WHY USA & IRAN ARE BETTER OFF AS FRIENDS

 

America and Iran are better off as friends than foes. Logic, not ideology, leads to this conclusion.

There is no compelling economic, social, or political reason for the United States to attack Iran. Such a move does not materially improve American prosperity, security, or social cohesion. On the contrary, it risks higher energy prices, market instability, regional escalation, and further strain on American military and fiscal resources.

The primary driver of hostility toward Iran is not an America-first calculation. It is an Israel-first policy. This stands in direct contradiction to the stated principle of putting American interests first.

Ironically, at this point, Israel itself does not want the United States to attack Iran. Iran’s demonstrated ability to strike Tel Aviv during the 12-Day War has altered the risk equation. A wider conflict would expose Israel to damage far exceeding what was previously assumed, and any US-led escalation would likely provoke a response that makes the 12-Day War look minor by comparison.

With domestic protests in Iran having subsided and the regime still firmly in place, the military option is no longer viable as a tool for regime change. An external attack would consolidate internal support around the Iranian state, not weaken it. History shows that such actions strengthen regimes under pressure rather than collapse them.

If the United States acts rationally, it should act for Americans. Not for the strategic preferences of another country.

A more logical path is engagement. Befriending Iran does not mean endorsement of its system or policies. It means recognising geopolitical reality and pursuing bilateral economic cooperation where interests align.

Access to trade, investment, and structured engagement lowers incentives for conflict and creates mutual cost for escalation.

Measured against outcomes, not emotions, cooperation with Iran serves American interests better than confrontation. Logic dictates this is not weakness.

It is strategy.

Peace. Anas

MEE MAMAK AT A CHINESE RESTAURANT

This afternoon I casually walked into a makan place near Maybank Tanjung Bungah that serves Mee Mamak.

I was genuinely glad to find it. It felt like the Penang I grew up with. Quaint. Unpretentious. The atmosphere, the customers, the rhythm of the place. I did not realise these still existed.

I ordered Mee Rebus.

At the table beside me sat a Malay chap having Mamak mee goreng for lunch, and a Chinese chap eating a non-halal dish. Both were completely comfortable with each other’s presence and preferences. I think they work at the same place.

It was business as usual in this restaurant. A halal Mee Mamak stall at one end, non-halal char koay teow at another. No issues with what the other is eating. I eat my dish, you eat yours.

To you your religion, to me mine. But we are connected in our humanity. In daily life. In earning a living. In providing for our families. And in contributing to the nation.

I like Penang that way.

Peace,
anas

5,987 HECTARES: 5,207 FOR INDONESIA, 780 FOR MALAYSIA – WHY?

 

This is a matter-of-fact article.

It is written deliberately without political drama, emotional framing, or spin. The aim is simple: to explain what happened, why it happened, and why the outcome is neither unusual nor unprecedented. This approach is necessary if we, as Malaysians, are to be mature citizens and informed voters who are not easily swayed by political rhetoric. We do not need harsh words or to belittle others to uncover the truth.

Truth stands by itself.

The Context of the Boundary Malaysia and Indonesia share a long and complex boundary, both on land and at sea. While much of this boundary is agreed upon in principle, not all of it has been clearly demarcated on the ground or delimited at sea. Some segments, inherited from colonial-era treaties, remained unresolved for decades. These are not new disputes; they are legacy technical problems that were never fully finalized.

Most of these unresolved areas fall into two categories:

• On Land: Concentrated along the Sabah–North Kalimantan frontier. The terrain is difficult, dominated by dense jungle, rivers, and mountain ridges. Early boundary descriptions relied on vague references such as watersheds or latitude lines, often without precise maps. In some stretches, border pillars were never installed; in others, they were damaged or lost over time.
• At Sea: Unresolved areas exist in parts of the Celebes Sea and surrounding waters. These involve overlapping claims over territorial seas, continental shelf boundaries, and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). They are further complicated by differing interpretations of baselines and the impact of earlier international rulings.

Together, these unresolved segments are formally known as Outstanding Boundary Problems (OBP).

The Myth of "No Man’s Land" An undemarcated area is not "empty land." It is not a lawless territory or land that can be freely claimed. It simply means that the exact legal boundary line has not been finalized. Sovereignty exists in principle, but its precise coordinates remain unresolved. Administrative control may exist in practice, but it is not yet conclusive in law.

This is why the term “no man’s land” is misleading. It suggests abandonment or an absence of sovereignty. In reality, such areas are governed by treaties, joint technical committees, and international norms. Precision matters because borders are determined by evidence and process, not by rhetoric.

The 5,987-Hectare Resolution The recent issue involving 5,987 hectares falls squarely within this framework. This area was a recognized OBP. Before negotiations concluded, the entire 5,987 hectares was undemarcated—it was not conclusively recognized as either Malaysian or Indonesian.

