WHAT IF BN/UMNO LEAVES THE UNITY GOVERNMENT?

 

WHAT IF BN/UMNO LEAVES THE UNITY GOVERNMENT?

In recent political discussions, a recurring question is gaining traction among commentators and observers: what happens if Barisan Nasional (BN), led by UMNO, decides to pull out of the Unity Government?

A prevailing view among many political analysts is that a BN exit would not automatically trigger the collapse of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's administration. The surface-level parliamentary arithmetic suggests that even if BN pulls its 30 seats, the remaining government coalition - comprising Pakatan Harapan (PH) alongside Borneo blocs like Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) and Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) - would still hold roughly 120 seats. In the 222-seat Dewan Rakyat, where 112 seats are required for a simple majority, a 120-seat government could theoretically continue to function, albeit with a significantly thinner margin than its current supermajority.

However, I am of the opinion that this "120-seat theory" relies on a flawed assumption about the political dynamics between Peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia. In reality, GPS - and to a large extent GRS - has always placed considerable importance on maintaining a balanced federal coalition.

One important reason UMNO has never operated in Sarawak is the long-standing understanding that local Sarawak parties would represent Barisan Nasional there, reflecting Sarawak's preference for maintaining its own political identity within the federal coalition rather than being dominated by Peninsular-based political parties.

This historical context remains relevant today. While GPS has demonstrated its willingness to work pragmatically with all federal partners, including DAP, it has traditionally been more comfortable operating within a broad coalition where a major Malay-based Peninsular party such as UMNO provides an important political balance. A federal administration led almost entirely by Pakatan Harapan - and particularly one in which DAP becomes the dominant Peninsular component - would represent a fundamentally different political equation.

It is for this reason that I believe BN's role extends well beyond its 30 parliamentary seats. Should UMNO withdraw from the Unity Government, there is a strong possibility that GPS, and perhaps GRS, would conclude that the coalition has lost the political balance that made their participation acceptable in the first place.

The Seat Math:

• BN / UMNO: 30 seats
• GPS (Sarawak): 23 seats
• GRS (Sabah): 6 seats

Together, the simultaneous exit of BN, GPS and GRS would strip approximately 59 seats away from the Unity Government. This would instantly reduce the remaining PH-led core to just around 92 seats, well below the 112 needed to govern.

If those approximately 59 seats were to realign with Perikatan Nasional (PN), which currently holds around 70 seats, the newly formed opposition alignment would command a comfortable parliamentary majority. Mathematically, this would give PN and its new partners the numbers required to form a fresh federal government.

However, executing such a shift deep into the parliamentary term - with the 16th General Election (GE16) due by late 2027 or early 2028 - would come with immense public fatigue and political uncertainty. Rather than allowing a second "backdoor" government transition to unfold in Putrajaya, the prospect of an imminent BN and Borneo bloc withdrawal could instead become the ultimate catalyst for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to seek an audience with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to dissolve Parliament and call for an early General Election.

In short, many observers see BN's 30 seats simply as part of the parliamentary arithmetic. I see them differently. Their real significance lies not merely in the numbers they contribute, but in the confidence and political balance they provide to the broader coalition, particularly the East Malaysian blocs. Remove that anchor, and the arithmetic itself may change far more dramatically than many expect.

Whether one likes it or not, BN/UMNO is the linchpin of the Unity Government. Most people see only 30 parliamentary seats. I see something else: the political glue that holds the present coalition together.

Peace,
Anas Zubedy

 

ANTHONY LOKE'S DEFEAT: THE MISSING PIECE

ANTHONY LOKE'S DEFEAT: THE MISSING PIECE

Anthony Loke's defeat in Chennah has generated many commentaries. Most have focused on Anthony himself, Pakatan Harapan's and DAP's performance over the past four years, or the broader political mood in the country. All these are reasonable factors to consider.

But I think many have overlooked what could well be the most important reason.

If this was simply a rejection of PH - DAP, how do we explain the fact that many other senior DAP leaders won comfortably, some by very large majorities? 

That tells me there was another dynamic at work in Chennah.

My take is that internal DAP politics was one of the biggest reasons Anthony Loke lost his seat. I believe factional rivalry and the possibility of internal sabotage played a far greater role than many are prepared to admit.

Political parties do not only lose because of their opponents or because voters turn against them. Sometimes they lose because of what happens within their own ranks. And in Anthony Loke's case, I believe that deserves much greater attention than it has received.

Time will tell whether my reading is right. But I would not be surprised if internal DAP dynamics eventually prove to have been one of the decisive factors behind this result.

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

WAWASAN 2057: KEPIMPINAN YANG MENGABDI UNTUK SEMUA

 

WAWASAN 2057: KEPIMPINAN YANG MENGABDI UNTUK SEMUA

Lebih tiga dekad yang lalu, ketika berkhidmat di sebuah syarikat multinasional, saya dilantik ke dalam sebuah jawatankuasa 12 orang untuk merancang bangunan pejabat baharu. Ahli-ahli terdiri daripada sepuluh orang lelaki, dan hanya dua orang wanita. Apabila kami berbincang tentang susun atur bangunan, saya mencadangkan agar fasiliti tandas wanita disediakan lebih banyak berbanding lelaki.

