SINAR HARIAN HARI INI - PERLUKAH IRAN BERHENTI BERUNDING

 

Dengan tamatnya tempoh gencatan senjata pada Isnin, 20 April 2026, Iran kini berada di persimpangan jalan untuk menilai semula strateginya. Tanggapan bahawa diplomasi mampu meredakan ketegangan antara Tehran dan Washington semakin sukar dipertahankan. Malah, meneruskan meja rundingan mungkin sekadar satu pembaziran masa buat Iran.

Walaupun diplomasi sering dilihat sebagai langkah rasional untuk mengelakkan konflik, tidak semua rundingan dijalankan atas dasar kejujuran. Sering kali, ia hanyalah taktik untuk membeli masa, menjaga imej politik, atau mengelak daripada kelihatan lemah di mata dunia.

Berikut adalah faktor utama mengapa Iran perlu mempersoalkan keberkesanan diplomasi ini:

1. Dilema Kuasa Besar: Pantang Kelihatan Lemah

Masalah utama berakar umbi dalam realiti politik Amerika Syarikat (AS). Sebagai kuasa besar yang kini dicabar oleh kebangkitan China, AS tidak boleh membiarkan imejnya tercalar dengan kelihatan tunduk kepada Iran. Sebarang perjanjian yang dilihat memberi ruang kepada Iran akan dianggap sebagai tanda kejatuhan pengaruh global AS. Maka, rundingan bukanlah bermatlamat mencari kompromi sejati, sebaliknya hanya untuk mengekalkan persepsi dominasi di mata pengundi domestik dan sekutu antarabangsa.

2. Halangan Struktur: Agenda Israel

Faktor kedua yang lebih kritikal ialah pengaruh Israel. Secara struktural dan sejarah, Israel tidak berminat dengan keamanan mutlak jika ia menyekat matlamat strategik jangka panjang mereka:

• Realiti Demografi: Untuk kekal sebagai negara majoriti Yahudi, Israel tidak akan menerima kepulangan jutaan pelarian Palestin kerana ini akan menggugat imbangan kuasa politik mereka.
• Realiti Wilayah (Matlamat "Greater Israel"): Keamanan memerlukan sempadan yang tetap dan diiktiraf. Namun, bagi sebuah negara yang ingin terus meluaskan wilayah, sempadan tetap adalah satu kekangan. Israel melihat fleksibiliti sempadan sebagai satu keperluan strategi.

Oleh kerana dasar luar AS di Timur Tengah sangat terikat dengan kepentingan Israel, Washington tidak akan mampu mendesak satu pelan keamanan yang tidak dipersetujui oleh Tel Aviv.

3. Corak Sabotaj Diplomasi yang Konsisten

Terdapat corak yang jelas: setiap kali rundingan mula menunjukkan kemajuan (seperti melalui perantaraan Oman atau Pakistan), ia akan diganggu oleh provokasi atau serangan ketenteraan. Bagi Iran, ini membuktikan bahawa diplomasi akan sentiasa digagalkan sebaik sahaja ia mula membuahkan hasil. Ketidakstabilan sengaja dikekalkan sebagai alat untuk menghalang penyelesaian muktamad.

4. Ketidakstabilan Sebagai Strategi

Jika keamanan menstabilkan sempadan, dan sempadan yang stabil menyekat peluasan wilayah, maka ketidakstabilan menjadi senjata yang berguna. Konflik yang berterusan mengekalkan situasi dalam keadaan cair (fluid), sekali gus memberi ruang untuk tindakan ketenteraan pada bila-bila masa.

Ketegangan di pelbagai barisan hadapan—dari Lubnan ke Syria hingga ke Iran—bukanlah satu kebetulan. Ia adalah sebahagian daripada rancangan permainan Zionis yang tidak akan berakhir selagi matlamat "Greater Israel" belum tercapai.

Kesimpulan: Konflik Sebagai Pilihan Terakhir

Rekod sejarah menunjukkan bahawa AS hanya akan benar-benar berusaha menamatkan permusuhan apabila mereka berhadapan dengan jumlah korban yang besar (kepulangan askar dalam beg mayat).

Untuk memaksa perubahan drastik dalam dasar Washington, Iran mungkin terpaksa beralih daripada sekadar tekanan ekonomi—seperti gangguan di Selat Hormuz—kepada sasaran aset bernilai tinggi, termasuk kapal pengangkut pesawat Tentera Laut AS.

