It Is About Adab, Not Just Pig Farming

 

I recently shared the Sultan of Selangor’s statement regarding Ronnie Liu and Wong Siew Ki on my Facebook page. What struck me most was not the disagreement itself, but the nature of many of the comments. A large number of them were driven more by emotion than careful thinking. Many seemed unable to separate the actual issues involved, while others immediately framed the matter purely through racial or religious lenses.

In reality, there are two interconnected yet separate issues here.

The first is the issue of adab, cultural sensitivity, and how one engages institutions within the context of Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy and multicultural society.

The second is the broader policy discussion involving pig farming, urbanisation, environmental management, and long-term planning for a state like Selangor.

Many people seem to confuse the two.

From what I understand, the Sultan’s unhappiness was not simply about whether one agrees or disagrees with pig farming. Rather, it was about how the matter was discussed publicly, the tone used, and whether sufficient wisdom and sensitivity were exercised when engaging such a sensitive issue involving the palace, the rakyat, and the wider social fabric of Malaysia.

This is something many Malaysians today fail to appreciate. In life, it is not only what you say that matters, but also how, when, and where you say it. One may legally argue a point and yet still fail in wisdom, manners, and cultural sensitivity.

In Asia, and especially in Malaysia, adab matters. Respectful engagement matters. Tone matters. Context matters. Institutions matter.

This does not mean one cannot disagree. But disagreement must still be exercised with wisdom, maturity, and awareness of the broader social fabric of the nation.

Now let us come to the second issue, the policy discussion itself.

Selangor today is no longer a semi-rural state. It is one of the main economic engines of Malaysia and will only become more urbanised, industrialised, and densely populated in the decades ahead. As development expands, it becomes increasingly important to ask difficult but necessary questions about land use, environmental sustainability, public health, congestion, and social harmony.

This should not be viewed only through the lens of pig farming. The same thinking should apply to poultry farming and other forms of heavy agricultural activity if they create major environmental, congestion, health, or social pressures when located too close to major urban centres and water catchment areas.

At the same time, we must also be honest that pig farming carries additional environmental and biosecurity challenges compared to many other forms of livestock farming. Pig waste decomposes much faster, produces stronger odours, and can create more concentrated environmental pressures if not managed properly. Malaysia’s painful experience with the Nipah virus outbreak should also remind us that poorly managed livestock systems can have serious consequences.

This is why many countries are slowly moving towards more state-of-the-art, closed, modern farming systems with strict environmental controls, advanced waste management, and proper biosecurity measures. Whether it is pig farming, poultry farming, or other intensive livestock activities, Malaysia too must slowly but surely move in that direction.

Of course, such transformation is capital intensive. It cannot happen overnight. Farmers, industries, and governments need time, support, technology, and proper transition plans. But we must at least agree on the direction we want to move toward as a nation.

Perhaps certain industries are also more suitable in states with lower population density and larger land availability, rather than highly congested urban corridors like Selangor. Sarawak, for example, already has larger land areas and lower density that may allow for more suitable long-term planning for certain agricultural activities.

What is unfortunate is that Malaysia’s political class and wider society still seem unable to calmly and maturely discuss such issues based on facts, long-term planning, environmental realities, and national priorities. Everything quickly becomes racialised or religiously charged. Instead of discussing planning, technology, environmental management, logistics, and future development, the conversation immediately turns into:
“Who is taking what away from whom?”

That is not healthy nation-building.

In many ways, it is also unfortunate that such matters eventually require royal intervention or public royal displeasure before serious reflection takes place. Ideally, these are issues that mature political leaders, policymakers, and society itself should already be able to analyse and discuss responsibly without inflaming racial or religious sentiments.

If Malaysians truly do not want royalty to repeatedly enter such arenas, then we ourselves must mature politically and socially. We must learn to conduct proper situation analysis, think long-term, study realities honestly, and ask one simple question:
What is truly best for the country and future generations?

At the end of the day, not every policy discussion is an attack on a race or religion. Sometimes it is simply about managing a modern nation wisely and preparing responsibly for the future.

Malaysia must continue learning how to balance rights with responsibilities, economics with environmental sustainability, development with harmony, and freedom with wisdom.

Only then can we move forward as a mature nation.

Peace, 

anas zubedy

Kuala Lumpur

REFORMASI: AN MP’S SEAT SHOULD NOT BE PERSONAL PROPERTY

The recent developments involving Rafizi Ramli and Nik Nazmi raise an important democratic question that Malaysians should seriously think about: Who really owns an MP’s seat? Does the seat belong to the politician, to the political party, or ultimately to the rakyat who voted them into office? Personally, I believe the answer must be very clear. An MP or ADUN may contest under a party banner, but once elected, the first and foremost responsibility of that elected representative is to the people who voted for them. That principle is fundamental to democracy.

Legally and constitutionally, Malaysia follows the Westminster parliamentary system. Technically, once elected, an MP is not legally bound to follow direct instructions from voters; instead, MPs are governed by the Federal Constitution, parliamentary rules, and party systems. However, democracy is not built merely on technical legality—it is built on moral legitimacy. Morally speaking, the mandate of an MP or ADUN comes from the rakyat. This is precisely why Malaysia introduced the anti-party hopping law after years of political instability caused by defections and political maneuvering. The very spirit behind the law is that the voters’ mandate should not be casually undermined after an election, indirectly recognizing that an elected seat is not merely the personal possession of a politician.