Hampir serta-merta, kebanyakan ahli lelaki ketawa, manakala dua ahli wanita hanya berdiam diri. Saya pun menjelaskan: walaupun tenaga kerja kami dibahagikan hampir sama rata antara lelaki dan wanita, cara lelaki dan wanita menggunakan tandas adalah berbeza. Wanita secara umumnya memerlukan lebih masa dan ruang. Matematik yang mudah, iaitu membina jumlah fasiliti yang saksama untuk kedua-duanya, tanpa disedari akan mewujudkan masa menunggu yang tidak adil. Ini bukan soal memberikan keistimewaan kepada wanita. Ini soal memahami bagaimana insan yang berbeza menggunakan ruang yang sama secara berbeza, dan merancang berasaskan realiti, bukan andaian.

Bertahun-tahun selepas itu, setiap kali saya berhenti di Kawasan Rehat dan Rawat (R&R) lebuh raya sewaktu Hari Raya, Tahun Baru Cina, atau musim perayaan lain, saya sering teringat akan mesyuarat jawatankuasa tersebut. Barisan di luar tandas wanita selalunya amat panjang, manakala tandas lelaki relatifnya lengang. Sekali lagi, ini bukan sekadar isu fasiliti fizikal. Ini isu kepimpinan. Ia mencadangkan bahawa di suatu tempat, seseorang telah mereka bentuk ruang awam tanpa memahami sepenuhnya keperluan semua penggunanya. Kepimpinan yang baik bukan sekadar melayan semua orang secara serupa; kepimpinan yang baik adalah tentang memahami apa yang benar-benar diperlukan oleh insan yang berbeza.

Bermula dengan contoh praktikal harian seperti fasiliti bangunan membantu kita melangkah perlahan-lahan ke dalam perbincangan yang jauh lebih serius dan sensitif mengenai negara kita. Cabaran teras yang dihadapi Malaysia hari ini berlegar di sekeliling isu kaum, agama, etnik, dan bagaimana kita mentadbir masyarakat yang majmuk. Pengajaran asas daripada tindakan melihat keperluan sebenar manusia berbanding andaian yang selesa adalah kunci utama kepada masa depan kepimpinan negara.

Apabila kita berhujah tentang keterwakilan (representation) di Malaysia hari ini, kita biasanya berfikir dalam bentuk angka. Kita bertanya berapa ramai orang Melayu, Cina, India, anak Sabah, Sarawak, wanita, atau anak muda yang duduk dalam lembaga pengarah atau kabinet. Terdapat alasan sejarah yang kukuh untuk kita bertanyakan soalan-soalan ini. Negara kita dibina atas keseimbangan kepercayaan antara pelbagai kaum, dan keterwakilan mengikut angka telah membantu memastikan setiap kumpulan utama mempunyai suara dalam mencorak negara. Model tersebut telah berkhidmat dengan baik untuk Malaysia ketika tahun-tahun pembentukannya.

Namun, setiap negara harus terus matang. Sambil kita melangkah menuju tahun 2057, sudah tiba masanya untuk kita bertanyakan soalan yang berbeza. Daripada sekadar bertanya sama ada kaum kita sendiri diwakili, kita juga patut bertanya: bolehkah seseorang pemimpin itu memahami dan mewakili insan di luar latar belakangnya sendiri?

Ini adalah penanda aras yang jauh lebih tinggi.

Bayangkan sebuah jawatankuasa yang dianggotai sepenuhnya oleh orang Melayu. Adakah mereka masih akan memikirkan secara mendalam tentang kerisauan wajar masyarakat Cina, India, Orang Asli, serta anak-anak Sabah dan Sarawak? Bayangkan pula jawatankuasa yang dianggotai sepenuhnya oleh pemimpin Cina. Adakah mereka akan mempertimbangkan dengan cermat keperluan masyarakat Melayu, termasuk hal-hal berkaitan Islam, bahasa Melayu, dan pembangunan Bumiputera? Bayangkan jawatankuasa yang kesemuanya lelaki, atau yang kesemuanya golongan profesional bandar. Adakah mereka secara semula jadi dapat menyelami pengalaman kaum wanita atau realiti harian yang dihadapi oleh rakyat di luar bandar?

Inilah bentuk kepimpinan yang patut Malaysia aspirasikan untuk dibangunkan dalam tempoh 30 tahun akan datang. Matlamatnya bukanlah untuk menafikan perbezaan kita atau berpura-pura bahawa kaum, agama, budaya, jantina, atau geografi tidak lagi penting. Semua itu tetap penting, dan masyarakat yang berbeza kerap kali mempunyai keperluan khusus dan wajar yang memerlukan perhatian khusus.

Pekerja Muslim memerlukan fasiliti solat, dan insan kurang upaya (OKU) memerlukan infrastruktur mesra akses. Begitu juga masyarakat India Tamil yang dari segi sejarahnya terpisah daripada ladang-ladang pertanian, mereka menghadapi cabaran sosioekonomi unik yang memerlukan sokongan khusus, bukannya dasar yang bersifat umum. Kaum wanita memerlukan kemudahan awam yang berbeza, Sabah dan Sarawak menghadapi cabaran pembangunan yang berbeza daripada Semenanjung, manakala warga emas mempunyai keutamaan yang berbeza daripada anak muda. Mengiktiraf realiti khusus ini bukannya memecahbelahkan; sebaliknya mengabaikannya yang memecahbelahkan.

