MENGAPA PULAU PINANG PATUT MEMBAYAR SEWA YANG LEBIH TINGGI KEPADA KEDAH, MENGAPA SINGAPURA PATUT MEMBAYAR LEBIH UNTUK AIR KEPADA MALAYSIA

“Diterjemah oleh AI: ChatGPT.”

Patut atau Tak Patut?

Ketika saya masih kecil, saya sering mendengar ayah, pakcik dan para orang tua menggunakan perkataan patut dan tak patut. Perkataan yang nampak mudah ini sebenarnya penuh makna. Ia digunakan ketika menilai tingkah laku seseorang, apabila membincangkan sama ada sesuatu tindakan itu wajar atau tidak, dan ketika mempertimbangkan kewajaran sesuatu keputusan. Lama sebelum saya memahami fikiran orang dewasa, saya sudah mengerti apa itu patut. Ia soal keseimbangan, keadilan dan melakukan perkara yang benar.

Konsep patut dan tak patut berakar kuat dalam budaya Melayu. Dan kerana budaya Melayu menjadi asas budaya Malaysia, konsep ini adalah milik kita semua. Kita sebagai rakyat Malaysia mewarisi satu rangka etika Melayu yang kaya dan mendalam. Nilai-nilai ini merangkumi pelbagai bidang. Ada nilai hubungan yang mengajar cara kita melayan satu sama lain. Ada nilai moral yang membantu kita menilai betul dan salah di luar undang-undang bertulis. Ada nilai kecerdasan emosi seperti hati, budi dan rasa yang membantu kita memahami apa yang sopan, sesuai dan penuh timbang rasa. Ada nilai masyarakat yang berkaitan dengan rasa malu, maruah dan harga diri.

Terdapat juga nilai kewujudan seperti takdir dan rezeki yang mengajar kita sifat rendah hati, sabar dan reda. Ada nilai keharmonian sosial yang menekankan kesederhanaan, apa yang elok dan apa yang manis, supaya keseimbangan masyarakat terpelihara. Ada nilai berkaitan organisasi dan tanggungjawab seperti amanah dan usaha, yang mengingatkan kita tentang kewajipan yang perlu ditunaikan dengan jujur. Ada nilai batas diri seperti tahu diri yang menjaga peranan dan had yang sesuai. Dan akhirnya, ada nilai pengurusan konflik dan etika berbicara seperti berkias dan berbahasa, yang mengajar kita bercakap dengan bijaksana, halus dan penuh hormat.

Konsep patut dan tak patut ialah meta-konsep yang merentas semua kategori ini. Ia paling rapat dengan domain keharmonian sosial, kerana ia menjaga keseimbangan hubungan masyarakat. Namun, ia juga berkaitan rapat dengan moral, kerana ia menilai keadilan di luar undang-undang. Ia hidup dalam dunia emosi dan budi kerana ia memerlukan kepekaan dan empati. Ia juga bergantung kepada nilai masyarakat kerana ia berkait dengan maruah dan harga diri.

Untuk memahami patut, kita mesti menyelami kedalamannya. Ia jauh melampaui makna “appropriate” dan “inappropriate” dalam bahasa Inggeris. Patut ialah satu piawaian gabungan yang merangkumi adab (kesantunan), akhlak (watak), budi (kearifan budaya) dan kewajaran (common sense). Bila seseorang berkata, “Dia buat macam tu tak patut”, itu bukan sekadar komen tentang tindakan yang salah. Ia bermakna tindakan itu telah melanggar jangkaan moral, adat budaya dan tanggungjawab hubungan sekaligus. Patut bukan sekadar apa yang dibenarkan—ia adalah apa yang adil, wajar dan bermaruah. Tak patut pula bukan sekadar salah—ia ialah sesuatu yang tidak wajar, tidak adil atau tidak seimbang, walaupun tiada undang-undang dilanggar.

Mari kita gunakan lensa budaya yang mendalam ini untuk memahami dua isu besar negara: perdebatan Kedah–Pulau Pinang dan pertikaian air Malaysia–Singapura.

Persoalan sama ada Pulau Pinang pernah dipajakkan kepada Kedah sudah lama diperdebatkan. Ada ahli sejarah menyatakan bahawa “pajakan 1786” hanyalah mitos kolonial. Tiada perjanjian muktamad pernah ditemui, hanya surat dan catatan tidak rasmi. Dari sudut ini, pemisahan Pulau Pinang merupakan tindakan British, bukan perjanjian sah. Maka rasa tidak puas hati Kedah difahami dari segi moral, walaupun mungkin tidak dari segi undang-undang.

Sebahagian lain, terutamanya dalam naratif tradisional Kedah, percaya bahawa memang wujud persefahaman, tetapi British tidak menunaikannya. Kedah membenarkan kehadiran British dengan harapan mendapat perlindungan daripada Siam dan Burma. Namun perlindungan itu tidak berlaku. Serangan balas Kedah pada tahun 1791 dianggap bukti bahawa syarat asal telah dilanggar. Ada juga pandangan akademik yang menyatakan bahawa memang wujud rundingan dan pembayaran tahunan, namun kedua-dua pihak mentafsirkan syarat secara berbeza. Kedah menganggapnya pajakan, British menganggapnya penyerahan.