Because of this, I believe we need to distinguish between resigning from a political party and vacating a parliamentary or state seat, as these are not necessarily the same thing. If an MP disagrees with party leadership, disagrees with the direction of the party, or no longer feels aligned with the political leadership, then that MP has every right to resign from the party. That is their political right. But vacating the seat itself is a completely different matter. The seat does not morally belong solely to the politician or the party; it belongs first and foremost to the democratic mandate entrusted by voters. This is why politicians should not easily vacate seats because of internal political disagreements, leadership contests, factional maneuvering, or political arrangements within their parties.

If there are agreements within political parties stating that someone who leaves the party must pay a financial penalty—for example, RM10 million or any other amount—then that is an internal agreement between the politician and the party to settle. The rakyat should not become collateral damage because of internal political arrangements. If an elected representative strongly disagrees with party leadership and still wishes to leave the party, then they should deal with the consequences personally, including paying whatever penalty was contractually agreed upon if necessary. But the public mandate given by voters should not be casually abandoned halfway because of internal political problems.

This becomes even more important when the resignation takes place after the first two years of a general election. Under current practice, once Parliament is near the end of its term, a vacancy may not necessarily lead to a by-election. In such situations, the constituency may effectively lose representation for a period of time because of political maneuvering unrelated to the voters themselves. That should not happen. The rakyat voted to be represented for a term, not to lose representation because of internal political disagreements or strategic calculations within political parties.

Otherwise, what message are we sending to Malaysians? That their votes are secondary to internal party negotiations? That political arrangements between elites matter more than the public mandate? This is dangerous for democracy because once elected representatives begin treating seats as extensions of political maneuvering rather than public trust, the rakyat slowly lose confidence in the democratic process itself.

Perhaps the time has come for Malaysia to seriously consider stronger laws on this matter. If an elected representative voluntarily vacates a seat primarily because of internal political disagreements, factional maneuvering, or party arrangements, then perhaps that individual should not be allowed to contest again for at least one or two election cycles. This is because vacating a seat unnecessarily imposes major costs on the nation and the rakyat:

• Financial costs
• Administrative costs
• Political instability
• Public fatigue
• Disruption to constituency representation

More importantly, it weakens the sanctity of the mandate given by voters.

Of course, I am not saying MPs or ADUNs can never vacate their seats. There are legitimate reasons, such as serious illness, inability to function, major ethical breaches, or personal situations that genuinely prevent them from serving. That is understandable. But internal party politics should not easily become justification for surrendering a public mandate entrusted by thousands of voters.

Perhaps reformasi today should not merely be about changing governments or political coalitions. Perhaps reformasi must also mean strengthening the sanctity of the people’s mandate itself. Because ultimately, an MP’s seat should never be treated as personal property.

Peace, anas zubedy

 

AL-QUR’AN – SUNNI, SYIAH & IBADIYAH - Sinar Harian ms 14

 

AL-QUR’AN – SUNNI, SYIAH & IBADIYAH

Baru-baru ini,  ketika berucap mengenai ketegangan serantau di Timur Tengah dan konflik yang melibatkan Iran, Presiden Recep Tayyip Erdogan menyeru umat Islam untuk menolak perpecahan mazhab dan bersatu sebagai satu umat. Mesej beliau menekankan satu perkara yang ringkas tetapi mendalam:

“Kita tidak mempunyai agama yang dinamakan Sunni atau Syiah. Kita hanya mempunyai satu agama, iaitu Islam.”

Beliau seterusnya menegaskan bahawa umat Islam tidak seharusnya memisahkan diri mengikut mazhab atau etnik. Sama ada Turki, Arab, Sunni, Syiah, Kurdi dan lain-lain, katanya, tidak wajar dilihat sebagai identiti yang terpisah apabila berbicara tentang keimanan.

Pada hakikatnya, Erdogan mengingatkan para pemimpin dan masyarakat Islam tentang satu prinsip fundamental: Tidak ada Sunni atau Syiah sebagai agama yang berasingan. Yang ada hanyalah Islam. Umat Islam harus melihat diri mereka sebagai Muslim terlebih dahulu, bukannya sebagai ahli mazhab yang saling bersaing.

Ramai mungkin tidak menyedari bahawa selain tradisi Sunni dan Syiah, terdapat juga satu cabang sejarah Islam yang ketiga yang dikenali sebagai Ibadiyah. Sesetengah ahli sejarah menjejak asal-usulnya ke zaman awal sejarah Islam, muncul daripada perdebatan susulan konflik politik pertama sesama Muslim. Hari ini, komuniti Ibadi kebanyakannya terdapat di Oman, di mana mereka membentuk majoriti penduduk, serta komuniti kecil di beberapa bahagian Afrika Utara dan Timur.

Pada masa yang sama, penting untuk kita fahami bahawa dunia Islam jauh lebih pelbagai daripada tiga kumpulan besar ini. Dalam tradisi Sunni dan Syiah sendiri, terdapat banyak sekolah pemikiran, orientasi teologi, dan gerakan kerohanian. Bagi aliran Sunni sebagai contoh, terdapat mazhab perundangan yang terkenal seperti Hanafi, Maliki, Syafi‘i, dan Hanbali, di samping gerakan yang sering digambarkan sebagai Salafi atau Wahhabi. Dalam tradisi Syiah pula, terdapat cabang seperti Dua Belas Imam (Ithna ‘Ashariyyah), Ismaili, dan Zaidi.

