westphalian state. It functions like any other: it has borders (though disputed), a parliament, a prime minister, armies, passports, and treaties. This is important to stress because the Bible never spoke of a “state” in the modern sense. It spoke of a people, a covenant, a law, and a land.

The Bible vs. The Modern State of Israel

If we take the argument of those who say the Bible promises the Jews a homeland, we must also look honestly at what that biblical vision entailed.

In the biblical model, Israel was a theocracy. God was King and the Torah served as the constitution. Leaders were prophets, judges, and later kings — but all were under divine authority, not popular elections. The laws were covenantal, mixing ritual, moral, civil, and economic commands into a single, indivisible framework. Punishments were harsh and uncompromising: stoning for adultery or Sabbath-breaking, restitution for theft, even exile for disobedience. Most importantly, the land itself was conditional on obedience; the people were to remain only if they kept the covenant, but if they broke it, they were to be exiled, as laid out in Deuteronomy 28–30.

In contrast, the modern State of Israel functions as a democracy. Authority comes from elections, not from divine mandate. Its laws are drawn largely from English Common Law and modern civil codes, not from the Torah. Punishments are modern too: prison, fines, and rehabilitation, rather than stoning or servitude. Land and sovereignty today are grounded not in covenant but in UN resolutions, wars, and diplomacy.

From my point of view, the biblical promise is not a land title deed in the modern sense. It is a symbolic, conditional covenant tied to obedience and justice. But here, I am taking their point of view for the sake of consistency.

The Irony

Here lies the irony: you cannot take the land as a biblical promise and reject the law that comes with it. You cannot take the cake and eat it too.

Take, for example, the case of stealing. Under the Torah, a thief was required to repay double, or more, and if unable to pay, could be sold into servitude to make restitution. In modern Israel, the punishment is imprisonment, usually up to three years.

Similarly, in the case of adultery, the Torah prescribes that both guilty parties be stoned to death, whereas in Israel today adultery is not even a criminal offense — it is only a civil matter considered during divorce.

Sabbath-breaking or idolatry in the Torah carried the death penalty, yet in Israel today freedom of religion is constitutionally protected, and secular lifestyles flourish.

Finally, the Torah explicitly commands, “Love the stranger, for you were strangers in Egypt” (Leviticus 19:34), but in practice, Palestinians and other minorities often face exclusion and restrictions.

The irony is stark. The biblical covenant is a full package: land, law, justice, punishment, and ethics. To claim only the land while ignoring the law is selective, inconsistent, and, frankly, dishonest.

Consistency and Honesty

If you wish to follow man’s law — English Common Law, international law, and the Westphalian model of states — then be consistent. Respect UN resolutions and the international agreements that gave Israel legitimacy in 1948.

If you wish to follow God’s law — the Torah and the covenant — then do not pick and choose. Be prepared to also embrace the biblical punishments, the Jubilee year debt cancellations, and the full theocratic structure. One cannot take the biblical promise of land while rejecting the biblical framework of law and justice. To do so is to claim divine authority for power while ignoring divine responsibility for justice.

A Call for Integrity

This is not written to insult or to mock, but to appeal to integrity and consistency.

The modern State of Israel cannot have it both ways. It must be honest. Either it stands as a modern Westphalian state, accountable to man’s law and the international community. Or it embraces the biblical theocracy, with all its laws and punishments. To cherry-pick the land promise while ignoring the law is the deepest irony of all.

And the Torah itself warns against such double standards:

“Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. You must have accurate and honest weights and measures… For the Lord your God detests anyone who deals dishonestly.” (Deuteronomy 25:13–16)

“You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey My laws and be careful to follow My decrees. I am the Lord your God.” (Leviticus 18:3–4)

Peace.
Anas Zubedy
Penang

 

LOOKING FOR GEN Z 2.0

 

…and the Gen X and Y Leaders Who Must Guide Them

Every generation comes with its strengths, weaknesses, and habits. Today, much has been said about Gen Z — that they are entitled, distracted, quick to move on, and hard to manage. But we must be careful. It is too easy to point fingers and blame our young. If Gen Z is impatient, who raised them on instant gratification? If Gen Z struggles with resilience, who created the environment that shielded them from difficulties?