Walaupun Iran telah mempamerkan kawalan diri yang tinggi selama ini dengan hanya mensasarkan pangkalan tentera tanpa korban jiwa yang besar, dinamika ini akan berubah jika tentera darat Amerika terlibat secara langsung. Untuk memecahkan kebuntuan politik di Washington, Iran mungkin perlu melangkaui had kesabaran mereka sebelum ini.

Harapannya, jika konflik ini memuncak, ia akan berlaku dengan pantas bagi meminimumkan kehilangan nyawa dan menghentikan keupayaan Israel untuk terus mencetuskan huru-hara, sekali gus membolehkan ekonomi global kembali pulih.

Salam.

Anas Zubedy

https://www.sinarharian.com.my/article/778233/khas/pendapat/perlukah-iran-henti-berunding

 

WHICH IS MORE DANGEROUS: A WATER FESTIVAL OR HYPOCRISY?

 

We are once again caught in a familiar debate. On one side, leaders and groups speak of cultural sensitivity, protecting Islam, and staying true to Malay values. On the other, we hear arguments regarding tourism, economics, and the necessity of keeping Malaysia open and competitive.

All of this over a water festival.

Personally, I see this as just another distraction. Politicians from both sides seek to occupy our minds so we might forget what they are truly guilty of: hypocrisy and lying.

Let us be clear. Cultural sensitivity matters. Respecting Islam matters. Respecting the values and traditions of this country matters. These are not small things, and they should never be dismissed lightly. But we must also ask a more critical question: WHAT IS TRULY MORE DANGEROUS TO OUR NATION?

Is it a public event that may or may not align perfectly with our cultural expectations? Or is it the quiet normalization of hypocrisy and lying within our systems, our institutions, and our leadership?

We speak loudly about what is appropriate in public spaces, yet we are often far less vocal about dishonesty, corruption, and the misuse of power. We debate what is visible, but tolerate what is far more damaging beneath the surface. It is right to be culturally sensitive and right to pursue economic growth. However, we must be careful not to focus our sensitivity only on what is "political fuel"—the issues that rouse the voter base - while neglecting the moral integrity that truly shapes the strength and future of this country.

Let us be sensitive to hypocrisy. Let us be sensitive to lying. Let us be sensitive to the everyday struggles of Malaysians who deserve honesty, fairness, and dignity. And to those who heroically defend the merits of the water festival: be even louder in standing against hypocrisy first.

These moral failings are far more dangerous than any festival or any economic benefit lost by its cancellation.

Regarding Islamic values, the Qur’an is firm. It speaks of the munafiqun with a severity that should make us pause. While disbelief is clear and visible, hypocrisy is more dangerous because it hides behind the appearance of righteousness while undermining the truth from within.

The Qur’an warns:

“Indeed, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire — and never will you find for them a helper.” (Surah An-Nisa, 4:145)

And again:

“O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do? Great is hatred in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do.” (Surah As-Saff, 61:2–3)

This is not a peripheral issue; it is a foundational one. If we truly want to be culturally sensitive, and if we truly want this country to live up to Qur’anic values, then integrity must come first.

No to hypocrisy. No to lying.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy 

Kuala Lumpur

 

IS ISLAM JUDAISM’S BEST FRIEND?

 

History is rarely simple. But on this question, the pattern is clear.

Across centuries and civilisations, Jewish communities have often experienced some of their greatest periods of dignity, security, and prosperity under Muslim rule. This is not a slogan. It is a historical observation.

To understand this, we return to a defining moment.

A Conquest Without Bloodshed

In 637 CE, Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khattab entered Jerusalem. This was no ordinary conquest. There was no massacre, no looting, and no forced conversion. Trusting his reputation for justice, the Christian Patriarch Sophronius handed over the keys of the city to him personally.

ʿUmar arrived with humility, taking turns with his servant to ride their only mount. When the time for prayer came during his visit to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Patriarch invited him to pray inside.

ʿUmar declined.

He feared that future Muslims might use his action as a justification to convert the church into a mosque. Instead, he prayed at an open space just outside the church.

Later, a mosque was built on that spot, now known as the Mosque of Umar, while the Church of the Holy Sepulchre remains a Christian place of worship to this day.