Di luar perbezaan ini, wujud juga tradisi Sufi yang menekankan kerohanian dan penyucian jiwa, dan pengikutnya boleh datang daripada latar belakang Sunni mahupun Syiah. Sejak kebelakangan ini, terdapat juga individu yang mengenal pasti diri mereka sebagai lebih berfokus kepada al-Quran atau Qur’anist, yang meletakkan penekanan khusus kepada al-Quran sebagai sumber panduan utama.

Semua ini mengingatkan kita bahawa komuniti Muslim secara sejarahnya memiliki pelbagai tafsiran, sekolah pemikiran, dan jalan kerohanian. Namun, di sebalik perbezaan ini, kita semua berkongsi syahadah yang sama dan tergolong dalam umat Islam yang luas.

Walaupun retorik Erdogan ini sering muncul dalam diplomasi Turkiye, terutamanya apabila Ankara memposisikan dirinya sebagai jambatan penghubung dunia Islam, mesej ini sangat tepat pada masanya. Jurang antara Sunni dan Syiah telah lama mencorak politik di Timur Tengah, sering kali diperkukuh oleh persaingan antara negara seperti Arab Saudi dan Iran. Pendekatan Erdoğan adalah untuk mengalihkan tumpuan kembali kepada prinsip yang lebih asas: mengutamakan Ummah, mengiktiraf sejarah awal yang dikongsi bersama Islam, serta keperluan untuk memperkukuhkan perpaduan di mana perpecahan yang berlaku pada ketika itu hanya akan melemahkan masyarakat Islam.

Secara peribadi, saya sentiasa terbuka untuk belajar daripada pelbagai kumpulan dalam Islam ini. Saya mendengar, mengkaji, dan merenung, lalu memilih apa yang dirasakan terbaik dengan menjadikan al-Quran sebagai panduan utama. Al-Quran sendiri menggalakkan pendekatan sedemikian. Dalam Surah az-Zumar, ayat 18, Allah memuji:

“(Iaitu) mereka yang mendengar perkataan-perkataan, lalu mengikuti yang terbaik daripadanya. Mereka itulah orang yang diberi petunjuk oleh Allah dan mereka itulah orang yang mempunyai akal yang sempurna.”

Al-Qur’an juga dengan jelas memberi peringatan kepada umat Islam agar tidak berpecah kepada kelompok-kelompok mazhab, dan berkali-kali menegaskan persaudaraan dalam kalangan orang beriman. Ayat-ayat seperti 3:103, 3:105, 6:159, 49:10 dan 42:13 semuanya memberi peringatan terhadap perpecahan dalam agama.

Namun, seperti kebanyakan ajaran penting dalam al-Quran, ia tidak sekadar mengeluarkan kenyataan. Ia juga menjelaskan bagaimana rupa sebenar perpecahan mazhab atau semangat berpuak-puak itu.

Dua ayat merakamkan perkara ini dengan jelas:

“...iaitu orang-orang yang menjadikan faham-faham agama mereka berselisih-selisih dan mereka pula menjadi berpuak-puak; tiap-tiap puak bergembira dengan apa yang ada padanya.” (Surah ar-Rum 30:32)

“Dan sesungguhnya agama Islam ini ialah agama kamu yang satu, dan Akulah Tuhan kamu; maka bertaqwalah kamu kepada-Ku. Kemudian mereka memecah-belahkan urusan agama mereka menjadi beberapa pecahan, tiap-tiap puak bergembira dengan apa yang ada di sisi mereka.” (Surah al-Mu’minun 23:52–53)

Ayat pertama menggambarkan satu realiti psikologi perpecahan mazhab. Setiap kumpulan menjadi yakin bahawa tafsiran mereka sahaja yang betul dan berbangga dengannya. Ayat kedua pula lebih tegas. Ia bermula dengan menegaskan bahawa agama ini adalah satu, kemudian menjelaskan bagaimana manusia kemudiannya memecah-belahkannya menjadi mazhab-mazhab, di mana setiap puak percaya bahawa hanya mereka yang benar.

Apa yang dikritik oleh al-Quran di sini ialah keangkuhan dalam kepastian bermazhab, keyakinan bahawa satu kumpulan memiliki monopoli ke atas kebenaran dan petunjuk Allah. Al-Quran mengakui bahawa perbezaan pendapat akan sentiasa wujud. Manusia berfikir, mentafsir, dan berselisih pendapat. Itu adalah sebahagian daripada fitrah kejadian kita. Apa yang diberi amaran oleh al-Quran ialah membiarkan perbezaan itu berkembang menjadi kem-kem tegar yang percaya hanya mereka yang benar dan orang lain semuanya sesat. Apabila keangkuhan mazhab melampaui batas, sesetengah pihak mula melabel sesiapa di luar sekolah pemikiran mereka sebagai penyeleweng, atau lebih buruk lagi, mengkafirkan mereka melalui amalan takfir. Sejarah menunjukkan bahawa apabila sesebuah komuniti mencapai tahap itu, perpaduan akan runtuh dan konflik akan menyusul.