Selepas merdeka, Malaysia tetap membayar RM10 juta setahun kepada Kedah sebagai isyarat simbolik. Ia bukan pengiktirafan pemilikan, tetapi cara mengekalkan keharmonian tanpa membuka semula pertikaian lama. Namun ada suara politik yang mendakwa Pulau Pinang ialah tanah pinjam. Tetapi dari sudut perlembagaan, dakwaan ini tidak berasas. Perlembagaan Persekutuan mengatasi semua perjanjian era kolonial. Pulau Pinang ialah negeri Malaysia secara sah.

Isu air Malaysia–Singapura pula penuh dengan dimensi undang-undang, ekonomi, diplomatik dan emosi. Singapura berpegang teguh pada Perjanjian Air 1962, yang menetapkan harga RM0.03 bagi setiap 1,000 gelen air mentah. Bagi mereka, harga tidak boleh diubah sewenang-wenangnya. Mereka juga menegaskan pelaburan besar dalam infrastruktur air berdasarkan perjanjian itu.

Malaysia pula melihat harga tersebut sebagai tidak lagi munasabah. Harga RM0.03 ditetapkan lebih 60 tahun lalu. Perjanjian itu sebenarnya membenarkan semakan harga selepas 1987, tetapi ia tidak pernah dilaksanakan. Ramai melihat perkara ini sebagai kegagalan menilai sumber sendiri. Ada juga pandangan diplomatik yang mengatakan perjanjian itu, walaupun tidak sempurna, membantu mengekalkan kestabilan dua hala. Namun sentimen rakyat Malaysia sering dipengaruhi memori sejarah yang melihat harga RM0.03 sebagai tidak adil.

Secara peribadi, saya percaya Perlembagaan Persekutuan mengatasi segala perjanjian lama. Tetapi kita tetap perlu bertanya: apakah yang patut, dan apakah yang tak patut?

Mari kita lihat isu air terlebih dahulu. Harga yang wajar mesti mengambil kira tiga perkara: kewujudan perjanjian asal, pelaburan besar Singapura dalam infrastruktur, dan nilai sebenar air hari ini. Rumah tangga di Johor dan negeri lain membayar RM0.60 hingga RM1.20 per m³ untuk air terawat, dan kos rawatan penuh hampir RM1.75 per m³. Air mentah ialah sebahagian daripada kos ini, tetapi tetap mempunyai nilai.

Dengan menilai air mentah pada 10–20% daripada kos rawatan penuh, harga wajar air mentah ialah antara RM0.175 dan RM0.35 per m³. Ditukar kepada ukuran asal perjanjian, iaitu 1,000 gelen, harga wajar ialah antara RM0.66 dan RM1.33. Setelah dibundarkan kepada angka praktikal, harga munasabah berada antara RM0.95 dan RM1.50 per 1,000 gelen. Ini 30–50 kali ganda lebih tinggi daripada RM0.03, tetapi masih jauh lebih rendah daripada harga air terawat di Singapura.

Jadi harga wajar ialah RM0.66 hingga RM1.33 per 1,000 gelen. Tetapi Singapura masih membayar RM0.03.

Patut atau tak patut?

Kini mari kita lihat isu Pulau Pinang–Kedah dari sudut ekonomi. Dengan nilai tanah purata RM200 sekaki persegi, nilai keseluruhan tanah Pulau Pinang dianggarkan RM2.25 trilion. Berdasarkan kadar hasil sewaan tanah antara 3–4%, sewa tahunan wajar bagi sebuah negeri bernilai RM2.25 trilion ialah antara RM60 bilion dan RM90 bilion setahun.

Namun Kedah hanya menerima RM10 juta setahun. Ini hanyalah 0.017% daripada nilai sebenar Pulau Pinang. Ringkasnya, bagi setiap RM1 yang dibayar, nilai sebenarnya ialah kira-kira RM6,000.

Patut atau tak patut?

“Minang dupo, minang amu.” – Peribahasa Bidayuh bermaksud “beri dengan adil, terima dengan adil.”

“Lun kenep peang, lun kenep tinen.” – Peribahasa Orang Ulu bermaksud seseorang mesti menyeimbangkan akal dan hati.

“Kosundu do tulun, kosundu do kopioh.” – Pepatah Kadazan bermaksud manusia yang seimbang membina komuniti yang seimbang.

“Agi idup, agi ngelaban.” – Pepatah Iban bermaksud selagi hidup, lakukan yang benar dan tegakkan keadilan.

Marilah kita menjadi rakyat Malaysia yang lebih baik. Lakukan apa yang patut dan jauhi apa yang tak patut.

Salam,
Anas Zubedy
Kuala Lumpur

WHY PENANG SHOULD PAY MORE LEASE TO KEDAH, WHY SINGAPORE SHOULD PAY MORE FOR WATER TO MALAYSIA

Patut atau Tak Patut?

When I was a little boy, I often heard my dad, uncles and elders use the words patut and tak patut. These simple words carried weight. They were used when evaluating someone’s behaviour, when discussing whether an action was appropriate, or when judging the fairness of a decision. Long before I understood adult reasoning, I understood patut. It was about balance, fairness and the right thing to do.