Mengiktiraf perbezaan tidak bermakna hanya ahli daripada kumpulan tertentu sahaja yang boleh memahami atau menangani isu mereka. Andaian itulah yang perlu kita tinggalkan secara bertahap-tahap. Menjelang 2057, Malaysia patut menjadi sebuah negara di mana setiap pemimpin rasa bertanggungjawab terhadap setiap rakyat Malaysia.

Seorang pemimpin Melayu mesti memahami secara mendalam kerisauan rakyat Malaysia berketurunan Cina dan India. Seorang pemimpin Cina mesti menghargai secara ikhlas aspirasi masyarakat Melayu dan Bumiputera. Seorang pemimpin dari Semenanjung mesti memahami realiti Sabah dan Sarawak, sebagaimana kaum lelaki mesti mempertimbangkan keperluan wanita, dan anak muda mesti menjaga kebajikan warga emas. Kepimpinan tidak lagi patut terkurung oleh identiti peribadi. Sebaliknya, ia mesti dipandu oleh tanggungjawab moral.

Untuk mencapai hal ini, ia memerlukan lebih daripada sekadar niat yang baik. Ia memerlukan pendidikan, rasa ingin tahu, kajian, mendengar secara aktif, serta kerendahan hati untuk bertanya kepada orang ramai tentang pengalaman hidup mereka, dan bukannya mengandaikan kita sudah tahu segala-galanya.

Antara soalan paling penting yang perlu dipelajari oleh setiap pemimpin untuk ditanyakan adalah ringkas:

"Siapakah yang tiada di dalam bilik ini, dan bagaimanakah keputusan ini akan memberi kesan kepada mereka?"

Soalan tunggal itu mampu mengubah kualiti pembuatan keputusan di seluruh agensi kerajaan, korporat, universiti, sekolah, hospital, dan setiap organisasi kemasyarakatan di Malaysia.

Apabila demografi Malaysia terus berubah dalam dekad-dekad mendatang, pola fikir ini akan menjadi semakin penting. Menjelang 2057 dan seterusnya, unjuran demografi menunjukkan bahawa populasi Bumiputera akan menjadi majoriti yang semakin dominan, manakala masyarakat minoriti akan menyaksikan peratusan nisbah mereka mengecil. Formula lama keterwakilan angka tegar yang berkesan pada masa lalu tidak lagi dapat menjamin bahawa masyarakat minoriti akan mempunyai kerusi di setiap meja perbincangan. Bersandar sebulat-bulatnya pada angka akan mendedahkan populasi minoriti kepada risiko, sekaligus menjadikan anjakan falsafah kepimpinan ini sesuatu yang sangat mendesak.

Tidak ada mana-mana kaum yang sepatutnya rasa selamat hanya kerana mereka mempunyai cukup wakil yang duduk di meja mesyuarat. Masyarakat akan rasa selamat apabila semua orang di meja tersebut telah mencapai kematangan untuk berfikir melampaui kepentingan diri sendiri. Itulah Malaysia yang patut kita usahakan menjelang 2057: sebuah negara di mana keterwakilan diukur bukan sekadar daripada siapa yang memegang kerusi, tetapi daripada sejauh mana luasnya setiap pemimpin memikul tanggungjawab.

Saidina Umar bin Al-Khattab RA pernah diriwayatkan berkata, sekiranya seekor biri-biri mati kelaparan di tebing Sungai Euphrates, beliau takut Allah SWT akan menyoalnya di akhirat kelak. Sama ada haiwan itu kepunyaannya atau tidak, itu bukan soalnya; haiwan itu berada di atas tanah yang diamanahkan di bawah jagaan beliau, maka beliau merasa bertanggungjawab.

Itu adalah penanda aras kepertanggungjawaban (stewardship) yang luar biasa, di mana seorang pemimpin bukan sahaja memikirkan tentang keluarganya, kaumnya, atau penyokongnya sendiri, tetapi tentang setiap nyawa yang diletakkan di bawah naungannya. Jika seorang pemimpin boleh berfikir sedemikian rupa lebih 1,400 tahun yang lalu, sudah tentu kita boleh bercita-cita mencapai piawaian yang sama di Malaysia hari ini.

Inilah budaya kepimpinan yang mesti kita bina dalam tempoh 30 tahun akan datang: sebuah Malaysia di mana setiap pemimpin, tanpa mengira latar belakang, berhenti bertanya siapakah kaum mereka, dan mula bertanya siapakah yang telah diamanahkan di bawah jagaan mereka.

Salam,

Anas Zubedy

 

WAWASAN 2057: LEADERSHIP THAT SERVES EVERYONE

 

WAWASAN 2057: LEADERSHIP THAT SERVES EVERYONE

Many years ago, while working in a multinational corporation, I was appointed to a twelve-person committee responsible for planning a new office building. Ten were men, and only two were women. As we discussed the building layout, I suggested allocating more toilet facilities for women than for men.