In truth, Gen Z is our reflection. Their habits and attitudes are the fruits of what parents, teachers, leaders, managers, and society at large have sown. They are our children, our colleagues, and the future of our nation. Their success is not only theirs — it is ours. Their failure is not only theirs — it is ours too.

The Current Challenge

Across workplaces, managers often tell me the same things: Gen Z tends to get bored quickly, they want promotions too fast, they prefer flexible arrangements, and they are glued to their phones. Many feel these young people lack loyalty, staying only a short time before moving on. At the same time, Gen Z is the most educated, connected, and socially aware generation in history. They care deeply about issues that matter, from the environment to social justice. They are creative, tech-savvy, and bold.

In Malaysia, however, we face a pressing concern. Too many of our young are underemployed or unemployed. Some are caught in the gig economy without a long-term career path. Others graduate with degrees but struggle to find jobs that match their qualifications. We cannot afford for our Gen Z to drift. They make up more than a third of our population. If they are not productive citizens, Malaysia cannot move forward.

Introducing Gen Z 2.0

This is why I propose the idea of Gen Z 2.0.

Gen Z 2.0 are those who rise above the noise. They are self-aware, disciplined, and resilient. They know their strengths, talents, and creativity, but they also acknowledge their weaknesses and bad habits — and work on them. They balance productivity at work with growth in their personal lives. They manage their digital life with discipline, practice financial responsibility, and see social issues not only as topics to post about but as challenges to contribute to meaningfully.

Gen Z 2.0 is not another generation. It is the better version of Gen Z — the young people who choose to upgrade themselves.

A Collective Responsibility – Preparing Good Seeds

But Gen Z cannot do this alone. Gen Z 2.0 is not simply a matter of their own willpower. It is a collective responsibility. Parents, educators, managers, leaders, Gen X, Gen Y, and even Baby Boomers — we all play a role.

Here, I like to use the metaphor of the seed. A seed has potential, but it will remain just a seed if left in a bottle. It needs the right soil, the right water, the right sunlight. Likewise, our young need the right environment, the right guidance, and the right leadership to grow. As the Malay proverb goes: “Benih yang baik, jatuh ke laut menjadi pulau.” A good seed, even if it falls into the sea, will become an island.

Our task is to ensure our Gen Z are prepared as good seeds — seeds that, when planted in any environment, can grow, thrive, and contribute. This preparation is not theirs alone; it is ours. Their character, their resilience, and their productivity are reflections of how we nurture them today.

Preparing Gen X and Y as Bridge Leaders

This is why it is not enough to only ask Gen Z to upgrade into Gen Z 2.0. Their seniors — the Gen X and Y who lead and manage them — must also upgrade. They must become Bridge Leaders.

Bridge Leaders do not command and control; they coach and guide. They do not dismiss Gen Z’s ideas; they channel them. They give short, frequent feedback instead of waiting for annual reviews. They are humble enough to learn through reverse mentorship — picking up digital skills from their juniors. And most importantly, they translate the organization’s mission and goals into values that Gen Z understands and finds meaningful.

Without these changes, even the best Gen Z 2.0 will remain underutilized. With them, we can build workplaces where creativity meets discipline, where youthful energy is guided by experience, and where generations complement one another instead of clashing.

A Malaysian Imperative

For Malaysia, this is not optional. It is a national imperative. With our economy facing global competition, with education and healthcare costs rising, and with unity more important than ever, we need our Gen Z to become productive citizens. We need them to succeed — at work, at home, and in society. Their success will drive our economy, strengthen our families, and unite our diverse nation.

If we fail to guide them, we risk creating a lost generation. But if we succeed, our Gen Z — as good seeds — will grow into strong trees, bearing fruit for themselves, their families, and the nation. And wherever they are planted, they will thrive, just as a good seed becomes an island even when it falls into the sea.