The concept of patut and tak patut is deeply rooted in Malay culture. And because Malay culture forms the bedrock of Malaysian culture, these concepts belong to all of us. In fact, we Malaysians inherit a rich body of Malay ethical concepts. These concepts span across several domains. There are relational values that teach us how we treat one another. There are moral values that help us judge right and wrong beyond written rules. There are emotional-intelligent values grounded in the ideas of hati, budi and rasa, helping us sense what is appropriate, considerate and kind. There are community-enforced values that relate to shame, honour and dignity, shaping behaviour because we know what the community expects.

There are existential and fate-related ideas such as takdir and rezeki, which teach humility, patience and acceptance. There are social-harmony and balance values that emphasise moderation, the idea of what is elok and what is manis, ensuring we preserve harmony. There are organisational and duty-based ethics that focus on amanah and usaha, reminding us to fulfil responsibilities honourably. There are boundary-setting and humility values such as tahu diri that help us respect limits and roles. And finally, there are conflict-management and speech-ethics values such as berkias and berbahasa, guiding us to communicate with tact, subtlety and respect.

The concept of patut and tak patut is a meta-concept that weaves through several of these categories. It fits most naturally within the domain of social harmony and balance, because it is about what keeps society on an even keel. But it also belongs within moral reasoning, because it deals with fairness beyond legal boundaries. It sits within emotional-intelligent thinking, because it requires sensitivity, empathy and budi. It also lives within the community-enforced realm, because it relates to shame, honour and dignity.

To understand patut, we must appreciate its depth. The Malay idea of patut dan tak patut goes far beyond the English words “appropriate and inappropriate”. It is a blended standard that combines adab, which relates to courtesy, akhlak which relates to character, budi which reflects cultural wisdom, and kewajaran which is common sense and logic. When Malays say “Dia buat macam tu tak patut”, they are not merely judging the act. They are saying it violates moral expectations, cultural norms and relational obligations all at once. Patut is not simply what is allowed. It is what is reasonable, fair and morally proper. Tak patut is not simply what is wrong. It is what is unreasonable, unfair or out of balance. It disturbs social harmony even if no written rule is broken. By guiding us toward balance, consideration and respect, patut dan tak patut preserves the social fabric.

Let us use this foundational cultural lens to understand two major issues: the Penang–Kedah debate and the Malaysia–Singapore water dispute.

The question of whether Penang was ever leased from Kedah has long been debated. Historians, politicians and members of the public hold different views. Some historians argue that the so-called 1786 lease is a colonial myth. They point out that no signed agreement exists, only letters, drafts and informal notes. From this perspective, Penang’s separation from Kedah was not contractual but the result of British seizure. Kedah’s sense of injustice is therefore morally understandable even though it may not be legally enforceable.

Others, particularly in Kedah’s traditional narrative, maintain that an understanding did exist but that the British failed to honour it. Kedah allowed British presence in return for protection against Siam and Burma. That protection did not materialise. Kedah’s attempt to retake Penang in 1791 is seen as evidence that the original understanding was conditional and violated. An academic middle-ground view notes that agreements, annual payments and negotiations did take place, but the terms were vague and interpreted differently by each side. Kedah viewed it as a lease or pajakan, while the British treated it as cession. This ambiguity explains why the matter has never been settled conclusively.

After independence, Malaysia continued paying Kedah a small annual sum, now RM10,000,000, as a symbolic gesture. This is not a recognition of ownership but a way to maintain harmony without reopening old wounds. On the other hand, some political voices, especially within Kedah, claim Penang is borrowed land that should return to Kedah. They point to the symbolic payment as proof of ownership. Legally, however, this claim has no foundation. The Federal Constitution overrides all colonial-era understandings. Legally and constitutionally, Penang is a state of Malaysia. The debate therefore lies mainly in history, emotion and perception.

The Malaysia–Singapore water issue is also shaped by multiple viewpoints. Singapore holds tightly to the position that the 1962 Water Agreement is a binding international treaty guaranteed during the 1965 separation. From their viewpoint, the RM0.03 per 1,000 gallons rate cannot be changed unilaterally. Any adjustment must be mutual. Singapore also emphasises the billions spent on dams, pipelines, reservoirs and treatment plants that were constructed based on this agreement.

Malaysia’s perspective is different. The RM0.03 price was set more than 60 years ago during a vastly different economic era. Malaysia argues that the agreement contains a review clause after 1987, and that failing to update the price undervalues our water resources and national dignity. A related Malaysian legal reading refers to Clause 14, which explicitly allows a price review. Some argue Malaysia simply never exercised this right due to political considerations.

Another group views the issue from a diplomatic standpoint. They argue that despite imperfections, the agreement underpins stability between the two nations. Sudden changes could cause disruptions. For them, cooperation on sustainability, river health and security is more important than confrontation. Public opinion in Malaysia, however, is influenced by historical memory. Many feel the RM0.03 rate is a relic of colonial imbalance.

And finally, environmental experts note that the real issue may not be the price but the sustainability of the Johor River, which faces pollution, overuse and climate pressures. At times, Singapore has even supplied treated water to Johor in emergencies. Sustainability may matter more than old agreements.

Personally, I believe our Federal Constitution supersedes all earlier agreements, written or unwritten. Yet even with that belief, we still have to ask the cultural question: what is patut and what is tak patut?