Metodologi al-Quran tidak sekadar mengeluarkan titah. Ia juga menjelaskan punca masalah dan kriteria untuk kita memahaminya. Pendekatan ini muncul berulang kali dalam al-Quran.

Ambil contoh Surah al-Ma’idah 5:82, yang menyentuh tentang penganut Kristian:

“Demi sesungguhnya engkau akan dapati orang-orang yang keras permusuhannya kepada orang-orang yang beriman ialah orang-orang Yahudi dan orang-orang musyrik. Dan demi sesungguhnya engkau akan dapati orang-orang yang dekat sekali kasih mesranya kepada orang-orang yang beriman ialah orang-orang yang berkata: ‘Bahawa kami ini ialah orang-orang Nasrani (Kristian).’ Yang demikian itu, disebabkan ada di antara mereka pendeta-pendeta dan ahli-ahli ibadat, dan kerana mereka pula tidak berlaku sombong.”

Walaupun al-Quran menyatakan bahawa penganut Kristian sering kali menjadi antara yang paling mesra atau belas kasihan terhadap Muslim semasa zaman Nabi, kenyataan itu tidak dibiarkan tanpa penjelasan. Ayat tersebut terus memberikan sebabnya. Ia merujuk kepada sifat peribadi dan bukannya identiti semata-mata. Ia menonjolkan sifat rendah diri, ketaatan kerohanian, dan ketiadaan sifat sombong. Dalam kata lain, al-Quran sedang mengajar satu prinsip yang lebih luas: Sesiapa sahaja, bukan hanya penganut Kristian, yang memiliki kualiti ini lebih cenderung untuk mendekati orang lain dengan kebaikan dan niat yang murni. Ya, termasuklah penganut Yahudi.

Satu lagi contoh penting pendekatan al-Quran ini adalah arahan untuk umat Islam mentaati dan mengikut Rasulullah. Banyak ayat menekankan perkara ini, termasuk Surah al-Ahzab 33:21, Ali ‘Imran 3:31, an-Nisa’ 4:80, 4:59, dan al-Hasyr 59:7. Namun, kriteria bagaimana untuk mengikuti Baginda boleh dilihat dalam Surah al-A‘raf 7:158 di mana al-Quran mengisytiharkan:

“Katakanlah: Wahai manusia, sesungguhnya aku adalah Rasul Allah kepada kamu semua, daripada Tuhan yang memiliki kerajaan langit dan bumi. Tiada Tuhan melainkan Dia; Dialah yang menghidupkan dan mematikan. Maka berimanlah kamu kepada Allah dan Rasul-Nya, Nabi yang ummi, yang beriman kepada Allah dan kepada kalimat-kalimat-Nya, dan ikutilah dia supaya kamu mendapat petunjuk.”

Dengan demikian, cara mengikuti Nabi adalah dengan beriman kepada Allah dan kepada kalimat-kalimat-Nya, iaitu al-Qur’an. Di tempat lain al-Qur’an menjelaskan:

“Dan Kami tidak menurunkan Kitab kepadamu melainkan supaya engkau menjelaskan kepada mereka perkara yang mereka perselisihkan dan sebagai petunjuk serta rahmat bagi kaum yang beriman.” – Surah An-Nahl, 16:64

Oleh itu, sama ada kita Sunni, Syiah, Ibadiyah, Salafi, Wahhabi, Sufi, Deobandi, Barelvi, Ismaili, Zaidi, berfokuskan al-Quran atau tergolong dalam mana-mana aliran lain dalam Islam, marilah kita menyokong seruan Erdogan ini. Al-Quran memberi amaran kepada kita agar tidak menjadi kumpulan yang hanya berbangga dengan puak sendiri sehingga terlupa bahawa agama ini adalah satu. Marilah kita kekal sebagai Muslim terlebih dahulu. Dan apabila kita berselisih pendapat, kita rujuk kembali kepada al-Quran.

Salam.

Anas Zubedy

 

THE BEIJING MEETING: A PRAGMATIC PIVOT TOWARD ECONOMIC REALISM

 

“The best negotiations are those where both sides win.”

For the past several years, Washington’s message to the world was clear: decouple from China, de-risk supply chains, reduce dependency, and approach Beijing with caution. Tariffs expanded, restrictions increased, and the global conversation increasingly moved toward confrontation rather than cooperation.

Yet recently, something important happened.

Some of America’s most influential business leaders, technology giants, manufacturers, and investors arrived in Beijing seeking partnerships, market access, and business opportunities. They did not come to dismantle ties. They came because economic reality demanded engagement.

Perhaps this moment should not be viewed negatively. Perhaps it should be seen as an opportunity for a more mature and realistic global conversation about trade, economics, and cooperation.

The modern economy no longer functions in isolation. American technology companies depend heavily on global supply chains. Manufacturing depends on international production networks. Even advanced chip makers rely on minerals, assembly systems, engineering talent, industrial ecosystems, and manufacturing partnerships spread across multiple countries, especially throughout Asia.

At the same time, supply chains alone are not enough. Large economies also need markets.

Factories need customers. Products need buyers. Industries need scale in order to remain competitive and profitable. When countries place excessive economic barriers against one another, the damage is rarely one-sided. Eventually, nations also reduce their own access to markets, customers, investment opportunities, and long-term growth.

