Malaysia suffers from a serious political disease: too many of our
political parties and actors no longer approach issues with the genuine
intention of solving problems, improving the country, or moving society
forward. Instead of conducting proper situational analyses, defining reality
honestly, setting clear goals, and finding workable, long-term solutions, they
weaponize emotional issues primarily to fish for votes.
This pattern has persisted for decades. At various points in time,
specific issues are suddenly elevated into national crises—not because the
problems themselves are new, but because their political utility suddenly
becomes highly valuable. One year it is pig farming; another year it is the
UEC; another time it is kuil tanpa izin. At other times, the trigger
involves race, religion, language, education, or the royalty.
Every single time, the exact same formula emerges:
- Communities are emotionally
mobilized.
- Fear and anger rise.
- Political narratives sharpen.
- People retreat into their
respective racial and religious corners.
- Political parties position
themselves as "protectors" of their community while quietly
securing their own political survival.
But after the noise settles, we must ask ourselves the hard questions:
Did the country truly move forward? Did we solve the root problem? Did things
actually get better—or did politicians merely gain another election talking
point?
The saddest part of this cycle is that many Malaysians still fail to
recognize the pattern. They continue to react emotionally to every new issue,
believing their preferred political actors are sincerely defending them, when
the true priority is often just electoral positioning.
Look closely at the pattern over the past year alone. When the issue is
pig farming, emotions are triggered between Malays and Chinese. When it is the
UEC, ethnic sentiments are stirred again. When it involves kuil tanpa izin,
tensions rise between Malays and many Hindu Indian Malaysians. Different
issues, same political formula. The emotional trigger changes, but the strategy
remains remarkably consistent because political actors fear losing support. The
fastest way to regain attention and consolidate a base is to revive the
emotional identity politics of race and religion.
Unfortunately, many major political parties in Malaysia still derive
their political fuel and emotional energy from these divisions. They position
themselves as ethnic champions. Take UMNO and DAP, for example. These two major
parties frequently confront each other publicly over emotionally charged
issues. Whether intentionally or not, both sides project themselves to their
supporters as the true fighters for their respective communities. One side
presents itself as the defender of Malay rights, Islam, national identity, and
the national education system. The other positions itself as the protector of
minority rights, vernacular education, cultural recognition, and fairness for
non-Malay communities.
And so, the political battlefield remains locked.
This dangerous cycle will keep repeating itself unless Malaysians choose
to rise above it. As voters, we must learn to look at issues beyond shallow
emotional reactions, grounding ourselves instead in deeper reflection and
thoughtful analysis. We must pause and ask:
- What are the actual facts?
- What is the real scale of the
issue?
- What is the long-term impact?
- What truly moves the nation
forward?
This article attempts to encourage exactly that type of thinking. I am
using the UEC issue merely as a case study, because the UEC debate perfectly
illustrates how emotion can completely overshadow systematic problem-solving.
On one side, certain groups warn that recognizing the UEC for entry into
public universities (IPTAs) will weaken national identity, undermine Bahasa
Melayu, fragment society, or threaten the national education framework. On the
other side, groups fight for UEC recognition as though it is the single most
critical issue affecting the Chinese community.
But before we react emotionally to either side, we must stop and examine
the reality.
In the corporate world, when we train leaders and managers, we teach them
never to react emotionally to a crisis, provocation, or challenge. Instead, we
train them to think systematically and make decisions based on reality, clear
goals, consequences, and long-term outcomes. The exact same principle must
apply to nation-building. We cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated into
tearing each other apart every time politicians introduce sensitive issues
ahead of an election or during periods of political instability.
At the end of the day, all human decisions are emotional to some
extent—even voting. But there is a massive difference between emotional
decisions driven by fear, anger, insecurity, and hatred, and emotional
decisions guided by wisdom, hope, maturity, reflection, and a genuine love for
the country.
To achieve this level of maturity, we need a better framework for
evaluating national issues. In leadership and management development, we
frequently use a simple tool called The ZUBEDY DEAR Method:
- D – Define reality correctly.
- E – Envision a better future.
- A – Develop proper action plans.
- R – Reflect honestly on whether our actions
and decisions are producing the right outcomes.
If Malaysians begin applying this approach to national issues, we can
stop reacting exactly the way political actors expect us to. We can finally
begin thinking as citizens first, rather than functioning merely as emotional
voting blocs.
Remember - A nation cannot move forward if every issue is first processed
through racial fear before rational thought.
Peace.
Anas Zubedy.
Kuala Lumpur
No comments:
Post a Comment