Let us look at the water issue first. A fair and reasonable price must take into account three realities. First, the historical deal exists and Singapore has honoured a long-term agreement. Second, Singapore has invested heavily in water infrastructure, so it is not merely a buyer of raw water. Third, today’s value of water in Malaysia must be recognised. Households in Johor and other states pay between RM0.60 and RM1.20 per m³ for treated water, and the full cost of treatment is closer to RM1.75 per m³. Raw water forms only one component of this cost, but it is still a valuable resource with an opportunity cost.

A practical way to determine a fair value is to consider raw water as 10–20 percent of the full treatment cost. Using the estimated full cost of RM1.75 per m³, raw water should fall between RM0.175 and RM0.35 per m³. When converted into the treaty’s original measurement of 1,000 gallons, this becomes roughly RM0.66 to RM1.33. Rounded to a clean, workable figure, a fair band would be between RM0.95 and RM1.50 per 1,000 gallons. This is between 30 and 50 times higher than today’s outdated RM0.03 rate, yet still much lower than what Singapore households pay for fully treated water.

This range balances fairness with Singapore’s investment and the real value of Malaysian water. So the fair value is between RM0.66 and RM1.33 per 1,000 gallons. But today Singapore pays only RM0.03.

Patut atau tak patut?

Now let us examine the Penang–Kedah question from an economic perspective. Although no official source publishes Penang’s total land value, we can estimate it using land area multiplied by average land price.

Penang comprises 1,044 km², or about 11.24 billion square feet. In 2025, Penang Island’s prime areas such as George Town, Bayan Lepas, Tanjung Tokong and Jelutong range between RM300 and RM2,000 per square foot, with the island-wide average around RM350 to RM450. Seberang Perai ranges between RM50 and RM200 per square foot, giving an average of RM70 to RM120.

When combined, a realistic statewide average is around RM180 to RM220 per square foot. Using a midpoint of RM200, Penang’s total land value stands at about RM2.25 trillion.

To determine a fair annual lease, we apply land-lease economics. Residential properties in Malaysia typically yield between 2 and 4 percent annually. Commercial properties yield between 5 and 7 percent. Industrial land yields between 4 and 6 percent. Government concessions such as ports and reclaimed land often use yields between 3 and 5 percent.

For something as large and complex as a state, a fair benchmark is about 3 to 4 percent. Applying this to Penang’s total land value, 3 percent of RM2.25 trillion is RM67.5 billion, while 4 percent is RM90 billion. This gives us a fair leasing range of RM60 billion to RM90 billion per year.

In reality, Kedah receives only RM10 million. This means the symbolic payment represents only 0.017 percent of Penang’s true value. Put differently, for every RM1 paid, the real value is about RM6,000.

Again, patut atau tak patut?

“Minang dupo, minang amu.” - A Bidayuh proverb meaning “give fairly, receive fairly.”

“Lun kenep peang, lun kenep tinen.” - An Orang Ulu proverb meaning a person must balance the head and the heart.

“Kosundu do tulun, kosundu do kopioh.” - A Kadazan saying meaning a balanced person builds a balanced community.

“Agi idup, agi ngelaban.” - An Iban saying meaning as long as you live, do what is right and stand up for fairness.

Let us be better Malaysians and do what is patut and avoid what is tak patut.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

Kuala Lumpur

WHY EXTREME PARTISANSHIP CAN MAKE SMART PEOPLE GULLIBLE

 

Malaysians can become so partisan (and full of hatred) that they’ll believe anything that fits their narrative - even the absurd claim that a former Prime Minister, Tun M, has USD 40 billion.

It shows how easily intelligent people can swallow sensational nonsense when emotion overrides reason.

When we look at the facts, the claim collapses immediately.

Malaysia’s GDP during Mahathir’s early years wasn’t even close to USD 40 billion. Our economy only crossed that mark around 1990. The idea that one man secretly owned an entire economy simply makes no economic sense. No global financial leak - not the Panama Papers, Swiss Leaks, nor the ICIJ archives - has ever mentioned him. And multiple governments, including hostile administrations, scrutinized him over the years and found nothing. If vast billions existed, political rivals would have exposed them instantly.

Even our richest tycoon, Robert Kuok, is worth about USD 11 billion. Suggesting that Mahathir is four times richer defies logic, mathematics, and every observable indicator.

There is no trail of assets, no vast web of companies, no expansive land banks, no offshore empire - nothing remotely resembling a USD 40 billion fortune.

And when we look closely at the article that spread this claim, the problem becomes clearer. It is a listicle written for clicks, not a serious investigative report. The writer is a general journalist, not a financial forensic expert, and the article provides no credible audits, leaked documents, or verified financial trails.

In other words, listicle pieces like this are fast food - quick, catchy, and designed to attract attention. But when you’re dealing with a USD 40 billion allegation, you need real nutrition: audited data, official documents, accountability, and credible investigations.

In short, the article makes a dramatic accusation without any evidence to justify something so serious.

Extreme partisanship blinds the mind, and when emotion becomes the filter, even the brightest can fall for the most ridiculous claims.

“From hatred springs delusion; the mind becomes clouded.” – The Buddha

Peace, anas

ARE SABAHANS SHOWING THE WAY?

I find it rather amusing that many who used to be die-hard supporters of DAP are now celebrating the party’s poor performance in the Sabah state elections, where it lost all eight seats contested. Is this result, and the reaction from supporters, just a temporary outburst of anger? Or is something more permanent taking shape? Could this even be an early warning for DAP to rethink its direction before GE16?