A Call to Action

At zubedy (m) sdn bhd, we are working towards this goal. Just as we once introduced the idea of Gen Y 2.0, we are now upgrading our Managing Across Generations Workshop to help both the young and their leaders rise to the challenge. Gen Z must be helped to become Gen Z 2.0. Gen X and Y must be equipped to become Bridge Leaders. Together, with Baby Boomers still playing their role, we can nurture a culture where every generation contributes to a meaningful Malaysia.

Gen Z 2.0 is not just their responsibility. It is our responsibility. And when they succeed, the whole world succeeds.

Let us add value.

Anas Zubedy,

Managing Director,

zubedy (m) sdn bhd

 

THE LEADER-MANAGER

 

A Leader-Manager is someone who can lead and manage himself, others, processes, and change—often all at the same time.

He must have the capacity and ability to perform the essential tasks of both leadership and management with excellence. He sets clear goals and deliverables and helps his team connect to them by making them meaningful. At the same time, he exercises discipline, holds people accountable, is willing to have tough conversations, and when necessary, takes firm action to manage performance.

In fulfilling these roles, the Leader-Manager embraces several core responsibilities:

1. Economic Performance as the Central Mission

A Leader-Manager must first understand how his responsibilities serve the organization’s overall mission. Since a business is an economic organ, every decision, action, and deliberation must be measured against its ability to deliver economic performance. A business justifies its existence only by producing results: supplying goods and services customers want at a price they are willing to pay, while ensuring profit. The Leader-Manager must therefore be clear that his foremost duty is to safeguard and grow the wealth-producing capacity of the resources entrusted to him.

2. Human Capital as the True Resource

Economic performance is only possible if people perform. The true resource of any enterprise is its human capital. A Leader-Manager must be skilled at bringing out the best in people. He does this by enabling achievement—because achievement is both fuel and reward for self-motivation. To unlock this, he must see subordinates as human beings first, not merely as resources. He takes into account their dreams, aspirations, personalities, skills, motivations, and reasons for action or inaction.

3. Building a Culture of Duplication and Best Practices

A Leader-Manager multiplies success. He is quick to transfer knowledge and make best practices part of the organization’s culture. He ensures that top talents share insights across teams—in innovation, marketing, operations, and management. He encourages collaboration, discourages silos, and builds systems where success is celebrated, codified, and replicated. In this way, ordinary people are lifted to do extraordinary things, and the organization keeps moving upward.

4. Balancing Administration and Entrepreneurship

The Leader-Manager is both an efficient administrator and an entrepreneur. He reallocates resources from declining areas to those with greater potential, ensuring both effectiveness and efficiency—doing things right while also doing the right things. As an entrepreneur, he creates and grows tomorrow’s business through systematic analysis, foresight, and hard work today.

5. Managing the Short Term and the Long Term

One of the Leader-Manager’s most critical skills is managing two time dimensions simultaneously. He must balance short-term results with long-term sustainability. He cannot chase immediate profits at the expense of the company’s long-range health, nor can he dream of a distant future while neglecting present demands. His responsibility is to harmonize the two—running today’s business while preparing the changes needed for tomorrow.

6. Stewardship of Social Responsibility and Brand

Finally, the Leader-Manager is custodian of the organization’s wider social responsibilities. He safeguards its reputation, ensures its brand is trusted, and manages its impact on society. In doing so, he positions the company not only as an economic institution but also as a respected member of the community.

Anas Zubedy
Kuala Lumpur

Ref: Inspired by Peter Drucker’s management insights

 

HAVE A MEANINGFUL HARI MALAYSIA - What We Want Our Leader-Managers to Lead and Manage

In politics, government, business, and social institutions, Leader-Managers must be able to lead and manage in four key areas:

1. Lead and Manage Oneself

Before leading others, a leader must first lead and manage himself. He must be clear about his goals and vision, and live by them. He must ‘cakap serupa bikin’—walk his talk. If his vision is integrity, he cannot compromise with corruption. When a leader fails to manage himself, organizations fail, and even nations and civilizations can collapse.