This was not symbolic restraint. It was deliberate leadership. Justice must protect the “Other” as firmly as it protects oneself.

The Restoration of a Forgotten People

As ʿUmar walked through the city, he noticed the absence of the Jewish people. They had been expelled centuries earlier by the Romans and later by Byzantine rulers.

This contradicted the Islamic worldview, which recognises earlier prophetic communities and their right to live and worship.

ʿUmar acted. He helped clean the neglected Temple Mount and invited Jewish families to return. After more than 500 years, synagogues reopened and the community was restored.

This was not tolerance. It was restoration.

A Qur’anic Framework in Practice

ʿUmar’s actions were not improvised. They were grounded in the Qur’an.

He was guided by the command to uphold justice and return trusts (Qur’an 4:58), to protect places of worship including churches and synagogues (Qur’an 22:40), and to recognise diversity as part of a divine design that calls people to compete in doing good (Qur’an 5:48).

The Covenant of Madinah: A Blueprint for Coexistence

This approach began earlier with the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in Madinah. The Covenant of Madinah established a shared political community between Muslims, Jews, and others, while preserving religious freedom.

It declared:

“The Jews of Banu Awf are one community with the believers. To the Jews their religion, and to the Muslims their religion.”

This was a social contract based on mutual responsibility and collective security.

It reflected Qur’anic principles: do not let hatred lead to injustice (Qur’an 5:8), there is no compulsion in religion (Qur’an 2:256), and cooperation must be based on righteousness, not aggression (Qur’an 5:2).

Jews were not outsiders. They were recognised members of society.

Al-Andalus: A Golden Age

In Muslim Spain, this framework reached its peak. For nearly 700 years, Jewish communities flourished.

Hasdai ibn Shaprut rose to high office. Maimonides wrote his works in Arabic within this environment.

Jewish communities lived openly, governed their affairs, and contributed to science, medicine, and trade. They paid jizyah and in return received protection and the freedom to thrive.

The Ottoman Empire: A Sanctuary

In 1492, when Jews were expelled from Spain, many went to the Ottoman Empire. Sultan Bayezid II welcomed them, reportedly criticising Spain for weakening itself while strengthening his empire.

Jewish communities rebuilt their lives. They established schools, printing presses, and commercial networks. They practiced their faith openly and managed their internal affairs with stability that was rare in Europe at the time.

The Modern Middle East: Echoes of Coexistence

Until the 20th century, Jewish communities remained deeply rooted across the Muslim world.

Even today, this has not completely disappeared.

In Iran, Jewish communities continue to live, worship, and maintain official recognition, including parliamentary representation. Their synagogues remain active and protected.

In Morocco, Jewish heritage is preserved and recognised as part of national identity. Synagogues are restored, and figures like André Azoulay serve at the highest levels of leadership.

In Iraq, although the Jewish population has largely declined, their historical role in shaping Baghdad’s economy and culture, through figures like Sassoon Eskell, remains significant.

These are not isolated cases. They reflect a broader pattern.

Jewish life in Muslim lands has not been inherently problematic. Where governance is stable and grounded in principle, Jewish communities have lived, worshipped, and maintained their identity, with their places of worship protected.

The Verdict of History

The pattern is consistent.

Jewish communities have often been safest and most able to flourish when Muslims were united, confident, and guided by their principles.

From Madinah to Jerusalem, from Cordoba to Istanbul, when Muslims led with justice, others lived with dignity.

A Call to Righteous Partnership

To Jewish communities who oppose the current Zionist regime and its actions: reconnect and work with Muslims and all people of conscience.

What we are witnessing today is not strength. It is political and moral recklessness that risks becoming self-destructive.

History is clear. Systems built on sustained injustice do not last. When they collapse, they often harm not only those responsible, but entire communities, including those who opposed the injustice.

That is the danger.

If injustice continues, anger will again be misdirected toward an entire people. This has happened before. It must not happen again.

Those who care about the long-term future of Jewish communities must reject extremist forms of Zionism and return to a path of justice, humility, and coexistence.

The Qur’an as Our Compass

The Qur’an commands justice, even against one’s own bias (Qur’an 5:8). It calls for cooperation in righteousness, not aggression (Qur’an 5:2). It directs toward what is upright and just (Qur’an 17:9), and teaches that evil is overcome not with more evil, but with what is better (Qur’an 41:34).