When we look at the overall picture, the shift is clearer. GRS remains the largest bloc, but is significantly smaller than before. Warisan has almost doubled its seats, rising from a modest opposition presence to a formidable runner-up close behind GRS. BN and PH suffered sharply, with PH dropping from seven seats to just one - and DAP completely wiped out. In short, the local Sabah-based parties strengthened overall — UPKO, STAR, KDM, plus an unusually strong showing from independents - while national coalitions shrank or stayed tiny.

The big question is this: is this just a “Sabah for Sabahans” moment? Or is Sabah reflecting a broader national mood? After all, even PAS scored a first-ever win here by securing one seat.

What do you think?

Peace,

anas

NOSERISM: Defining Israel’s Control Over American Policy

Introduction: The Need for Conceptual Precision

In political science, few relationships are as complex and often misunderstood as that between the United States and Israel. Many analysts describe this dynamic as “The Israel Lobby,” “Foreign-Policy Capture,” or “Client-State Dynamics.” Each term captures part of the reality, yet none fully defines the phenomenon in which a smaller nation appears to exercise disproportionate influence over a larger, more powerful one.

To address this gap, this paper proposes a new term - Noserism - to describe this particular form of influence: when a powerful actor, while outwardly sovereign, is subtly directed by another through ideological, financial, or political leverage. The term is inspired by the Malay proverb “seperti kerbau dicucuk hidung” - “like a buffalo led by the nose.” Meaning, someone is being led, controlled, or manipulated like a buffalo that is guided by a ring in its nose. It evokes the image of strength without direction, power without autonomy.

This is not a moral judgment, nor a political accusation. It is an attempt at precise definition - to give policymakers, scholars, and journalists a clear term for describing such asymmetrical yet non-coercive relationships.

Why Getting the Definition Right Matters

In serious research, defining a concept is not an act of wordiness but of precision. Every key term - whether power, culture, or justice,  anchors the logic of an entire argument. How a concept is defined determines what counts as evidence, which theories apply, and what conclusions are valid.

Concepts evolve across disciplines; terms like colonialism, hegemony, or soft power carry different meanings in political science, sociology, and international relations. A rigorous definition acknowledges earlier thinkers, competing schools, and the intellectual traditions that shaped the term. This situating process demonstrates both academic honesty and intellectual continuity.

Furthermore, language shapes perception. Defining freedom as “absence of interference” leads to a liberal worldview, whereas defining it as “capacity for self-realization” yields a communitarian one. Similarly, calling U.S.–Israel relations a lobby, a capture, or a client-state dependency changes how we interpret the motives and mechanisms behind policy decisions. Thus, to define Noserism is to make thought transparent - to bring analytical clarity where ambiguity breeds confusion.

Finally, good definitions can themselves create new knowledge. When Marx redefined capital, or when Edward Said reframed Orientalism, they transformed how the world understood economics and culture. In the same spirit, a precise definition of Noserism offers scholars and practitioners a new lens through which to interpret power, influence, and leverage in modern geopolitics.

The Sacred Act of Naming

The effort to define Noserism is not merely academic - it continues a profound spiritual and intellectual tradition rooted in revelation itself. For example, both the Qur’an and the Bible emphasize that knowledge begins with naming.

“And He taught Adam the names - all of them.” (Qur’an 2:31)

In this moment, the Qur’an portrays the act of naming as the birth of human reason: the ability to categorize, symbolize, and understand. Unlike other creatures who act by instinct, humans think by naming. To name is to perceive; to define is to create order from chaos. Definition, therefore, is sacred - it mirrors divine wisdom in understanding the world.

The Bible echoes this truth:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

Here, “the Word” (Logos) is both language and reason - the bridge between divine intention and human comprehension. Thus, when scholars labor to define culture, justice, or Noserism, they are participating in an ancient continuity thus bringing clarity and moral order through the power of words.

In the Qur’an, the story of Adam continues with his appointment as khalifah (steward) of creation (Qur’an 2:30–39). Humanity’s first duty was epistemological: to understand and name the world rightly. Every generation, therefore, must renew this act - to name realities truthfully so that moral and intellectual balance is maintained. Misnaming leads to distortion; accurate naming restores justice.

Toward a Definition of Noserism

Noserism (noun) refers to a political condition in which a powerful nation or leader is guided or influenced by a subtler external actor through non-coercive means — such as ideological alignment and leverage, financial dependence, or strategic guilt.

It is distinct from neo-colonialism, which describes domination by economic dependence, and from hegemony, which denotes overt leadership. Instead, Noserism captures the paradox of controlled strength, where the dominant party appears to lead but in practice is led.

The term can apply beyond U.S.–Israel relations. It can describe any scenario in which influence flows upward - where the nominally stronger actor behaves according to the strategic design of a smaller or subtler power.

Comparative Framework

To situate Noserism within the broader evolution of political control, it is useful to compare it with related frameworks that describe different forms of domination and influence throughout history.

Colonialism represents direct occupation and administrative control, where one state rules another through physical presence, military force, and political governance. It is the most overt form of domination.

Settler Colonialism goes a step further by seeking permanent occupation and demographic replacement. Rather than merely exploiting resources or governing a territory, the colonizer settles the land, displaces or assimilates the indigenous population, and establishes new political and cultural structures. Historical examples include the European settlement of the Americas, Australia, and Palestine.