Without strong demand, sales weaken. Without scale, profits shrink. Without profits, investment and innovation begin slowing down. This is not only China’s reality or America’s reality. It is the reality of an interconnected global economy.

Perhaps America itself is now beginning to recognize that the world has changed. The era where one power could largely shape global economic behavior while expecting everyone else to simply adjust may gradually be fading.

This does not mean competition between nations will disappear. Competition is natural. Countries will continue pursuing innovation, growth, influence, and national interests. In many ways, healthy competition is important because it pushes industries, technologies, and societies to improve.

But competition alone cannot sustain, let alone grow, the modern global system.

The world today requires a wiser balance between competition and cooperation. Competition can drive innovation and efficiency, but cooperation creates stability, stronger supply chains, larger markets, and long-term prosperity. Deep economic interdependence, while imperfect, also creates incentives for stability because countries that trade heavily with one another become more cautious about prolonged disruption and escalation.

In this sense, trade is not only about profit. It can also function as a stabilizing force in international relations.

The most sustainable negotiations, whether in business or diplomacy, are rarely situations where one side wins everything while the other side loses completely. Durable systems are usually built when all parties gain something meaningful and when relationships remain beneficial over the long term.

The same principle should guide the future of international trade.

As I come from a smaller nation, Malaysia, we have a Malay saying : gajah sama gajah berjuang, pelanduk mati di tengah  -  when elephants clash, the mousedeer in the middle dies.

When superpowers fight through tariffs, sanctions, and economic pressure, smaller nations often suffer the consequences despite having little control over the conflict.

As such, a pragmatic pivot toward economic realism will benefit not only America and China, but the rest of the world as well.

Anas Zubedy

Kuala Lumpur

 

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN: THE LESSON FROM BEIJING?

 

In The Art of War, Sun Tzu establishes that discipline, coordination, and clarity of direction are the bedrock of any effective force. This is why military parades have carried such weight throughout history. A parade is not merely a display of hardware; it is a manifestation of a nation’s mentality, organization, and attention to detail.

I wonder if this was the realization that struck Donald Trump as he stood beside Xi Jinping in Beijing. What Trump witnessed was a display of absolute precision and controlled confidence: a system that takes the art of organization seriously. The contrast with America’s own military displays in recent times was noted by many. The U.S. presentation appeared less coordinated and, at times, visibly disorganized by comparison.

The Symbolism of the Square

While a polished parade does not guarantee military superiority, history is full of “pretty” armies that failed in the field. Nevertheless, the parade ground serves as a mirror for society. A nation that masters detail, infrastructure, and long-term planning in ceremony often reflects those same qualities in its governance.

This is where the contrast between the two superpowers becomes difficult to ignore:

• China’s Internal Focus: For decades, Beijing directed its energy inward, obsessively building high-speed railways, ports, manufacturing hubs, and educational systems.
• America’s External Exhaustion: Meanwhile, the United States spent trillions of dollars and enormous national energy on foreign interventions, while parts of its own domestic foundation continued to deteriorate.

The Deviation from "America First"

The irony is that Donald Trump’s political rise was fueled by his understanding of this internal decay. Millions of Americans supported him because he promised to stop wasting resources on foreign interests and start rebuilding the American heartland. He questioned why the U.S. was trying to fix the world while its own healthcare costs soared, housing became increasingly unaffordable, and infrastructure aged into obsolescence.

That instinct was correct. Had Trump remained focused on that original vision, prioritizing national cohesion, industrial strength, healthcare affordability, and domestic renewal, his legacy might have been that of the president who finally returned America’s focus to its own people.

Instead, he appeared to drift away from this path. Despite his “America First” rhetoric, his administration became increasingly entangled in the geopolitical demands surrounding Israel and the Middle East. Under heavy pressure and influence from Benjamin Netanyahu, the focus shifted away from rebuilding America internally toward confrontation with Iran. To many observers, this appeared to compromise the original mission: instead of putting America first, the administration seemed increasingly drawn into prioritizing the strategic concerns of Israel and the broader regional conflict.

The Cost of Distraction

The image of Trump standing beside Xi remains a powerful psychological snapshot. At that moment, he saw the results of a nation that refused to be constantly distracted by external conflicts. China did not spend the last thirty years bogged down in multiple foreign wars. Instead, it focused heavily on expanding infrastructure, industry, trade, technology, and initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative.

To truly “Make America Great Again,” the mandate must be absolute: America first.

• No more geopolitical exhaustion driven by external conflicts.
• No more prioritizing foreign regional agendas over American domestic stability.
• No more allowing external pressures to consume American money, attention, and political will.

If Trump is to fulfill his original promise, he must return to the struggles of ordinary Americans: jobs, housing, healthcare affordability, infrastructure, education, and social stability. Rebuilding a nation requires the same discipline and long-term planning demonstrated in Beijing, applied not to foreign wars, but to American soil.

How I wish Donald Trump experienced such a moment of epiphany. That he would return to America determined to spend the remainder of his presidency focusing his energy on making America great again, not helping build a Greater Israel. That he would put America and Americans first, not Israel and Zionist interests first.

Peace,
anas zubedy

 

WHO MIGHT LEAD MALAYSIA AFTER GE16?

 

As Malaysia slowly moves toward the 16th General Election (GE16), perhaps one of the most important questions we should begin asking ourselves is this:

Who do we want to lead Malaysia next?