The Path Forward – Muslim Unity Equals Jewish Safety

History is clear: the safety of Jewish communities has often been linked to the strength and unity of the Muslim world.

This is not superiority. It is responsibility.

When Muslims are divided and disconnected from their principles, instability follows. When they are grounded and united, they create conditions where all faiths can live with dignity.

The path forward is simple in principle, difficult in practice.

Return to the Qur’an as a lived system. Rebuild unity. Rebuild strength. Rebuild leadership.

Not for dominance. Not for revenge.

For justice.

Closing

Islam has been, and can be again, a civilisational force that protects and stabilises.

History already shows the difference between division and unity.

If we want a world where all communities live without fear, Muslims must rise with discipline, unity, and justice to build a system where all, including Jewish communities, can live with dignity.

Justice, when applied consistently, does not divide. It protects.

Peace, anas zubedy

Note: This is a shortened and tightened version of an article I wrote last year.

 

KING CHARLES: A LESSON IN SAYING MUCH, SOFTLY

There are speeches, and then there are speeches that carry history, wit, and quiet power in a few well-chosen lines.

Listening to King Charles III’s recent remarks in the United States, I found myself thinking: the speechwriters behind this are brilliant. Who are they? I would like to have coffee chats with them.

In a short span, the speech managed to do what many long addresses fail to achieve. It was witty, lightly yet very effectively sarcastic, and disarmingly humorous. Yet beneath the humour sat layers of meaning.

With a gentle turn of phrase, it reminded America that its 250 to 300 years of history is, in the grand arc of things, a relatively recent chapter when set against Britain’s long past. Not stated bluntly, but implied with elegance.

Then came the clever reversal. A playful line suggesting that without the British, Americans might be speaking French. A subtle, almost cheeky response to Donald Trump’s earlier remark that without America, Europe would be speaking German. Not confrontational, not defensive. Just… refined.

Even the anecdote about the Prime Minister being caught without clothes, followed by the reminder that there should be no secrets between partners, carried more than humour. It was a message, wrapped in a smile.

This is diplomacy at its finest. Not loud. Not aggressive. But layered, intelligent, and deeply aware of history, relationships, and timing.

Class, after all, is not about what you say loudly. It is about what you can say softly, and still be heard.

Perhaps there is a lesson here. A reminder that true influence is not built on being brash or loud, but on mastery of tone, timing, and message. In many ways, this is what soft power looks like when it is done well.

And if anything, it also suggests something more sobering. That in recent times, America may have drifted from this kind of refinement. Soft power is not asserted. It is earned. And it is sustained not by force, but by the ability to speak with grace, wit, and quiet confidence.

Peace,
anas

WHY ARE AMERICA AND TRUMP TAKING DISPROPORTIONATE BLAME?

 

We are not just witnessing a conflict. We are witnessing a distortion of focus.

Today, much of the blame for the escalation with Iran is directed at the United States and at Donald Trump. His actions are analysed. His decisions are criticised. His name dominates the narrative.

But the real question we should be asking is simple and direct.

Why is America being blamed disproportionately, when Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu have been among the most consistent and forceful drivers of this confrontation?

For years, Israel has pushed for a hardline stance against Iran. This has been a sustained position, not a reaction. The pressure for escalation did not begin with Trump. It has been building over time, with clear intent and direction.

At the same time, it is important to remember that previous American presidents, across parties and administrations, faced similar pressures and chose restraint. They said no. They held their ground.

Trump did not. He blinked. He gave in at a critical moment.

But that does not make him the central or sole figure in this story. It makes him part of a larger chain of decisions, influences, and pressures. Netanyahu and Israel play the central role. Not Trump. Not America. And definitely not Americans.

Yet look at how the narrative is being shaped today.

Trump stands at the centre. America carries a disproportionate share of the blame. Meanwhile, Israel’s role, and Netanyahu’s long-standing position, are given far less attention than they deserve. Almost forgotten. This is not by chance; it is deliberate, planned, and orchestrated.

This imbalance is not a minor issue. It affects how people understand cause, responsibility, and accountability.

And this is where it becomes even more important to pause and reflect.

For decades, we have seen how narratives are constructed against those labelled as adversaries of the West or of Israel. Countries like Iran have long argued that they are judged through selective framing. Whether one agrees or not, the pattern is familiar: amplify certain actions, minimise others, simplify the storyline, and repeat it until it becomes accepted truth.