Almost immediately, most of the men laughed, while the two women did not. I explained that although our workforce was almost equally divided between men and women, men and women use toilets differently. Women generally require more time and space. Simple arithmetic - building the exact same number of facilities for both - would unintentionally create unequal waiting times. It was not about giving women special treatment. It was about understanding how different people use the same space differently, and designing according to reality rather than assumption.

Years later, every time I stop at a highway Rest and Service Area during Hari Raya, Chinese New Year, or other festive seasons, I am reminded of that committee meeting. The queue outside the women’s toilets often stretches a long way, while the men’s toilets are relatively free. Again, this is not merely a physical facility issue. It is a leadership issue. It suggests that somewhere along the way, someone designed a public space without fully understanding the needs of all its users. Good leadership is not simply about treating everyone identically; good leadership is about understanding what different people genuinely need.

Starting with a practical, everyday example like building facilities helps us ease into a much more serious and sensitive conversation about our country. The core challenge facing Malaysia today revolves around race, religion, ethnicity, and how we govern a diverse population. The fundamental lesson of looking at real human needs rather than comfortable assumptions is central to the future of national leadership.

When we speak about representation in Malaysia today, we usually think in terms of numbers. We ask how many Malays, Chinese, Indians, Sabahans, Sarawakians, women, or young people sit on a board or in a cabinet. There is good historical reason for asking these questions. Our nation was built upon a delicate balance of trust among different communities, and numerical representation helped ensure that every major group had a voice in shaping the country. That model served Malaysia well in its foundational years.

However, every nation must continue to mature. As we look towards 2057, it is time to ask a different question. Instead of asking only whether our own community is represented, we should also ask if a leader can understand and represent people beyond his or her own background. That is a much higher standard. Imagine a committee consisting entirely of Malays. Would they still think carefully about the legitimate concerns of Chinese, Indians, Orang Asli, Sabahans, and Sarawakians? Imagine a committee consisting entirely of Chinese leaders. Would they carefully consider the needs of Malay communities, including matters relating to Islam, the Malay language, and Bumiputera development? Imagine a committee made up entirely of men, or one made up entirely of urban professionals. Would they naturally grasp the experiences of women or the daily realities faced by rural Malaysians?

This is the kind of leadership Malaysia should aspire to develop over the next thirty years. The goal is not to ignore our differences or pretend that race, religion, culture, gender, or geography no longer matter. They do matter, and different communities often have distinct, legitimate needs that require specific attention. Muslim employees require prayer facilities, and people with disabilities require accessible infrastructure. Similarly, Tamil Indian communities who were historically displaced from agricultural estates face unique socio-economic challenges that require tailored support rather than generic policies. Women require different public amenities, Sabah and Sarawak face development challenges distinct from Peninsular Malaysia, and older citizens have different priorities from the young. Acknowledging these specific realities is not divisive; ignoring them is.

Recognising differences does not mean that only members of a specific group can understand or address them. That assumption is precisely what we must gradually outgrow. By 2057, Malaysia should become a nation where every leader feels responsible for every Malaysian. A Malay leader should deeply understand the concerns of Chinese and Indian Malaysians. A Chinese leader should genuinely appreciate the aspirations of Malay and Bumiputera communities. A leader from Peninsular Malaysia should understand the realities of Sabah and Sarawak, just as men must consider the needs of women, and the young must look out for the elderly. Leadership should no longer be confined by personal identity. Instead, it should be guided by moral responsibility.

Achieving this requires more than good intentions. It requires education, curiosity, research, active listening, and the humility to ask people about their lived experiences instead of assuming we already know. One of the most important questions every leader should learn to ask is simple: who is not in this room, and how will this decision affect them? That single question can transform the quality of decision-making across government, businesses, universities, schools, hospitals, and every community organization in Malaysia.

As Malaysia’s demographics continue to evolve over the coming decades, this mindset will become even more vital. By 2057 and beyond, demographic projections indicate that the Bumiputera population will form an increasingly dominant majority, while minority communities will see their proportional numbers decline. The old formulas of strict numerical representation that worked in the past will simply no longer guarantee that smaller communities have a seat at every table. Relying purely on numbers will leave minority populations vulnerable, making it all the more urgent that we take this shift in leadership philosophy seriously.

No community should feel secure only because it has enough of its own representatives sitting at the table. Communities should feel secure because everyone at the table has developed the maturity to think beyond themselves. That is the Malaysia we should strive to build by 2057 - a nation where representation is measured not merely by who holds a seat, but by how widely each leader accepts responsibility.

Saidina Umar ibn al-Khattab is reported to have said that if a sheep were to perish on the banks of the Euphrates, he feared that Allah would question him about it. Whether or not the animal belonged to him was beside the point; it fell within the land entrusted to his care, and so he felt responsible.

That is an extraordinary standard of stewardship - a leader who thinks not only about his own family, tribe, or supporters, but about every life placed within his domain. If one leader could think that way more than fourteen centuries ago, surely we can aspire to a similar standard in Malaysia today. That is the leadership culture we must cultivate over the next thirty years: a Malaysia where every leader, regardless of background, stops asking who their people are, and begins asking who has been entrusted to their care.