After negotiations, the legal uncertainty was resolved. Approximately 5,207 hectares are now recognized as Indonesian territory, while approximately 780 hectares are recognized as Malaysian territory in Sabah. This was not a "transfer" of recognized land, nor a surrender of sovereignty. It was a clarification. A line that had been blurry for decades was finally drawn.

Why the Uneven Split? The uneven distribution often raises questions, but unequal outcomes are standard in boundary resolution. International borders are not divided by simple arithmetic or notions of "splitting the difference." They are determined by:

• Pre-existing treaties and historical maps.
• Natural features such as rivers and watersheds.
• Technical surveys and long-standing administrative practices.

Where the evidence points, the boundary follows. History shows this clearly. Along the Sabah–Kalimantan border, multiple undemarcated segments have been resolved in stages since the 1970s. In some cases, Indonesia received larger areas; in others, Malaysia did. The land's size was never the governing principle—the evidence was.

Precedents in Resolution The same pattern is visible at sea. In the Straits of Malacca, Malaysia and Indonesia resolved overlapping continental shelf claims over several decades. Some segments favored Malaysia, others favored Indonesia. These outcomes were accepted because they replaced uncertainty with clarity.

An even starker example is Sipadan and Ligitan. Before adjudication, sovereignty was unresolved. After the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling, both islands were awarded entirely to Malaysia. While that was an "uneven" outcome, it was accepted as the final legal resolution to a long-standing dispute.

Conclusion The 5,987-hectare resolution fits a long-established pattern. Undemarcated areas are clarified through evidence-based negotiation. Some outcomes favor Malaysia, and some favor Indonesia. What matters is that ambiguity is removed and jurisdiction becomes clear.

In simple terms: an area that was previously undemarcated has now been formally divided. 5,207 hectares are recognized as Indonesian, and 780 hectares are recognized as Malaysian. That is the substance of the matter.

No politics. No emotion. Just facts.

Peace, anas

 

TURNING 62: WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN RETIREMENT

 

I turned 62 today.  Allow me to share some thoughts.

At this age, many people around me are thinking about retirement. Slowing down. Stepping aside. Doing less. Some speak proudly about no longer caring what others think. Others become easily irritated, impatient, or angry at small things. Many quietly disengage from work, from learning, from contribution.

I find myself wanting to move in the opposite direction.

I do not feel less capable than when I started working at 24. I feel more capable. I see patterns faster. I make fewer mistakes. I know what matters and what does not. To slow down now feels less like rest and more like waste. Waste of knowledge. Waste of experience. Waste of judgment earned over decades.

Provided we stay healthy and fit, this stage of life should not be about doing less. It should be about doing better. In fact, this is a chicken-and-egg situation. I believe that when we slow down, we become unhealthier. Purpose and vitality come as a package deal.

Our deep traditions understood this wisdom. Modern society created the concept of retirement. It is new, and it is anti-historical.

In Islam, there is no concept of retiring from purpose. Responsibility ends only with death. What changes with age is not obligation, but form. There may be less physical strain, but there is more teaching, more guidance, and more judgment. Knowledge that is not passed on is considered a loss, not a personal choice. To be idle is to be sinful, my Jid, my grandfather, advised me when I was eight.

This idea is not unique to Islam.

In Buddhism, ageing is meant to deepen insight and compassion. Older monks are expected to guide others, teach younger generations, and help reduce suffering. Withdrawal is not meant for comfort or escape, but for clarity and service. The Buddha remained active until the age of eighty.

Christianity speaks of vocation rather than career. One may retire from employment, but not from calling. Many biblical figures began their missions late in life or reached their greatest impact in old age. Service continues as long as life continues.

Hindu thought divides life into stages, but these are often misunderstood. The later stages are not about disengaging from responsibility. They are about detaching from material ambition while increasing moral and social responsibility. Elders were expected to advise, arbitrate disputes, teach, and preserve order.

Chinese traditions place even greater emphasis on the role of elders. Older people are seen as custodians of balance and harmony. When elders disengage, societies lose direction. Age brings moral authority, not irrelevance.

Across all these traditions, the message is consistent. Youth brings energy. Midlife brings strength. Later life brings judgment. To retire judgment is to weaken society and to insult one’s own soul.

Ten common practices after 60 and why I choose the opposite

One. Many people slow down by default, simply because age tells them to. I choose to slow down only where it does not matter and to speed up where it does. The goal is not constant motion, but intentional effort. In fact, whenever I can, I choose to move faster and with greater effectiveness.

Two. Less work is often mistaken for wisdom. I choose to do less trivial work, but more meaningful work. The reduction should be in noise, not in contribution. Work is good for me, good for my family, good for society, and good for the world. Why slow down on a good thing? Push harder.