The answer to this question will help us make thoughtful decisions at the ballot box.

This article is written as neutrally and as fairly as possible, not to campaign for anyone, nor to attack anyone, but simply to encourage Malaysians to spend some time thinking seriously about leadership, the future of the nation, and the type of Prime Minister we may need for the next phase of our country’s journey.

Too often, politics becomes emotional, tribal, overly partisan, or driven by social media slogans. Yet leadership at the national level is one of the most serious matters any country can face. The Prime Minister of Malaysia is not merely a political symbol. He influences economic direction, national unity, investor confidence, government stability, race relations, international standing, public trust, and the long-term confidence of future generations.

This discussion should involve all Malaysians, not only those in Peninsular Malaysia, but also our fellow Malaysians in Sabah and Sarawak, whose importance in determining federal leadership is now clearer than ever before.

The purpose of this article is also to encourage reflection on several deeper questions:

What type of leadership do we need today?

Do we need a reformist? A technocrat? A grassroots leader? A coalition builder? A stabiliser? A crisis manager? A visionary? Or perhaps someone capable of quietly rebuilding trust and confidence in the nation?

Most importantly:

Which leader can help Malaysia move not only out of the current political and economic quagmire, negative identity politics, hypocrisy, and corruption, but also toward greater heights as a nation?

Below are several possible candidates or personalities who may emerge in the conversation surrounding the future leadership of Malaysia after GE16.

1. ANWAR IBRAHIM

Anwar Ibrahim remains one of the most recognisable political figures in Malaysian history. From student activism to becoming Deputy Prime Minister, opposition icon, prisoner, and eventually Prime Minister, his political journey has been among the most dramatic in modern Malaysia.

He continues to possess strong international recognition and remains highly respected among supporters who admire his resilience, communication abilities, reformist ideals, and decades-long struggle to reach the nation’s highest office. Supporters also see him as capable of presenting Malaysia as a moderate and progressive Muslim nation to the world.

However, one of the biggest challenges facing Anwar Ibrahim today is the perception among large segments of the public, including some of his ardent supporters, that there exists a growing trust deficit. Fairly or unfairly, many Malaysians feel disappointed that some reforms and promises associated with the reformasi movement have either slowed down, not materialised, or in some cases, been reversed from what they expected.

Critics also argue that his administration has struggled to convince parts of the public that it has effectively addressed issues such as rising costs of living, governance concerns, and economic anxieties. Supporters, however, counter that he inherited a highly fragmented political landscape and that rebuilding institutions and economic confidence takes time.

Despite criticisms, Anwar Ibrahim remains Pakatan Harapan’s central political figure and one of the few politicians with nationwide recognition across races, religions, and social classes. Whether Malaysians continue to believe he can deliver long-term reform and stability may become one of the defining questions heading into GE16.

2. HAMZAH ZAINUDIN

Hamzah Zainudin has increasingly emerged as one of the more disciplined and organised figures within Perikatan Nasional. With decades of experience in government and several ministerial positions behind him, he is viewed by supporters as calm, methodical, highly operational, and outcome-driven in his leadership style.

Unlike politicians who rely heavily on emotional speeches or personality-driven politics, Hamzah is generally perceived as structured, focused, and capable of managing people, systems, and organisations effectively. His performance as Opposition Leader in Parliament further strengthened the perception that he is prepared, steady, and serious about governance.

Within Perikatan Nasional, Hamzah is seen as someone capable of working with multiple groups, including PAS supporters, civil servants, business communities, and even segments of non-Malay voters. His relatively moderate communication style and administrative approach may make him more broadly acceptable than some more polarising figures.

At the same time, observers continue to monitor the internal dynamics between Hamzah and Muhyiddin Yassin within Bersatu. Questions surrounding future leadership direction inside the party may eventually influence his political trajectory.

Nevertheless, in an era where many Malaysians are increasingly searching for stability, administrative competence, and coalition management, Hamzah Zainudin remains a political figure worth watching closely.

3. MUHYIDDIN YASSIN

Muhyiddin Yassin remains one of Malaysia’s most experienced political leaders. Having served as Menteri Besar of Johor, Deputy Prime Minister, and Prime Minister, Muhyiddin possesses extensive administrative and political experience.

His strongest political advantage may continue to be his grassroots appeal, especially among segments of the Malay electorate. Compared to more elite or urban-centred leaders, Muhyiddin is often viewed as practical, grounded, and closely connected to ordinary Malaysians.

His leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic remains central to how many supporters evaluate him. Supporters argue that he guided the country through one of the most difficult crises in modern history under extremely challenging conditions involving public health, political instability, and economic disruption.

Within Perikatan Nasional, Muhyiddin continues to be seen as a credible prime ministerial candidate should the coalition decide to once again position him as its central leadership figure. His supporters believe his calm style, experience, and coalition management abilities remain important strengths.

Critics, however, point to political instability during his administration and question whether Perikatan Nasional may eventually need a newer generation of leadership to broaden its long-term national appeal. Nonetheless, Muhyiddin remains a major force in any serious discussion surrounding GE16 leadership possibilities.

4. DR. AHMAD SAMSURI MOKHTAR

Ahmad Samsuri Mokhtar has increasingly emerged as one of the more interesting and potentially important leadership figures within PAS and Perikatan Nasional.