Neo-colonialism replaces occupation with economic dependence. The colonized nation is politically independent but economically bound, its policies shaped by trade, debt, and foreign investment - as Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad observed, “we may be politically free, but we are still economically colonised.”

Hegemony refers to leadership and dominance, often by a superpower, sustained through consent rather than coercion. The hegemon leads by projecting values, alliances, and institutional influence — as seen in post–World War II American global leadership.

Noserism, by contrast, captures a subtler inversion: an ideological or psychological manipulation of a stronger actor by a smaller one. It describes situations where the more powerful state, though possessing vast military and economic strength, is directed by another through emotional, ideological, or narrative leverage. It is influence without overt coercion. Control achieved through the soft reins of belief, guilt, identity alignment or manipulation - the politics of being “led by the nose.”

Naming as Moral Clarity

Defining Noserism is not a political accusation but an act of conceptual honesty. In the field of international relations, precise language is the foundation of analytical integrity. By naming a phenomenon accurately, scholars make it visible and therefore discussable.

Colonialism once exposed the brutality of empire; neo-colonialism revealed hidden economic subjugation. In the same way, Noserism opens space for understanding how influence can flow in unexpected directions - from the weaker to the stronger - through emotional, ideological, or psychological channels.

The goal of naming, as both revelation and reason teach us, is clarity. The Qur’an reminds us that God “taught Adam the names of all things,” making the act of definition the beginning of knowledge. The Bible echoes, “In the beginning was the Word,” affirming that truth itself begins with articulation. To define clearly is to act in that same lineage - restoring balance through truthful naming.

By offering Noserism as a precise term, we aim not to judge but to understand; not to condemn, but to clarify. For in the realm of ideas, moral order begins with linguistic order - and when we name rightly, we see rightly.

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

Penang

 

 

THE ILLUSTRIOUS MALAY WORLD SEAFARING HISTORY

The Malays, particularly the maritime Malay communities of the Peninsula’s eastern coasts and the islands of the Malay Archipelago already possess a distinguished and illustrious history of seafaring and shipbuilding.

There is no need to embellish this legacy with pseudo-history or unproven claims.

Doing so diminishes, rather than enhances, its true greatness.

When we assert what cannot be substantiated, we invite ridicule instead of respect and in the process, rob ourselves of the genuine pride our history deserves.

Peace, anas

I LITE U? What We Can Learn from a Flicker of Controversy

 

The debate over the “I Lite U” campaign is healthy. Whether to promote Malaysia in English or Malay is a valid discussion – but it should be guided by marketing logic, not sentiment. The goal must be to promote our country while staying true to our soul.

While it is logical to use a language that the target market understands best, the real creative challenge and wisdom lie in marrying communication with who we are – our product, service, and offerings.

However, my first concern is this: while we debate its language, “I Lite U” is not good English or good communication in the first place.

As someone trained in marketing, with experience in copywriting and running campaigns, I would like to first comment on this poor choice of English words and campaign communication.

The word lite is a slang form of light, often used in marketing to mean low-calorie (as in “Coke Lite”) – not illumination. Using “I Lite U” as a phrase to mean “I light you up” or “I illuminate you” is grammatically incorrect. To English speakers, “I Lite U” sounds childish or like text-speak (“I luv u”), which undermines the seriousness of a government tourism campaign.

Are we targeting kids or adults who have the money to spend?

Foreigners may not understand what the phrase actually means – who is “I”? What is being lit? It could even be misread as a personal romantic message (“I light you” = “I love you”) rather than a tourism slogan. For an international audience, such ambiguity weakens brand clarity. A slogan must communicate instantly, without explanation.

Good tourism or city branding slogans are clear (“Incredible India,” “Truly Asia,” “Amazing Thailand”), authentic (reflect local identity), and emotionally resonant yet linguistically correct. “I Lite U” fails on clarity and correctness. A foreign visitor might even assume it’s a typo.

From a language and branding standpoint, “I Lite U” sounds more like a playful typo than a professional message. English-speaking foreigners are likely to think it’s broken English (since “lite” isn’t a verb, and “U” is text-speak), be unsure what it means – is it “I light you,” “I like you,” or “I’m lit up?” – and perceive Malaysia’s public communication as careless or gimmicky. This undercuts the goal of projecting sophistication and confidence.

Ask again: who are we targeting? Those who fall for gimmicks, or those who think well and carefully before they spend their travel dollars?

Perhaps, a better campaign slogan would be something like “Many Lights, One City” with a subheading in Malay – “Ku Petik Bintang-bintang Untukmu.” In this way, English attracts while the Malay words create curiosity. We get visitors to participate by googling to find out what the Malay phrase means. Once we get customers to participate, we are halfway there.

“Ku Petik Bintang-bintang” also echoes Bukit Bintang – one of the main attractions we are inviting them to in this campaign.

Furthermore, “Many Lights, One City” is simple, universal, and elegant. It is easy for foreigners to understand and remember. It carries Malaysia’s unity and diversity. Each “light” can symbolize different people, cultures, or communities – all shining together as one city. It resonates with tourism and local pride, perfectly matching Malaysia’s multicultural narrative: “Many races, one nation” → “Many lights, one city.”