Three. Many people mentally retire long before they physically stop working. That is why we see deadwood as early as the late thirties and early forties. Curiosity fades, engagement weakens, and days become repetitive. I choose to stay mentally alert, curious, and fully present in the work I do.

Four. Some proudly say they no longer care what people think. This can easily become an excuse for carelessness or insensitivity. I choose to care less about approval, but more about impact and responsibility. To care is to live well and meaningfully.

Five. As people age, patience often shortens. I see this so often, and it is a scary future to walk into. Small frustrations trigger irritation, and this robs us of quality living and beautiful time together. I choose to protect my calm and treat irritation as a signal to change my perspective. To accept the peculiarities of others and to understand where they are coming from. To ask what story sits behind their frustrations.

Six. Many live off past achievements. They exaggerate them, adding more and more spice each time the stories are repeated. Eventually, the past becomes a “golden age,” and they fall in love with it. When we fall in love with the past, we cannot be happy in the present. I choose to use the past only when it helps others and me move forward, for reflection, for learning, and for choosing better paths ahead.

Seven. Many avoid change because change feels demanding. I choose to deliberately change. To keep learning, even when it is uncomfortable, because learning keeps the mind alive.

Eight. Comfort becomes a priority for many. Slowly, life shrinks around it. I choose controlled discomfort, physical and mental, because it keeps both body and mind engaged.

Nine. Cynicism often masquerades as realism, or as a false claim that one simply does not care. Many times, it hides unresolved disappointment in the heart. Disappointment hardens into bitterness. I choose realism with hope, not bitterness, and clarity without contempt.

Finally, ten. Many become preoccupied with legacy and how they will be remembered. Control replaces trust. I choose to focus on contribution now and allow legacy to take care of itself. God is the Master of the Day of Judgment, not you or I. Leave that to Him.

I would like to end this sharing with a deep and meaningful Muslim tradition. In Islamic teaching, “the Hour” refers to the Day of Judgment, the moment when this world comes to an end and all deeds are brought to account. And yet, the Prophet advised:

“If the Hour is established and one of you has a palm shoot in his hand, then if he is able to plant it before the Hour is established, let him plant it.”

Peace.
Anas
February 4, 2026

 

THE TEST OF DEMOCRACY: USA vs CHINA vs MALAYSIA

 

 

A democracy is a political order in which political power is exercised equitably and translated into social welfare and broad-based prosperity. Political voice alone, without equitable power, welfare, and prosperity, does not constitute democracy. Elections, free speech, and formal rights are therefore necessary but insufficient. What ultimately matters is whether political authority is fairly exercised and whether it improves the material and social conditions of the people.

In this article, we use a set of practical yardsticks to examine how democracy functions in reality rather than in theory. These yardsticks are then applied comparatively to three countries: the United States, China, and Malaysia. At the end, we offer an overall rating for each on a scale of one to ten, based on substance rather than form.

The Six Yardsticks of Substantive Democracy

1. Equitable Exercise of Power: Is power genuinely shared, autonomous, and accountable, or is it captured by elite families, wealth networks, or foreign interests?
2. Political Equality in Practice: Does each citizen’s voice carry comparable weight in practice, or is it diluted by structural bias and malapportionment?
3. Social Welfare: Does the system protect citizens from avoidable hardship through universal healthcare, education, and a "dignity floor"?
4. Economic Equity and Upward Mobility: Do effort and ability matter more than birth? Are there clear pathways from lower-income brackets to the middle class?
5. Broad-Based Prosperity: Does the majority of the population benefit from economic growth, or are gains concentrated at the top?
6. Execution Capacity: Can the state effectively translate political mandates into real-world outcomes and infrastructure?

The United States: High Form, Fragmented Substance

In the United States, political power is formally decentralized, but in practice, it is heavily filtered by wealth. Access to leadership is gated by donor networks, and institutional checks are increasingly strained by hyper-polarization. While elections are procedurally robust, the dominance of corporate lobbying and campaign finance suggests that real decision-making is often captured.

Political equality is uneven. While universal suffrage exists, the impact of a vote varies significantly due to gerrymandering and the Electoral College. Furthermore, the fragmented information ecosystem—saturated with algorithmic misinformation—makes it difficult for the average citizen to exercise an "informed" voice.

Socially, the US performs poorly for a high-income nation. It remains the only major advanced economy without universal healthcare; as of 2024, approximately 26 million Americans remain uninsured. Economic mobility has also stalled. The "American Dream" is increasingly a factor of birth; the top 1% now hold nearly 30% of household wealth, while the bottom 50% hold just 2.5%.

Consequently, US execution capacity is hampered by gridlock. While the US possesses immense national wealth, its inability to convert that wealth into a secure social safety net for the majority results in a system that is loud on rights but quiet on results.