Today, that same pattern appears to be turning towards America.

The United States, and particularly Trump, are now being framed in a similarly narrow way. The complexity is reduced. The broader set of actors fades into the background. One face carries the story.

So we must ask: who shapes these narratives, and why are they being shaped this way?

This is not about defending Trump. It is about recognising that the tools of narrative control, once used primarily against perceived external enemies, can just as easily be applied to anyone when it suits a broader agenda.

If we are to be fair, then at the very least, the blame must be equal. When we criticise Trump, Netanyahu must be named alongside him. When we question America’s role, we must question Israel’s role with the same intensity.

Otherwise, we are not being objective. We are being selective. We are not being fair.

And selective narratives are how misinformation takes shape today. Not by fabricating facts, but by deciding which facts to emphasise and which to downplay.

If we continue to blame America disproportionately while sidelining Israel and Netanyahu, we are not getting closer to the truth. We are moving further away from it.

And this is where Americans, especially, need to be careful.

America and Americans today must ask themselves a serious question. When pushed to the brink, when things really get difficult, will the media, networks, and voices that shape world opinion work for you or for Israel? Who is in control of these narratives?

If it is the Zionists, are you comfortable having an ally that will throw you under the bus once things get too difficult? Or should you place America first?

Peace, anas zubedy

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

 

KONTRAK SOSIAL: TANGGUNGJAWAB UTAMA SEORANG CEO

 

Para Peneraju Industri dan Institusi Awam yang dihormati,

Tugas pertama seorang CEO adalah untuk memastikan kontrak sosial organisasi difahami, diterima, dan dijiwai. Permulaan tahun adalah waktu yang paling alami untuk menegaskan semula kontrak ini, atau pada bila-bila masa sahaja organisasi perlu disatukan kembali di bawah nilai, piawaian, dan semangat yang sama.

Apa itu kontrak sosial?

Kontrak sosial adalah persefahaman bersama tentang bagaimana kita bersetuju untuk bekerja bersama. Ia menetapkan apa yang kita harapkan daripada satu sama lain dalam usaha mencapai matlamat kumpulan. Ia tidak terhad kepada organisasi sahaja; ia wujud dalam perkahwinan, keluarga, perkongsian, korporat, malah dalam sesebuah negara. Di mana sahaja manusia perlu bekerjasama, jangkaan mestilah jelas.

Kita jangan terkeliru antara kontrak sosial dengan buku panduan pekerja (company handbook).

• Buku panduan menyatakan peraturan. Kontrak sosial menyatakan semangat.
• Buku panduan berteraskan pematuhan. Kontrak sosial berteraskan budaya.

Kontrak sosial bukanlah sekadar dokumentasi Jabatan Sumber Manusia. Ia adalah tanggungjawab CEO. Ia bukan sekadar dokumen polisi atau latihan pengisian buku panduan. Ia merangkumi nilai teras syarikat, namun melangkah lebih jauh dengan menjelaskan bagaimana nilai-nilai tersebut diamalkan dalam kerja seharian.

Ia adalah tentang mencorak tingkah laku; bagaimana kita melayan satu sama lain, bagaimana keputusan dibuat, dan bagaimana akauntabiliti dipikul. Ia mengubah hubungan pekerjaan daripada sekadar perjanjian undang-undang kepada komitmen bersama. Paling penting, ia menetapkan nada bagaimana kita berinteraksi ke semua arah - sama ada mengurus pihak atasan, memimpin orang bawahan, atau bekerjasama dengan rakan sejawat dan pihak berkepentingan luar.

Melampaui Kontrak Undang-Undang

Kebanyakan organisasi memberi tumpuan hampir sepenuhnya kepada kontrak undang-undang. Gaji, waktu bekerja, cuti, dan klausa kerahsiaan semuanya didokumentasikan dengan jelas. Namun, ketegangan sebenar dalam organisasi jarang berpunca daripada klausa-klausa ini. Ia biasanya berpunca daripada jangkaan yang tidak pernah dinyatakan dengan jelas.