Professionally trained as an aerospace engineer, Dr. Samsuri is viewed differently from many traditional PAS leaders. Rather than being associated mainly with an ulama image, he is generally perceived as a technocrat, administrator, and governance-oriented leader.

Supporters see him as calm, professional, disciplined, and focused more on policy execution than political theatrics. His leadership style may allow him to bridge the gap between PAS’ traditional Islamic leadership base and younger or more professional segments of Malaysian society.

Importantly, some observers believe Dr. Samsuri may also be among the more acceptable Perikatan Nasional leaders to non-Malay and non-Muslim communities due to his softer communication style and technocratic image.

At the same time, questions remain regarding his broader national exposure and whether he possesses enough nationwide political weight and coalition management experience for the country’s highest office.

Still, in a political era where professionalism, stability, administrative competence, and cross-community acceptability are becoming increasingly important, Dr. Samsuri may become one of the more significant “dark horse” candidates in future Malaysian politics.

5. AHMAD ZAHID HAMIDI

Ahmad Zahid Hamidi remains one of the most experienced, resilient, and politically shrewd figures in Malaysian politics. Having risen through UMNO’s political structure over several decades, Zahid has managed to remain central within national politics despite major electoral setbacks, internal party tensions, and rapidly shifting coalition dynamics.

Supporters would argue that Zahid’s greatest strength lies in his understanding of political negotiation, coalition-building, grassroots management, and power balancing. Regardless of whether one agrees with him politically or not, many observers acknowledge his ability to manoeuvre through highly complicated political situations while keeping UMNO relevant and influential.

One of the more remarkable aspects of Zahid’s political positioning has been his ability to navigate cooperation between UMNO, PKR, and DAP within the current unity government arrangement, despite decades of rivalry and political competition. In many ways, supporters view him as one of the country’s most capable political brokers, someone able to balance competing political interests while ensuring Barisan Nasional remains part of the federal power structure.

Should UMNO perform more strongly in GE16, Zahid may once again emerge as a possible prime ministerial contender, particularly if the election results produce another fragmented Parliament requiring coalition negotiations and consensus-building. Malaysian politics today is increasingly coalition-driven, and leadership may depend not only on popularity, but also on the ability to command parliamentary numbers and maintain political stability.

Critics, however, continue to raise concerns surrounding public perception, trust issues, and controversies that have affected his political image over the years. Others question whether younger voters and urban Malaysians would fully embrace a return to a more traditional UMNO-centred political leadership model.

Yet politics often rewards resilience, networking, strategic patience, and coalition management. In that regard, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi remains a significant political figure who should not be underestimated as GE16 approaches.

6. FADILLAH YUSOF

Fadillah Yusof represents another increasingly important possibility in the future leadership conversation of Malaysia.

Coming from Sarawak and trained as a lawyer, Fadillah is generally perceived as calm, nonchalant, trustworthy, and highly focused on getting work done quietly behind the scenes. Unlike politicians known for aggressive political branding or fiery rhetoric, he is often viewed as steady, dependable, and consensus-driven. He is also known to be approachable, down-to-earth, and a people person.

Over the years, he has held several important federal portfolios and now serves as Deputy Prime Minister. His supporters see him as someone capable of working across ministries, coalitions, regions, and communities without attracting unnecessary political tension.

Perhaps more importantly, Fadillah’s rise also reflects the growing political importance of Sabah and Sarawak in determining federal leadership. Increasingly, Malaysians are recognising that East Malaysia is no longer merely a supporting bloc in national politics, but a decisive force capable of shaping who forms the federal government.

This has naturally led to wider conversations about whether Malaysia may eventually be ready for a Prime Minister from Borneo after decades of leadership dominated by Peninsular-based political figures. Many ask, “Why not?”

Supporters argue that Fadillah’s relatively moderate image, federal experience, and cross-regional acceptability may position him well for such a possibility. His experience as Deputy Prime Minister may also have prepared him for greater federal responsibilities.

Critics may argue that he lacks the dominant national political machinery traditionally associated with Malaysian prime ministers. Yet Malaysian politics today is increasingly coalition-based, and future leadership may depend less on domination and more on acceptability, trust, moderation, and coalition-building.

As GE16 approaches, Fadillah Yusof may represent not merely another political candidate, but a reflection of Malaysia’s evolving political landscape itself.

Closing Thoughts

At the end of the day, this article is not about telling Malaysians who they should support.

Rather, it is about encouraging all of us to think more deeply about leadership, nation-building, stability, trust, competence, unity, and the future direction of Malaysia.

We may disagree on personalities, parties, ideologies, or coalitions. That is normal in any democracy. However, let us try to disagree respectfully and maturely.

I would also like to invite readers to share their thoughts and feedback about these potential candidates. You may support one candidate over another. You may disagree strongly with some of the observations above. That is perfectly acceptable.

But let us do so gentlemanly, respectfully, and without unnecessary insults, hatred, or vulgarity. Let us learn once again how to agree to disagree as fellow Malaysians.

Perhaps one of the healthiest things we can do as citizens is to spend time understanding the leadership talent pool available in our country, so that we may make wiser decisions about the future leadership of Malaysia.

And ultimately, as our constitutional monarchy functions, the final appointment of the Prime Minister will rest with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who will appoint the individual whom His Majesty believes commands majority support in Parliament and is most capable of carrying the responsibility of leading the nation forward.

