THE EIGHT CIRCLES OF A LEADER-MANAGER - STARBIZ 15/08/26

THE EIGHT CIRCLES OF A LEADER-MANAGER

Dear Captains,

The task of a Leader-Manager is simple to state but challenging to accomplish: moving the Task, the Team and the Individual towards Corporate Goals. To achieve this, a Leader-Manager must lead and manage four critical areas: oneself, others, the execution of processes and systems, and change.

Of the four, leading and managing oneself receives the least attention. Most leadership programmes focus on managing others. While important, self-leadership remains the foundation. A person who cannot manage themselves will eventually struggle to lead others. The fish rots from the head; when a leader fails to manage themselves, the consequences are felt by everyone.

The second area, leading others, is the one most of us are familiar with. The third area, execution, is equally important because leaders are ultimately entrusted to make things happen, translating goals into action. Finally, leaders must be able to manage change. They must do so while simultaneously managing themselves, others, and execution, because change is not an occasional event - it is the very environment within which leadership takes place.

The Eight Circles of a Leader-Manager provide a practical framework for helping leaders fulfil these responsibilities more effectively.

Circle 1: Expectation Setting

The first task of any Leader-Manager is to remove uncertainty. People perform better when they know what is expected of them. Effective expectation setting begins with two things: being clear about the goal and asking the right questions. Goals provide direction; questions create understanding. Both are necessary.

Clarity must also be accompanied by meaning and purpose. Without them, people see work merely as tasks to complete rather than outcomes to achieve.

Three practices strengthen expectation setting:

1. Establish a clear social contract so everyone understands the expected behaviours between superiors, colleagues, subordinates, and stakeholders.
2. Create a common language of performance so people understand what is excellent, good, acceptable, or unacceptable.
3. Ensure everyone knows the baseline: where they are today, where they need to be, by when, and the agreed strategies to get there.

Circle 2: Planning and Problem Solving

The best way to motivate people is to help them achieve. Nothing motivates people more than growth, development and success.

Together, Circle 1 and Circle 2 form the core of leadership and management. First, leaders set clear expectations. Then, they help people achieve those expectations.

However, not everyone starts with the same level of readiness. Some need more knowledge, some need guidance, and others need closer monitoring. Effective Leader-Managers recognise these differences and respond accordingly, knowing when to mentor, when to coach and when to supervise.

Their role is not simply to assign tasks but to help people plan effectively and solve problems along the way, ensuring they have the tools and support needed to succeed. When people learn how to overcome obstacles, confidence grows, and motivation follows naturally.

Circle 3: Building High-Performing Teams

To help people succeed, leaders must build high-performing teams, as very few goals can be achieved alone.

Most leaders are familiar with Tuckman's stages of team development: forming, storming, norming, and performing. What many overlook is that leaders must actively manage the transitions between these stages, staying ahead of the team to guide it forward.

One common mistake is viewing storming as a problem. In reality, storming is a sign of progress. It is when people stop being overly polite and start being authentic. Differences surface, issues are discussed, and trust begins to deepen. Effective Leader-Managers do not fear the storm; they guide the team through it toward norming and performing.

Circle 4: Feedback and Difficult Conversations

No team becomes high-performing without a healthy environment of feedback and the ability to handle difficult conversations. This is especially important during the storming stage, when disagreements surface.

The Leader-Manager must create a culture where feedback is seen as a gift rather than a threat. This begins with leading oneself. Leaders who welcome feedback and use it to improve set the tone for everyone else.

Likewise, leaders must lead by example when dealing with difficult conversations. Rather than avoiding issues, they address them respectfully, promptly, and constructively. When feedback flows and difficult conversations are handled well, trust grows, problems are resolved, and teams thrive.

Circle 5: Managing Emotions and Tension

Good feedback and difficult conversations depend heavily on the ability to manage emotions and tension.

Emotion is a source of energy. Managed well, it drives engagement and performance; managed poorly, it damages relationships and organisations. Leader-Managers must learn to manage their own emotions while responding appropriately to the emotions of others.

Likewise, not all tension is bad. Leaders are not paid to eliminate tension; they are paid to manage it. Performance tension, accountability tension, innovation tension, and change tension are all necessary for growth. The objective is to ensure tension remains productive rather than destructive.

Circle 6: Communication and Relationship Building

Communication and relationship building are the foundation of people management, beginning with a simple understanding: other people are human beings just like us.

All of us have needs that can only be fulfilled through others - we seek approval, praise, reassurance, empathy, and respect. Building relationships therefore requires personal ownership and a genuine concern for others.

Good communication starts with good manners and the willingness to give time and energy to others. One of the most powerful platforms for doing this is conversation. Talking and listening remain the Leader-Manager's most important tools for building trust and improving performance.

Circle 7: Motivating

Leader-Managers do not motivate people through grand speeches or occasional slogans. Their responsibility is to design a motivating environment that encourages performance.

This requires the deliberate design of an effective motivational mix. Financial rewards like salary and bonuses are important, but they are only part of the equation. Recognition, growth opportunities, meaningful work, supportive leadership, and a healthy culture are equally important.

In many ways, the first six circles are themselves part of this motivational mix. People are naturally more motivated when goals are clear, they are successful, work within high-performing teams, receive constructive feedback, manage emotions well, and enjoy strong relationships. The more motivating the environment, the more performance tension people can productively transform into achievement.

Circle 8: Reflecting

If Leader-Managers do not make time to reflect, they may slowly become the person they never intended to be, losing opportunities to learn and grow.

Reflection begins with simple questions: Where am I today? Where do I want to be? How do I get there? Effective Leader-Managers regularly pause to assess progress, challenge assumptions, and learn from experience. They must seek feedback and honestly evaluate themselves against the first seven circles, becoming their own critic and motivator. Reflection is an essential leadership responsibility that deserves a place among a leader's highest priorities.

Dear Captains, The Eight Circles of a Leader-Manager form an integrated system where each circle supports the others. Practised consistently, they move the Task, the Team, and the Individual towards Corporate Goals.

It is vital that leaders invest time in strengthening each circle. Like any capability, leadership improves through learning, practice, and continuous improvement. Organisations must ensure their managers are trained, mentored, and coached to apply these circles effectively.

At the same time, we as Captains of Industry must be the first to practise them. We set the standards; people do not follow what we say, they follow what we do. When we lead by example, we create organisations where leadership excellence can flourish.

 

The Middle East Must Have Its Own Pact

The Middle East Must Have Its Own Pact

The Middle East must create its own regional pact, one that includes Iran and eventually all nations of the region.

I would call it the Middle East Peace and Prosperity Pact (MEPPP).

It should go beyond military security and be built around three pillars: security, economic cooperation and cultural exchange.

Most importantly, it must not align itself with any superpower. It should work with America, China, Russia, Europe, India, ASEAN and anyone else who comes with positive intentions, while allowing the nations of the Middle East to determine their own future.

Friends with everyone. Satellites of no one.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

WAWASAN 2057: KEPIMPINAN YANG MENGABDI UNTUK SEMUA - Sinar Harian Hari Ini

 

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