2. Lead and Manage Others

A Leader-Manager must be effective with people. He sets clear goals and deliverables, and makes them meaningful to the team. He removes uncertainties, holds people accountable, and is willing to have tough conversations —and take tough actions—when needed. His aim is always to build and sustain a high-performing team.

3. Lead and Manage Execution and Processes

A Leader-Manager makes things happen. He does not just make speeches or set lofty goals without substance. Promises are commitments, backed by well-thought-out plans. He ensures processes run, plans are executed, and results are delivered.

4. Lead and Manage Change

Change breeds uncertainty. Leader-Man
agers must remove confusion, clarify direction, and help people adapt. They can either guide their organizations through change and emerge stronger—or succumb to it, dragging everyone into failure.

Talk to us if you want to strengthen your leaders and managers—especially when your strategy involves moving technical specialists and individual contributors into people-management roles. We help them first lead and manage themselves, then others, while ensuring processes and goals are executed effectively, all while guiding their teams through change.

Let us add value,

Have a Meaningful Hari Malaysia.

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

UNITY IN DIVERSITY : CHOOSING INTEGRATION OVER ASSIMILATION

Our forefathers, Tunku and his team, were optimistic leaders. They carried with them a deep trust in the future of the Malayan, and later Malaysian, people. Because of that trust, unlike many other nations that emerged from the colonial yoke, we chose integration over assimilation.

We did not erase our differences or pretend they did not exist. We did not aim to be colour-blind. We did not choose to be historically deaf. Instead, we embraced all the colours — every shade, every story, every tradition. We created a nation of many colours with the shared goal of becoming one Malaysian race, anchored in the land’s history — the Malay Sultanates and traditions with Islam as the official religion — while at the same time safeguarding the other cultures. We etched this commitment in our social contract through Article 153, which protects the special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak while also guaranteeing the legitimate interests of other communities.

This is what our Unity in Diversity truly means.

We decided we are many colours, but one race. Yet when we speak of the Malaysian race, we are referring to the word bangsa, not kaum. Bangsa speaks of citizenship. Bangsa Malaysia means our ethnicity remains Malay, Chinese, Indian, Iban, Kadazan, Melanau, Senoi, Semang, Kelabit, Murut, Kayan, and so on — but our citizenship is one: Malaysian.

Take language, for example.

While Bahasa Malaysia is our National Language — our shared tongue that binds us — we respect the mother tongues of our many communities. We did not impose uniformity. Instead, we anchored ourselves in the Malay language while allowing and encouraging every other language to grow and flourish. This is why we agreed to and encouraged the vernacular schools.

To me, this decision to integrate, rather than assimilate, is not only wise but crucial for humanity.

Across the globe, more than 3,000 languages have already disappeared, and the number continues to rise. Each language lost is a piece of humanity gone forever. Here in Malaysia, we have chosen not to be part of this loss.

We are a nation that treasures culture — and by extension, the cultures of the world.

We want to preserve, promote, and protect the major languages and traditions — Malay, Mandarin, Tamil, English — while also ensuring that smaller and lesser-known ones like Kelabit, Kristang, and Temuan continue to be heard, spoken, and celebrated.

Every culture, every dialect, every dance, song, and proverb adds richness to the Malaysian story. We must never allow even one of our many cultures or languages to vanish — because the loss of one is the loss of all.

To lose a culture is to lose a whole conceptual understanding of a people. We would be losing thousands of years of knowledge and wisdom embedded in language, tradition, and practice. It is like losing a species of animal — only worse.

As a Star Trek kaki, I am reminded of Star Trek: Insurrection (1998). Captain Picard and his crew uncover a plan by the Federation and the Son’a to forcibly remove the Ba’ku from their homeworld to exploit its life-restoring radiation. Recognizing that this would mean the loss of the Ba’ku’s simple, agrarian way of life and the destruction of their culture, Picard and his team refuse to allow it. Even against Starfleet orders, they stand firm to protect the Ba’ku’s right to preserve their identity and way of living.