It could also be extended and scaled for the future and for other cities and areas in Malaysia, avoiding the silo mentality where each ministry runs its own campaign without a unifying national theme: “Many Lights, One Nation.” “Many Lights, One Malaysia.”

Light symbolizes people, hope, warmth, creativity, and faith. It positions Kuala Lumpur as a city glowing with diversity – authentic, inclusive, and alive.

What Must We Learn from This Episode?

My dear Malaysians, we often waste precious time debating what is secondary instead of focusing on what truly matters. And the manner of debate too is often unhealthy. Our goal should always be what is best for the nation.

While it is good to have passion about our language or our strategy to bring in business, we must ensure that we do not allow our emotions to get the better of us. It is precisely because every decision is, at its core, an emotional act – for we can never have complete information – that we must discipline our minds and exercise reasoning with utmost care before reaching a conclusion.

The problem with many of us – including those who see ourselves as “smart people” – is our inability to define reality without emotional attachment. Instead of evaluating both the good and the bad in a person, idea, or policy, we allow personal bias – whether positive or negative – to shape our perception of truth. In doing so, even intelligent individuals can act foolishly, as our emotions cloud judgment and rob our minds of clarity.

The I Lite U friction is yet another example of misplaced attention – a debate driven by noise rather than thought. Instead of discussing whether the campaign is done right in the first place, we allow ourselves to debate something else entirely.

And in doing so, we miss the real issue – how to communicate our nation’s story to the world with wisdom, integrity, and pride.

Peace.
Anas Zubedy
Kuala Lumpur

 

ALCOHOL, MALAYSIA, THE OVERTON WINDOW AND THE QUR’AN’S WAY

 

Let me start by first stating clearly that personally I do not consume alcohol. I do not take any business from the alcohol industry. We also do not accept business from tobacco and gambling-based companies. However:

Every now and then, Malaysia finds itself debating alcohol. Should we ban it? Restrict it? Or accept it as part of our multicultural reality?

The recent debates once again made headlines — from the controversy over Malaysia Airlines’ in-flight alcohol policy, to a tourism gala dinner where alcohol was served, to the Prime Minister’s public reminder that no official government event should include alcohol. Schools, too, were reminded to keep clear of sponsorships or promotions from alcohol and gambling brands.

These discussions reveal something deeper than just the question of drinking. They touch upon who we are as a nation — a Muslim-majority country that also takes pride in its diversity, hospitality, and openness to the world.

But perhaps, before rushing to ban or defend, we should pause and reflect on how real and lasting change happens — not just in law, but in hearts. Not just based on politics, but on Qur’anic guidance.

THE OVERTON WINDOW: HOW SOCIETIES EVOLVE

In modern political science, there is a concept called the Overton Window.
It explains how public opinion - and eventually policy - changes over time.

According to Joseph P. Overton, ideas move through a series of stages:
from unthinkable, to radical, to acceptable, to sensible, to popular, and finally, to policy.

Politicians, he argued, rarely lead this change — they follow it. The true drivers of transformation are the people — when their hearts, minds, and conversations evolve.

Overton’s theory shows that lasting reform begins not with a law or decree, but with a shift in public consciousness. That is, with understanding.

THE QUR’AN’S WAY: 1,400 YEARS AHEAD OF OVERTON

Interestingly, what Overton described in recent decades was already demonstrated 1,400 years ago — in how the Qur’an transformed society.

Take the case of alcohol.

In 7th-century Arabia, wine was everywhere. It was part of daily life, trade, and celebration. A total ban, imposed overnight, would have created rebellion and hypocrisy. But the Qur’an, in its divine wisdom, guided people through a gradual moral awakening - one that allowed the community to outgrow the habit naturally.

The process unfolded in three stages:

1. Stage One – Awareness of Harm
   “They ask you about intoxicants and gambling. Say, ‘In them is great sin and some benefit for people, but the sin is greater than the benefit.’”(Qur’an 2:219)
   Here, the Qur’an did not ban. It invited reflection. It planted a seed of moral doubt. The people began to think.
2. Stage Two – Restraint and Consciousness
   “O you who believe! Do not approach prayer while intoxicated until you know what you are saying.”(Qur’an 4:43).The message tightened. The conflict between worship and intoxication became clear. A believer now had to choose between awareness in prayer or the cloud of alcohol.
3. Stage Three – Moral Readiness and Prohibition
   “Intoxicants, gambling, idols, and divining arrows are abominations of Satan’s handiwork. Avoid them so that you may prosper.”
   (Qur’an 5:90). By now, the community was ready. When this verse was revealed, as recorded in Al-Bukhari, the Muslims poured away their wine instantly. Poets said that “wine flowed through the streets of Madinah.”

The Qur’an’s gradual revelation shows that true change begins with consciousness, not coercion. And moral transformation must mature naturally within the human heart.

The Prophet ﷺ did not force his people to stop drinking. He educated them - until they no longer needed to be forced. It was not law that made them change; it was love for God, understanding, and readiness.

THE PROPHET’S ﷺ METHOD: CHANGE FROM THE INSIDE OUT

This was the Prophet’s timeless method. He did not impose goodness — he inspired it.
He knew that the only change that lasts is the one that grows from within.