Pekerja mengharapkan keadilan, pengiktirafan, dan peluang untuk berkembang. Pengurus pula mengharapkan rasa kepunyaan (ownership), kesetiaan, sokongan, dan prestasi. Pekerja mencari maruah dan pembangunan; pemimpin mencari akauntabiliti dan hasil. Semua jangkaan ini adalah munasabah. Masalah hanya timbul apabila ia sekadar andaian dan bukannya dibincangkan.

Apabila jangkaan tidak jelas, rasa tidak puas hati terbina secara diam-diam. Emosi mula mengambil alih struktur. Salah faham kecil berubah menjadi naratif yang negatif. Dengan menjelaskan kontrak sosial, kita mengurangkan kekaburan, menghapuskan teka-teki, dan menggantikan kekecewaan yang terpendam dengan kejelasan bersama.

Mencari Apa yang Mulia

Kebanyakan pekerja baharu hanya membaca imbas buku panduan, menandatanganinya, menyimpannya, dan jarang merujuknya lagi melainkan jika berlaku pertikaian atau isu disiplin. Buku panduan menyatakan apa yang boleh dihukum; ia hanya menuntut piawaian minimum. Sebaliknya, kontrak sosial menjelaskan apa yang mulia. Ia menunjukkan cara untuk kita berkembang sebagai individu, pasukan, dan syarikat. Perbezaan di antara kedua-duanya amat ketara.

Peranan seorang pemimpin bukan sekadar menguatkuasakan peraturan, tetapi untuk menyatukan warga kerja. Kontrak sosial menjadi persefahaman bersama yang membimbing tingkah laku harian melampaui soal pematuhan semata-mata. Ia membantu mengubah tempat kerja menjadi sebuah komuniti yang berfungsi, mewujudkan persekitaran di mana prestasi memberi manfaat kepada kedua-dua pihak iaitu majikan dan pekerja.

Relevansi dalam Tenaga Kerja Moden

Ini amat relevan dalam tenaga kerja hari ini. Apabila generasi muda mula memenuhi organisasi, jangkaan mereka telah berubah. Ramai pekerja muda mencari makna, maklum balas yang kerap, keadilan, perkembangan, dan keselamatan psikologi (psychological safety). Majikan pula mengharapkan akauntabiliti, profesionalisme, kebolehan menyesuaikan diri, dan hormat kepada struktur. Tanpa perbincangan yang mendalam, jangkaan-jangkaan ini akan bertembung dan bukannya saling melengkapi.

Oleh itu, memperincikan kontrak sosial harus menjadi perbincangan pengurusan yang pertama setiap tahun - malah lebih awal daripada proses onboarding atau semakan KPI. Penyelarasan jangkaan mesti mendahului pembentangan strategi.

Satu usaha ringkas boleh membawa perubahan besar: Berdasarkan matlamat korporat dan pemahaman jelas tentang apa yang diperlukan untuk berjaya, pihak pengurusan menyenaraikan apa yang mereka harapkan daripada pekerja. Pekerja juga menyenaraikan apa yang mereka harapkan daripada pengurusan. Kedua-dua pihak berbincang secara terbuka. Ini membina rasa tanggungjawab bersama.

Adalah penting bagi CEO untuk menetapkan "padang permainan" kontrak sosial ini berdasarkan keperluan syarikat, bukan sekadar mengikut kehendak pengurusan atau keinginan pekerja semata-mata. Kontrak sosial mesti berlandaskan kepada apa yang perlu dilakukan agar organisasi berjaya. Sebaik sahaja jangkaan bersama yang sejajar dengan keperluan korporat ini didokumentasikan, ia menjadi kompas bagi pasukan. Walaupun ia mungkin atau tidak terikat secara undang-undang, namun ia wajib didukung secara budaya dan moral.

Cabaran Bekerja Dari Rumah (BDR)

Keperluan kepada kontrak sosial yang jelas menjadi lebih mendesak apabila cara kita bekerja berubah. Contoh yang paling jelas adalah Bekerja Dari Rumah (BDR).

BDR bukan sekadar pengaturan logistik. Ia memaksa kita memikirkan semula makna kerja. Apabila kehadiran fizikal tidak lagi kelihatan, kepercayaan, akauntabiliti, dan prestasi mesti ditakrifkan semula. Tanpa kontrak sosial yang jelas, andaian akan menggantikan kejelasan.