We too must be like Picard and his team. We must ensure that we lose none, and instead grow all.

“And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors. Indeed in that are signs for those of knowledge.”

(Qur’an 30:22)

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

Penang

SNIPING IS COWARDICE. HYPOCRISY IS COMPLICITY.

Sniping is cowardice.

Charlie Kirk snipes with words. Rightly or wrongly, he debates and ruffles feathers. Instead of sniping back with words, the coward sniped with a bullet.

But the IDF sniper who shoots Palestinian babies is the ultimate coward and wicked.

Hiding at a distance. Taking life from those who cannot speak, cannot fight, cannot even walk. Their only weapon is a cry—for food, for safety, for family.

And hypocrisy?

It is to weep for Charlie Kirk and his family—yet feel nothing when Palestinian babies are killed.

If our hearts choose who deserves compassion, then our humanity is already wounded.

Nothing is more inhuman. Nothing is lower.

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

Penang.

CHARLIE KIRK - Did he, in the end, die exactly as he believed fit?

The irony is this: Charlie Kirk was a staunch supporter of gun rights and consistently opposed most forms of gun control. A gun owner himself, he championed the right to bear arms. Even in the aftermath of mass shootings, he resisted calls for stricter regulations, preferring to point instead toward mental health, cultural decline, or the need for “armed guards and gun detectors” in schools.

Yet, he once admitted that some gun deaths are an unfortunate but acceptable cost of preserving the Second Amendment.

Did he, in the end, die exactly as he believed fit?

Peace,

Anas

UNITY IN DIVERSITY: SIGNIFICANCE OF AUGUST 31ST AND SEPTEMBER 16TH

On August 31st, 1957, we lowered the Union Jack and took our first breath as an independent nation. On September 16th, 1963, we took our second—when Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore came together to form Malaysia. Though Singapore would later chart its own path, this formation remains one of the most significant moments in Southeast Asian history.

Hari Merdeka marks our political independence. But Hari Malaysia is about something deeper—it is about the choice to unite across land, culture, and sea.

At the heart of Merdeka was a miracle of trust.

The Malays opened their arms and offered a place in what was then Tanah Melayu. The Chinese and Indians, many of whom were still closely tied to their ancestral lands, gave up foreign citizenship to plant roots in a new home.

This was not merely a political agreement—it was a profound act of faith, cooperation, and shared destiny.

Hari Malaysia reminds us that with Sabah and Sarawak, our national soul is complete. From the longhouses of the Bornean interior to the high-rises of urban Kuala Lumpur, from fishing villages to bustling ports, each region contributes its own wisdom, resilience, and beauty to the national fabric.

As a multiracial and multireligious society, we carry within us a rare and powerful potential.

In a world often divided by difference, we have lived experience in embracing it. While homogenous societies may struggle to adapt to pluralism, we are born into it. We pray in different languages, eat at each other’s tables, and celebrate side by side.

This is not a weakness to be managed. It is a strength to be harnessed.

Across our diverse traditions, we find the same call to unity and shared strength.

Hinduism reminds us through the Bhagavad Gita that the same essence pervades the entire universe, binding all beings in one reality. Buddhism, in the Metta Sutta, calls on us to extend a mother’s boundless love to every living being, cultivating compassion as the root of harmony.

Taoism, in the wisdom of Zhuangzi, affirms that Heaven, Earth, and humanity form an inseparable whole, teaching us that we are never apart from the greater oneness of existence. Christianity, in the Psalms, proclaims the joy and beauty of people living together in unity. And Islam, in the Qur’an, reminds us that all humanity is but one community under God.

As the late Tan Sri P. Ramlee sang in Getaran Jiwa, “Andai dipisah lagu dan irama, lemah tiada berjiwa, hampa.” If melody and rhythm are separated, the soul is lost.

We too are like lagu and irama—distinct yet inseparable. Each culture, faith, and community adds its own rhythm to the Malaysian song, and only together do we become whole.

Peace,

anas zubedy

Penang