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

 

The Leader-Manager: A More Practical Leadership Model - STARBIZ Today

 The Leader-Manager: A More Practical Leadership Model

Dear Captains of Industry and Public Institutions,

Leadership has become one of the most romanticized concepts in modern organizations. Conferences, books, consultants, social media, and corporate seminars often portray leaders as charismatic visionaries who inspire crowds, speak powerfully, and transform organizations through force of personality and influence.

Meanwhile, management is often treated as something less glamorous. It is described as administrative, procedural, operational, or even bureaucratic. In many discussions, management is subtly positioned as secondary to leadership.

This divide is neither practical nor productive on the ground.

In reality, organizations do not succeed through leadership alone. Neither do they succeed through management alone. They succeed because people are able to combine leadership and management effectively. Perhaps it is time we rethink organizational leadership through a more practical mental model: The Leader-Manager.

At the practitioner level, leaders and managers do not have the luxury of endlessly debating whether leadership and management are different. Organizations are not built through definitions. Organizations are built through execution, alignment, coordination, accountability, trust, and results.

Unlike a bookish approach, leadership and management are not merely overlapping concepts. In real organizational life, they are inseparable.

The moment we artificially separate them, both become weaker.

Leadership without management risks becoming disconnected from execution and results. Management without leadership risks becoming mechanical and devoid of meaning. A leader who cannot manage will struggle to execute, while a manager who cannot lead will struggle to move people.

Leadership without management becomes aspiration without execution. Management without leadership becomes control without direction.

They are not competing ideas. They are two sides of the same organizational coin.

The reality is that most organizational roles require both simultaneously. A head of department, managing director, district officer, plant manager, hospital director, dean, or CEO constantly moves between leadership and management responsibilities throughout the day. One moment they are setting direction, reducing uncertainty, and building confidence. The next moment they are reviewing budgets, solving operational problems, managing tensions, monitoring performance, and coordinating teams.

In practice, separating leadership from management is almost impossible.

Unfortunately, modern leadership culture sometimes creates another unintended problem. It unconsciously promotes one narrow image of what a “leader” should look like. Leadership is frequently associated with charisma, extroversion, stage presence, and highly expressive communication.

This unintentionally discourages many capable people from stepping into management and leadership roles.

Engineers, analysts, finance professionals, operational specialists, technical experts, and highly competent individual contributors may wrongly conclude that they are “not leadership material” simply because they do not fit a romanticized stereotype of leadership.

More concerning, their superiors and organizations may come to the same conclusion. Because many organizations unconsciously associate leadership with highly visible and expressive personalities, quieter but highly capable individuals may be overlooked for leadership and management development opportunities.

As a result, organizations may unintentionally lose future leader-managers who possess strong discipline, operational credibility, analytical thinking, consistency, accountability, problem-solving abilities, and the capacity to move teams steadily toward results.

The issue is not a lack of leadership potential. The issue may be that the mental model used to identify leadership potential was flawed from the beginning.

Yet if we study CEOs and managing directors carefully across industries and countries, we quickly realize they do not fit one mould. Some are extroverted while others are introverted. Some are visionary while others are operationally driven. Some are highly relational while others are disciplined and task-focused.

Despite these differences, many succeed because effective organizational leadership is less about personality style and more about integrating leadership and management into daily practice.

Most successful organizational leaders are able to create clarity, reduce uncertainty, align teams, make decisions, manage tensions, allocate resources, build trust, ensure accountability, and move the organization toward results. In reality, they function as leader-managers.

This reframing matters greatly when we think about developing future organizational leaders.

Instead of asking whether someone fits a certain image of leadership, perhaps organizations should ask a more practical question:

Can this person effectively move people, systems, and outcomes forward together?

Consider a marketing organization. A marketing director must inspire creativity, encourage innovation, read market trends, and energize teams around campaigns and branding ideas. Yet at the same time, the person must manage budgets, timelines, coordination, client expectations, targets, and execution quality. Without management discipline, creativity eventually becomes chaos. Without leadership, marketing loses energy and direction.

Now consider a manufacturing or semiconductor environment. A plant manager or operations head must ensure precision, quality, timelines, safety, process discipline, and operational consistency. However, technical systems alone are insufficient. The person must also reduce uncertainty, handle tensions, motivate teams, align departments, manage morale, and sustain trust under pressure. In manufacturing, leadership and management cannot be separated because execution determines survival.

The same applies in government institutions. A district officer does not merely administer procedures. The role requires balancing public expectations, coordinating agencies, managing crises, executing policies, handling political sensitivities, and building cooperation among stakeholders during uncertain situations. Administrative discipline and human leadership happen simultaneously.

Dear Captains,

Perhaps the time has come for organizations to seriously rethink the mental models we use to define leadership and management.

If leadership and management are truly inseparable in organizational life, then this reframing has major implications far beyond terminology.

It affects how we identify talent. It affects how we evaluate future leaders. It affects how we build succession pipelines. It affects how we mentor, coach, and develop people. It affects how we prepare future organizational leaders.