• Ada pekerja melihat BDR sebagai fleksibiliti untuk bekerja dari mana-mana sahaja (termasuk kampung halaman atau destinasi percutian) asalkan mereka boleh dihubungi dan kerja siap. Majikan pula mungkin menganggap BDR bermaksud pekerja berada di rumah dan mesti bersedia untuk ke pejabat dalam masa singkat jika diperlukan.
• Ada yang menganggap BDR sama seperti waktu kerja fleksibel (boleh keluar menyelesaikan urusan peribadi asalkan tugasan siap), manakala majikan mungkin melihat BDR dan waktu fleksibel sebagai dua perkara yang berbeza.

Tanpa kontrak sosial yang ditakrifkan dengan jelas, perbezaan tafsiran ini akan membawa kepada kekecewaan dan menjejaskan prestasi syarikat.

Para Peneraju yang dihormati,

Kontrak sosial adalah satu usaha yang mustahak. Ia adalah tugas utama kita. Ia membina persekitaran untuk prestasi dengan membantu kita mencapai persetujuan tentang cara kita bekerja dan hidup bersama dalam sebuah komuniti organisasi. Ia bukan sahaja menetapkan had tingkah laku, malah membina hubungan yang menyokong prestasi. Ia menjelaskan bagaimana kita berkomunikasi, memberi maklum balas, dan menyelesaikan tugasan.

Setelah kontrak sosial peringkat syarikat ditubuhkan, adalah menjadi tanggungjawab ketua jabatan untuk menyampaikannya ke peringkat bawah. Setiap jabatan harus membina kontrak sosial mereka sendiri yang berasaskan asas syarikat, dengan menambah jangkaan khusus bagi cara jabatan tersebut beroperasi.

Kontrak sosial harus disemak setiap tahun dengan komitmen yang baharu. Setiap pekerja baharu mesti diperkenalkan dengan jelas kepada kontrak ini supaya mereka faham makna dan peranan untuk menjadi sebahagian daripada komuniti Syarikat atau organisasi. Disiplin ini amat penting bagi mana-mana organisasi, dan secara tidak langsung, bagi sesebuah masyarakat.

Jangkaan yang jelas menyatukan manusia. Manusia yang bersatu membina institusi yang hebat.

 Salam, anas

Untuk article bulan 3 - MENGAPA KEPEMIMPINAN PENGURUSAN PERLU MEMBINA "RESPECTFUL FEAR"

Klik disini - https://letusaddvalue.blogspot.com/2026/03/sinar-harian-hari-ini-mengapa.html 

WHY IRAN SHOULD STOP WASTING TIME NEGOTIATING

 

On Monday, the ceasefire ends. Iran must rethink its strategy. The idea that negotiations will meaningfully resolve tensions between Iran and the United States is increasingly difficult to sustain. In fact, it may be a waste of time for Iran.

At first glance, diplomacy appears rational. It suggests restraint, dialogue, and the possibility of de-escalation. It is the right thing to do. But not all negotiations are genuine. Some exist simply to buy time, manage optics, or avoid appearing weak. Others simply are not serious acts altogether.

This is why Iran must seriously reconsider whether continued negotiations serve any real strategic purpose.

1. Negotiating with a Superpower That Cannot Appear Weak

A core problem lies in the structural political reality within the United States. While figures like Donald Trump make this visible through personality and rhetoric, the issue runs far deeper than any one individual. The United States, as a global power already being compared to a rising China, cannot afford to be seen negotiating from a position of weakness.

In modern geopolitics, perception is power. Any agreement that appears to concede ground to Iran will be framed as decline. And a superpower that looks uncertain loses influence.

As a result, negotiations are not structured to produce genuine compromise; they are structured to preserve dominance or the perception of it, especially to their own constituents, the American voters. This alone places a hard ceiling on what diplomacy can achieve.

2. The Real Structural Resistance to Peace

The second issue is more fundamental and more decisive. Any negotiation involving Iran inevitably runs into the strategic direction of Israel. And here, it must be stated clearly: Israel does not want a final peace in the Middle East if that peace constrains its long-term strategic goals. This is not rhetoric; it is structural and historical. It is not just about Benjamin Netanyahu avoiding a corruption trial.

To understand this, one must return to 1948 and the events known as the Nakba. From its inception, Israel was built on a central requirement: to exist as a Jewish-majority state.