We need to provide feedback to His Majesty on what we hope for in our leaders, especially for the position of Prime Minister.

Most importantly, we must vote wisely. Vote with both our head and heart, guided by wisdom.

As, Malaysia Boleh, is dependent on Malaysians Boleh.

Peace,

anas Zubedy

Kuala Lumpur

 

PURPOSE BEFORE PRODUCTIVITY -THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION STARBIZ SATURDAY MAY 9

Dear Captains,

Most organisations are not failing because of poor strategy. They are failing because people are busy, but not contributing in the way that matters most.

Our first role as leaders is to remove uncertainty. We either clarify the confusion our people experience and move the organisation forward, or we allow them to become victims of guesswork and misalignment. We do this by presenting a clear and identifiable goal, a future state that people can understand and desire, and by generating within them the willingness to follow.

As such, setting goals and expectations, and making them meaningful, is the cornerstone of leadership. Every CEO, leader, and manager spends considerable time setting and explaining goals to their teams. Yet, both research and practice show one consistent reality: goals and expectations are often misunderstood.

The truth is, even the most brilliant CEOs struggle with the “illusion of transparency”, the belief that because a goal is clear in their mind, it is equally clear to everyone else.

Therefore, goal setting alone is not enough. It must be accompanied by asking the right question. These two acts are inseparable if we are serious about avoiding this illusion.

But what is the right question to ask?

This brings us to the focus of the article. What is the one question every employee must be able to answer, clearly and correctly, every single day they come to work?

It is not about what they like or want to do. It is not about what they feel like doing. It may not even be what is written in their job description. And it is certainly not what they plan to eat for lunch.

It is this: What is my contribution to the organisation? And more importantly: How can I make that contribution as effectively as possible?

When contribution is unclear, effort is wasted.

As such, every employee must know the answers to these questions clearly and own them. This is goal alignment in action. It is how we avoid miscommunication and turn expectations into real, effective execution. Because when people do not know what is to be done, they default to what they want or like to do, which may not be what the organisation needs.

Knowing the answers helps remove uncertainty. It embeds the goals into how people plan and solve problems. If they cannot connect these goals to their daily plans, the problems they solve, and the opportunities they pursue, their work becomes disconnected from what should be done.

To know what and how they can best contribute, employees must agree on three things: where we are now, where we want to be by a given time, and what is to be done to get there. Knowing where we are defines reality. Knowing where we want to go defines what good looks like. Most importantly, being clear about what is to be done defines what the situation demands.

What the situation demands requires flexibility, adaptability, and a clear understanding of the results that must be achieved. That is why it may not always be what is written in the job description.

Job descriptions are static. Contribution is dynamic. This requires judgement, maturity, and ownership.

Once an employee is clear about how best they can contribute, only then do planning tools begin to make sense. Without clarity of contribution, these tools become mechanical checklists. They become efficiently ineffective: busy, but going nowhere. With clarity, they become instruments of sound judgement.

Take 5W1H:

What → Why → Who → Where → When → How

WHAT
Clarity of contribution defines what work should be done. An employee may have ten tasks on hand. Without clarity, they may choose what is easiest, most urgent, or most visible. With clarity, they prioritise what contributes most to the organisation’s goals. They stop asking, “What do I want to do?” and start asking, “What must be done?”

WHY
Knowing how best to contribute clarifies why the work matters. When employees understand how their work contributes to the bigger goal, they are more focused and committed. They are not just completing tasks, but working towards meaningful outcomes. Without this, work becomes routine. With it, work becomes purposeful.

WHO
Clarity of contribution helps employees decide who to work with. In sales, this means engaging customers who contribute most to results, even if they are tougher to manage, rather than spending time with easier, friendlier customers who bring less value. The focus shifts from comfort and habit to contribution.

WHERE
Knowing how best to contribute guides where an employee should be. An employee may have the option to work from home. But the real question is not preference, it is contribution. If the task requires deep individual work, working from home may be appropriate. If alignment or collaboration is needed, being in the office may be better. If the role requires understanding customers, then being on the ground becomes necessary. The decision is not based on preference, but on where one can contribute best.

WHEN
Knowing how best to contribute sharpens judgement on timing. Some tasks require immediate action, while others require careful timing. Employees who understand contribution know when to act, when to wait, and when to escalate. They do not just meet deadlines. They move faster when contribution demands it and act at the right time to create the best outcome.

HOW
This brings us back to the most important question: How can I make the best contribution? When this is clear, the other questions, what, why, who, where, and when, naturally fall into place.

Dear Captains,

We must make it a habit to ask our employees this most important question:

“What is your contribution, and how are you ensuring it is the best possible one?”

Our leaders and managers must be trained not just to ask, but to calibrate the response. When answers are unclear or incorrect, we must view it as a coaching opportunity, reconnecting their efforts to the organisation’s immediate needs. Realignment is not about correction; it is about restoring the line of sight between their daily work and our collective success.

Do this, and you will see your people stay on track and your organisation perform better, because you have helped remove uncertainty and guided them to contribute in the best way possible.

Leadership is not just about having a vision. It is about the disciplined task of ensuring that the vision is clearly understood by the people doing the work.

For previous StarBiz articles go here - https://letusaddvalue.blogspot.com/2026/04/social-contract-in-companies-today.html