Without this reframing, organizations may continue overlooking highly capable individuals simply because they do not fit a romanticized image of leadership. Worse still, we may begin judging leadership potential using the wrong indicators, mistaking visibility for capability, charisma for competence, style for substance, and presentation for the actual ability to move people, systems, and outcomes forward.

As a result, organizations may unintentionally elevate individuals who appear impressive while overlooking those who consistently create clarity, solve problems, build trust, align teams, manage tensions, and deliver results.

More importantly, we may continue weakening organizations by artificially separating leadership from management when, in reality, both were never meant to function apart.

This reframing should encourage organizations to rethink talent management, succession planning, leadership development, mentoring systems, and even the beliefs we instill in young managers moving into positions of responsibility.

Perhaps the future challenge is not producing more leaders or more managers.

Perhaps the real challenge is developing people who can integrate direction, execution, systems, trust, accountability, people, and outcomes together.

Because in real organizational life, leadership and management were never meant to be separated in the first place.

 

MELANGKAUI TVET: MENGAPA MALAYSIA MEMERLUKAN LALUAN JUALAN DAN PERKHIDMATAN NASIONAL - Sinar Harian Hari Ini

MELANGKAUI TVET: MENGAPA MALAYSIA MEMERLUKAN LALUAN JUALAN DAN PERKHIDMATAN NASIONAL

Berdasarkan laporan Perangkaan Tenaga Buruh terbaharu Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia (DOSM), lebih setengah juta rakyat Malaysia masih menganggur, dengan golongan muda berusia bawah 30 tahun merangkumi lebih tiga perempat daripada jumlah tersebut.

Walaupun kadar pengangguran negara masih terkawal, pengangguran belia kekal sebagai cabaran serius. Persoalannya, adakah kita benar-benar mempersiapkan generasi muda Malaysia untuk peluang pekerjaan hari ini dan masa hadapan?

Kerajaan wajar dipuji atas penekanan yang diberikan kepada Pendidikan dan Latihan Teknikal dan Vokasional (TVET). Fokus ini amat diperlukan ketika Malaysia memperkukuh sektor semikonduktor, pembuatan lanjutan, mesin dan peralatan serta teknologi digital. TVET merupakan tunjang penting strategi tenaga kerja negara dan wajar terus diperkasakan.

Namun, di sebalik kepentingan TVET, timbul satu persoalan lain. Apakah laluan yang tersedia untuk anak muda yang tidak mempunyai kecenderungan utama dalam bidang teknikal? Bukan semua belia mahu atau mampu menjadi jurutera, pengatur cara, pakar automasi atau teknisyen. Ramai yang lebih menyerlah dalam komunikasi, hubungan pelanggan, penyelarasan projek, perundingan, perkhidmatan dan pembangunan perniagaan.

Atas sebab itu, Malaysia perlu mempertimbangkan sama ada strategi pembangunan tenaga kerja negara memerlukan satu lagi tunjang yang melengkapi TVET - iaitu laluan yang memberi tumpuan kepada kerjaya berorientasikan pelanggan, perniagaan dan penjanaan pendapatan.

Industri TVET Juga Memerlukan Bakat Komersial

Terdapat persepsi bahawa sektor pertumbuhan tinggi seperti semikonduktor, mesin dan peralatan serta teknologi digital hanya memerlukan jurutera dan pakar teknikal. Hakikatnya, industri-industri ini turut bergantung kepada profesional yang mengurus pelanggan, projek, perkhidmatan dan pembangunan perniagaan.

Ekosistem teknologi Malaysia merangkumi syarikat multinasional, pengilang, vendor teknologi dan pelbagai penyedia perkhidmatan. Pertumbuhan sektor ini bergantung kepada individu yang mampu mengurus hubungan pelanggan, menyelaras projek, menyelia penyampaian perkhidmatan, menjaga akaun utama serta menterjemahkan keupayaan teknikal kepada hasil komersial.

Pada bila-bila masa, beribu-ribu projek kejuruteraan dan teknologi sedang dilaksanakan di seluruh negara. Selain tugas teknikal, ramai pengurus projek dan pakar teknikal turut perlu mengurus jangkaan pelanggan, pemegang taruh, garis masa dan perbincangan komersial. Tanpa profesional yang mampu merapatkan jurang antara kepakaran teknikal dan peluang pasaran, organisasi sering menghadapi kesukaran untuk berkembang.

Permintaan terhadap bakat ini bukan sekadar teori. Dalam satu sesi libat urus bersama majikan yang dijalankan selama empat hari, sebanyak 22 daripada 23 syarikat dalam sektor semikonduktor, mesin dan peralatan serta teknologi digital mengenal pasti 248 kekosongan jawatan segera dalam peranan berorientasikan pelanggan dan komersial.

Ini bukan peluang masa depan. Ia adalah kekosongan yang wujud hari ini. Jika permintaan sebegini dapat dikesan daripada sampel syarikat yang kecil dalam tempoh singkat, besar kemungkinan keperluan sebenar di seluruh ekonomi negara jauh lebih besar.