The Demographic Reality

Israel wants to be seen as a democracy. A democracy runs on numbers. To remain a Jewish state within a democratic system, there must be a clear Jewish majority. This creates a direct contradiction with the return of millions of Palestinians and any political arrangement where Palestinians become numerically dominant.

Such outcomes are not acceptable within Israel’s framework. This is why any meaningful peace process that includes full Palestinian return or equal political structures at scale has been structurally impossible for all these decades.

The Territorial Reality – The Quest for Greater Israel

Peace requires fixed borders. But fixed borders mean limits. If a state intends to expand, as Israel has since its conception, then permanent borders become a constraint. As Israel sees territorial flexibility as part of its long-term strategy, it cannot fully commit to that constraint.

You cannot have lasting peace with a state that wants the option to take more land.

Calling a Spade a Spade

When these two elements are combined, the conclusion is straightforward:

• Israel must maintain a demographic majority.
• Israel cannot accept arrangements that threaten that majority.
• Israel benefits from not having permanently fixed borders.

Therefore, Israel cannot afford a final, stable peace in the region because peace would lock in limits. And limits would constrain both demographic control and territorial ambition.

Why U.S. Peace Efforts Will Not Bear Fruit

This also explains why American-led negotiations repeatedly fail. The United States is not operating independently in this space. Its Middle East policy is deeply aligned with, and directly influenced by, Israel’s strategic ambitions. As long as the United States must take into account and align with Israel’s position, its diplomatic efforts cannot move beyond those limits.

In simple terms, the U.S. cannot push for a peace that Israel does not want, and Israel cannot accept a peace that restricts its long-term goals. So negotiations continue, but outcomes do not.

3. The Pattern Is Clear

This is why diplomacy repeatedly breaks down. Channels open. Talks begin. Progress appears possible, often through intermediaries like Oman and, today, Pakistan. Then momentum is disrupted. Take this historical pattern:

• Just before the recent six-week war, negotiations were advancing when attacks halted progress.
• During the earlier 12-day conflict, attempts at dialogue coincided with escalation.
• Individuals involved in sensitive negotiations are repeatedly removed at critical moments.

From the Iranian and Palestinian perspective, the pattern is consistent: whenever diplomacy begins to gain traction, it is derailed.

4. The Logical Outcome

If peace stabilizes borders, and stable borders limit expansion, then instability becomes useful. Conflict keeps the situation fluid. It prevents finality. It keeps options open.

This is why tensions are not isolated. They extend across multiple fronts: Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and beyond. This is not accidental. It is intentional. This is the Zionist game plan. And there is no end game until a Greater Israel is fulfilled.

Conclusion: What Options Remain?

Sadly, if peace cannot be achieved through diplomacy and negotiations, conflict becomes the only remaining path. Historically, the United States has often only sought an end to hostilities when faced with significant casualties. This refers to the “body bags” of soldiers following orders from leaders committed to an illegal and unethical war that serve neither the American people nor the global community.

For Iran to achieve a decisive shift, it may need to look beyond mere economic pressure, such as the tightening of the Strait of Hormuz or the Bab al-Mandab via Houthi forces in Yemen. To force a change in U.S. policy, Iran may feel compelled to target high-value assets, specifically U.S. Navy aircraft carriers.

Over the last six weeks, Iran has demonstrated a degree of restraint that is often overlooked. Its responses have largely targeted military installations and strategic infrastructure rather than maximizing human casualties. This is evident in the current imbalance of lives lost, with Iran bearing a significantly higher toll than the combined U.S. and Israeli forces. We have seen earlier encounters involving carriers such as the USS Gerald R. Ford and the USS Abraham Lincoln, where Iran reportedly deployed drones and tactics that signaled capability without triggering mass casualties. It was, arguably, a form of controlled messaging rather than outright destruction.

However, in the next escalation, especially if American ground troops become involved, the dynamics will shift entirely. To secure a decisive win and compel the American public to pressure their leaders to abandon Israel’s regional ambitions, Iran may decide it must break its previous threshold of restraint. Tragically, for such a strategic shift to occur, many American soldiers would be sacrificed to break the political deadlock in Washington.

Our only hope is that, if this were to take place, the loss of life would be minimized on both sides. We hope for a decisive end to the war, where Israel is kept in place and stripped of its ability to create more mischief, allowing the global economy to recover as soon as possible.

Peace.
Anas Zubedy
Penang