So when the final command came, there was no resistance. The people themselves were prepared. They had already internalized the value. The law simply confirmed what the heart had accepted.

It was not about prohibition; it was about transformation.

A GENTLE WORD TO TODAY’S MUSLIM ADVOCATES

Many Muslims today campaign passionately to ban alcohol in Malaysia.
Their intentions may be noble — they want to protect faith, morality, and society.

But I humbly suggest: before we seek to ban, let us first seek to learn the Qur’anic way.Real transformation requires more than legislation. It requires education, persuasion, and compassion. A policy can restrict an act, but only wisdom can purify a heart.

Let us ask ourselves honestly: Are we fighting to protect Islam — or are we using Islam to protect our political interests?

Because the Qur’an warns us against this kind of hypocrisy:

“Have you seen the one who takes his desires as his god?” (Qur’an 45:23)
“Do not sell God’s covenant for a small price.” (Qur’an 16:95)
“O you who believe! Why do you say what you do not do? It is most hateful to God that you say what you do not do.” (Qur’an 61:2–3)

If we are truly fighting for Islam, let us be just as passionate about the causes the Qur’an emphasises again and again - social care, justice, education, ending poverty, caring for parents, protecting orphans, uplifting the weak, and fighting corruption.

Do we raise our voices for these with the same energy that we raise them for banning alcohol?

We must take careful note that during the first five years of revelation, the Qur’an’s emphasis was entirely on awakening the mind, nurturing faith, and building moral consciousness - not on laws or prohibitions.

It began with the command to Read (Iqra’), calling humanity to seek knowledge, reflect, and recognize the Creator. In these early Meccan years, Allah focused on spiritual awakening, personal responsibility, and social compassion - urging believers to care for orphans, feed the poor, and uphold truthfulness.

The early verses of Surah Al-‘Alaq, Al-Muddaththir, Al-Mā‘ūn, and Al-Layl all stressed purification of the self, compassion for others, and sincerity in worship. The message was clear: before society can be governed by divine law, the human heart must first be educated, humbled, and awakened.

THE REAL QUESTION: ARE WE READY?

The Muslims of Madinah were ready to pour away their drinks because their hearts had already changed.

So let me ask us today:

ARE WE READY TO POUR AWAY OUR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON THE STREETS OF KUALA LUMPUR?

Not by decree, but by conviction. Not because of politics, but because of faith.

For society’s norms shift when understanding deepens - not when laws are imposed prematurely.If we want a truly moral society, we must begin not with bans, but with hearts that understand.

Let us be the generation that chooses education over enforcement, sincerity over symbolism, and faith over politics.

I would like to end this article with this very important verse. Muslims - especially our leaders, scholars, and policymakers - must remember that this verse is not meant for Muslims alone, but for all humankind. If we truly and wholeheartedly believe that the Qur’an was sent as guidance for all, then we must factor this divine principle into every decision and policy we are entrusted with. Real change, as the Qur’an teaches, does not begin with laws, politics, or enforcement - it begins from within the human heart.

“Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.” (Qur’an 13:11)

Anas Zubedy
Penang

 

THE FULL VERSION : WHY WORKING FROM HOME DOESN’T WORK FOR MANY

 

There is growing evidence that formal workplaces in Malaysia are feeling the pressure from employees and broader generational shifts to offer more flexible work-arrangements, including some days working from home (WFH).

Recent studies show that over 70% of Malaysian employees prefer hybrid or flexible work arrangements, viewing them as an essential part of modern employment. This trend is especially strong among Gen Z workers, whose commitment to an employer is closely tied to the level of flexibility offered - if they don’t get it, they’re more likely to leave.

While some thrive working from home - especially those with disciplined habits, clear roles, and supportive setups — many, if not most, do not.

Why?

1. Lack of Structure and Focus

The home can be full of distractions. Without the rhythm of regular office schedules, commutes, and colleagues, our focus weakens. Personal time seeps into work hours, and productivity quietly slips away. Focus is key to success.

2. Weaker Learning, Teamwork, and Shared Purpose

Work is not only about tasks; it is also about people. We learn through observation, casual conversations, and teamwork. Younger or newer staff lose these learning moments when working remotely. The mentorship and coaching that naturally happen in shared spaces are reduced. Over time, we learn less effectively and lose our sense of teamwork and shared purpose.

3. Loss of Culture and Connection

An office is not just a physical space; it is where company culture comes alive. Without face-to-face interaction, trust and belonging fade. People become isolated, less connected, and less loyal to their teams and mission.

4. Integrity and Ethics – Working Less Than Promised

Perhaps the most serious issue is ethical. Many who WFH end up giving less than they promised — attending to personal matters during office hours, working shorter days, or simply coasting. When someone is paid for eight hours but delivers only five, that income is no longer ethical.

For those who believe in God, morality, or karma, this is no small matter. It means we earn what is not rightfully ours — haram income for some, and bad karma for others. Work, whether done at home or in an office, is an act of trust. Breaking that trust breaks something deep within us.

That said, it is understandable that some may need to work from home - single parents, those caring for an elderly family member, or individuals facing specific personal circumstances. WFH also makes sense for certain types of jobs or functions where physical presence adds little value.

The key is to be honest with ourselves and our employers about what truly works - to reflect and ask, “Am I really cut out to work from home?”

Peace.

Anas Zubedy.

Kuala Lumpur.