Persediaan Kalis Masa Depan Mendepani Automasi

Perancangan tenaga kerja negara juga perlu mengambil kira kesan automasi, kecerdasan buatan (AI), robotik dan Industri 4.0.

Merentasi pelbagai industri, tugas rutin semakin diambil alih oleh teknologi. Pengilang melabur dalam automasi lanjutan dan sebahagiannya mula meneroka konsep kilang "lights-out" yang beroperasi dengan campur tangan manusia yang minimum. Trend yang sama turut berlaku dalam logistik, pentadbiran dan fungsi operasi lain.

Ini tidak mengurangkan kepentingan bakat teknikal. Jurutera, teknisyen dan pakar berkemahiran tinggi akan terus diperlukan. Namun, permintaan dijangka beralih daripada tugas teknikal rutin kepada peranan yang memerlukan kemahiran teknikal tahap tinggi.

Pada masa yang sama, permintaan terhadap profesional yang mampu membina kepercayaan, memahami pelanggan, mengurus hubungan strategik, berunding dan mencipta nilai komersial akan meningkat. Kemahiran seperti komunikasi, empati, pertimbangan, kebolehsuaian dan pembinaan hubungan merupakan kelebihan manusia yang sukar diautomasi.

Apabila teknologi menjadi semakin canggih, kemahiran insaniah ini menjadi semakin bernilai. Oleh itu, persediaan tenaga kerja masa hadapan perlu memberi tumpuan kepada kedua-dua aspek - keupayaan bekerja dengan teknologi dan keupayaan yang tidak boleh digantikan oleh teknologi.

Ribuan Peluang Kerjaya Jualan Yang Tersembunyi

Penemuan di atas hanya mencerminkan sebahagian kecil ekonomi Malaysia.

Di luar sektor teknologi, majikan dalam industri pembuatan, penjagaan kesihatan, perbankan, logistik, pelancongan, peruncitan dan perkhidmatan profesional terus menghadapi kesukaran mendapatkan bakat bagi peranan jualan, khidmat pelanggan, pengurusan akaun, penyelarasan projek dan pembangunan perniagaan.

Kekosongan ini wujud dalam jumlah yang besar serta menawarkan prospek kerjaya dan pendapatan yang menarik, termasuk melalui komisen dan insentif berasaskan prestasi. Namun, bidang ini masih belum mempunyai laluan pembangunan nasional yang tersusun.

Pada masa yang sama, universiti dan kolej tempatan menghasilkan ribuan graduan dalam bidang perniagaan, pemasaran, komunikasi, hospitaliti, kemanusiaan dan sains sosial setiap tahun. Ramai mempunyai potensi yang sesuai untuk kerjaya berorientasikan pelanggan, tetapi sering kekurangan latihan, pendedahan industri dan keyakinan untuk berjaya dalam bidang tersebut.

Daripada melihat mereka sebagai sebahagian daripada masalah pengangguran, Malaysia sepatutnya melihat mereka sebagai sebahagian daripada penyelesaian.

Laluan Nasional Yang Saling Melengkapi

Cadangan ini bukan bertujuan menggantikan TVET. Sebaliknya, ia melengkapkan TVET.

Ekonomi moden memerlukan kedua-dua keupayaan teknikal dan komersial. Kita memerlukan individu yang mampu membina produk, dan pada masa yang sama individu yang mampu membina pelanggan, menjana pendapatan dan mengekalkan pertumbuhan.

Malaysia telah melabur besar dalam pembangunan bakat teknikal. Sudah tiba masanya kita mempertimbangkan satu Laluan Nasional Jualan dan Perkhidmatan yang tersusun bagi membantu lepasan sekolah, graduan, belia menganggur dan profesional yang berminat membina kerjaya dalam bidang berorientasikan pelanggan.

Laluan ini boleh memberi tumpuan kepada pembangunan kompetensi seperti komunikasi, pengurusan pelanggan, ketajaman komersial, kecerdasan emosi, perundingan, pengurusan akaun dan penyelarasan projek.

Jika lebih tiga perempat daripada penganggur negara terdiri daripada golongan belia, maka setiap laluan yang mampu meningkatkan kebolehpasaran mereka wajar diberikan pertimbangan yang serius. TVET telah membantu memenuhi satu keperluan penting ekonomi negara. Kini, sudah tiba masanya kita membina satu lagi laluan yang dapat melengkapkan usaha tersebut.

Bagi ratusan ribu anak muda Malaysia yang masih mencari pekerjaan, arah tuju dan peluang untuk membina masa depan yang lebih baik, Laluan Nasional Jualan dan Perkhidmatan mungkin mampu membuka pintu yang selama ini belum diberikan perhatian yang sewajarnya.

 

WAWASAN 2057 - Sinar Harian (14 July 2026)

WAWASAN 2057

Pada 31 Ogos 2057, Malaysia bakal menyambut ulang tahun kemerdekaannya yang ke-100. Ditinjau dari landskap masa kini, detik bersejarah itu berbaki kira-kira 30 tahun sahaja lagi.

Tanpa mengira dinamika politik tanah air - sama ada Kerajaan Perpaduan hari ini kekal atau pentadbiran baharu yang mengambil alih tampuk kepemimpinan pada masa hadapan - kita sebagai sebuah negara wajib bersatu padu dan memikirkan masa hadapan 2057 secara serius. Sudah tiba masanya kita mengutarakan satu persoalan mudah tetapi amat mustahak: Di manakah kedudukan yang kita impikan untuk Malaysia menjelang usia seabadnya?

Untuk menjawab persoalan ini, kita perlu mempunyai keberanian untuk membuat penilaian yang jujur tentang kedudukan kita pada hari ini. Kita mesti mengiktiraf kekuatan dan kelemahan diri dengan jelas; meraikan kejayaan yang telah dicapai di samping berani berdepan dengan kekurangan diri.

Lebih penting lagi, kita harus mengenal pasti tabiat, sikap, dan tingkah laku yang terus mengekang kemajuan kita. Apakah tindakan berulang yang menghalang kita daripada mencapai potensi sepenuhnya? Kita wajib menentukan minda manakah yang perlu dipertahankan kerana sumbangan yang baik telah diberikan, dan minda manakah yang perlu ditinggalkan kerana tidak lagi relevan. Kita harus mempersoalkan apa yang patut diteruskan, dan apa yang mesti dihentikan serta-merta.

Hanya dengan kejelasan inilah kita boleh mula mencorakkan masa hadapan Malaysia menjelang 2057. Kita perlu bertanya:

• Bagaimanakah rupa sebuah negara yang cemerlang dan hebat?
• Apakah bentuk masyarakat yang ingin kita bina, acuan ekonomi yang mahu dicipta, dan ciri-ciri warganegara yang diharap dapat dipupuk?
• Paling utama, apakah sasaran konkrit yang perlu kita tetapkan untuk diri kita bagi tempoh 30 tahun akan datang?

Melangkaui Sempadan Politik Kepartian

Wacana penting ini tidak boleh diserahkan bulat-bulat kepada ahli politik, parti politik, atau kerajaan yang memerintah semata-mata. Demi mengangkat dialog ini melangkaui politik kepartian, sudah tiba masanya sebuah majlis nasional bukan partisan ditubuhkan di bawah naungan Diraja.

Majlis ini mesti menggabungkan rakyat Malaysia daripada segenap lapisan masyarakat: wakil kerajaan dan pembangkang, ahli akademik, tokoh perniagaan, golongan pekerja, belia, masyarakat sivil, pengamal profesional, serta pihak berkepentingan dari setiap negeri dan wilayah persekutuan.

Berdiri megah melangkaui kitaran pilihan raya, kesetiaan mutlak majlis ini bukan kepada mana-mana parti atau ideologi, sebaliknya demi Malaysia dan generasi masa hadapannya.

Tugas majlis ini adalah khusus dan mendalam: mengkaji sejarah asal usul Malaysia, memahami kedudukannya hari ini, menghayati semula semangat dan prinsip asas Perlembagaan Persekutuan, mengenal pasti cabaran serta peluang masa hadapan, dan mengusulkan visi bersama tentang apa yang dicita-citakan oleh Malaysia menjelang 2057.

Berani Bermimpi Besar

Sebaik sahaja hala tuju destinasi itu jelas, kita boleh mula bekerja keras untuk mencapainya. Tempoh 30 tahun adalah satu jangka masa yang panjang dan cukup untuk mentransformasikan sesebuah negara, membetulkan kesilapan lalu, membina kekuatan baharu, mengasah bakat, dan memperkukuh institusi kita. Namun, kita tidak boleh berlayar tanpa arah tuju, dan kita tidak sepatutnya takut untuk bermimpi besar. Mimpi yang sangat besar.

Sebuah negara hanya menyambut ulang tahun ke-100 sekali sahaja. Sasaran yang kita tetapkan untuk Wawasan 2057 mestilah cukup bercita-citanya untuk menyuntik inspirasi agar kita mampu bangkit melangkaui pertikaian politik harian, kepentingan mana-mana kaum secara sempit, dan pemikiran jangka pendek.

Visi ini sepatutnya mendorong kita untuk berfikir bukan sebagai ahli parti politik, kumpulan etnik, komuniti agama, profesion, atau wilayah, tetapi pertamanya dan selamanya sebagai seorang rakyat Malaysia.

Negara yang hebat dibina apabila rakyatnya sanggup melihat melampaui kepentingan peribadi, kaum, dan parti, lalu mempersoalkan apa yang terbaik untuk negara.

Wawasan 2057 mesti mencabar kita untuk berfikir dalam acuan sedemikian:

• Apakah bentuk Malaysia yang ingin kita wariskan kepada generasi akan datang?
• Apakah pengorbanan yang sanggup kita lakukan hari ini agar anak cucu kita dapat mewarisi sebuah negara yang lebih baik esok?

Jika kita mahu melakar pelan tindakan bagi tempoh 30 tahun akan datang, janganlah kita berfikiran kecil. Ayuh kita tetapkan sasaran yang setaraf dengan maruah sebuah negara yang bakal menghampiri usia satu abad.

Masa untuk bermula adalah sekarang.

Salam.

Anas Zubedy