China: High Execution, Limited Voice

China presents the inverse profile. On political equality and participatory power, it scores very low. Leadership selection is a closed loop, and independent organization is strictly managed. Citizens lack a formal mechanism to contest power, meaning "voice" is replaced by "petitioning" within a state-controlled framework.

However, China’s "Social Welfare" and "Execution" metrics are remarkably high. Over the last four decades, China has executed the largest poverty reduction program in human history, lifting over 800 million people out of extreme poverty. While its "dignity floor" is lower in absolute dollar terms than the US, its trajectory of improvement is steeper.

The state’s ability to translate power into outcomes is its defining strength. Whether it is the rapid expansion of high-speed rail or the recent 2025–2026 initiatives to remove "Hukou" (household registration) restrictions for migrant workers' social security, the Chinese system converts policy into reality with a speed that Western democracies cannot match. The trade-off is absolute: material security is provided in exchange for the surrender of political contestation.

Malaysia: The Balanced Performer

Malaysia occupies a unique middle ground. Unlike the US, it has retained a robust public social safety net. Unlike China, it maintains a competitive (if messy) electoral democracy.

Political equality in Malaysia, however, remains a structural challenge. While voting rights are inclusive, malapportionment significantly distorts the "one person, one vote" principle. In the most recent data (2024-2025), disparities in constituency size have reached extreme levels; for instance, the voter-to-representative ratio in urban Bangi exceeds 300,000, whereas rural Igan has fewer than 30,000. This results in a weightage where one rural vote can carry the power of ten urban votes.

Information access is relatively open, but it is heavily shaped by politically connected conglomerates. In the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, Malaysia rose to 88th place, a significant improvement from 107th in 2024, yet Reporters Without Borders (RSF) remains concerned about the "problematic" concentration of media ownership.

Socially, Malaysia is a standout. Its dual healthcare system provides nearly universal access at a nominal cost (RM1 for outpatient care), a model frequently cited by the WHO for its efficiency. Education remains highly subsidized, and the "dignity floor" is supported by a culture of subsidies for fuel and food, though these are currently undergoing rationalization to ensure fiscal sustainability. Malaysia’s strength lies in its balance: it offers more political voice than China and better social protection than the US.

Final Rankings and Scores

When all six yardsticks are weighted equally, the results challenge the assumption that procedural rights are the sole measure of a successful society.

Metric (Scale 1-10)	USA	China	Malaysia
Equitable Power	5.0	2.5	6.0
Political Equality	5.0	2.0	6.0
Social Welfare	4.0	7.0	7.5
Economic Mobility	4.0	6.5	6.0
Broad Prosperity	5.0	7.0	6.0
Execution Capacity	5.0	8.5	6.0
Total Weighted Score	4.7	5.5	6.3

 

1. Malaysia (~6.3/10)

Malaysia ranks first because it avoids the "catastrophic failures" of the other two. It provides a functional level of political competition without abandoning the poor to market forces. Its healthcare and education systems deliver high "substance" relative to its GDP.

2. China (~5.5/10)

China ranks second. While it fails the test of political "voice," its performance in delivering material dignity, infrastructure, and poverty reduction is so superior to the US that it offsets its lack of formal democracy in a substantive framework.

3. United States (~4.7/10)

The US ranks last. While it is the "freest" on paper, that freedom is increasingly hollow for the millions who lack healthcare, face stagnant wages, and see their political system paralyzed by wealth and gridlock.

Conclusion

This comparison underscores a deeper truth: Democratic legitimacy ultimately rests on what systems deliver to the lives of ordinary people. A system that offers the right to vote but not the right to a dignified life is a performance, not a democracy.

Malaysia’s lead suggests that the future of governance may lie not in the extremes of liberal individualism or authoritarian collectivism, but in a balanced, state-led commitment to shared welfare and political inclusion.

Malaysia Boleh! Hidup Malaysia.

Peace, anas

BRAND AMERICA FALLING. BRAND CHINA RISING.

Around the world, Brand America is facing a visible backlash.

It is no longer just about policy disagreements, but about credibility.

Being seen as conjoined at the hip with Israel even when civilian suffering is undeniable has damaged America’s moral standing. Add to that Trump’s big bully behaviour, open pressure on allies, and even talk of acquiring places like Greenland, and the image shifts from principled leadership to raw power politics.

The story America tells no longer matches what many people see.

This needs to be said clearly. Americans, as people, are generally good, generous, and decent. The problem is not American society or American talent. The problem is how American power is exercised and justified. When values appear selective, compassion conditional, and rules flexible for friends, trust erodes, especially across the Global South.

At the same time, Brand China is rising not because everyone loves China, but because many countries see it as pragmatic, predictable, and focused on trade, infrastructure, and long term interests rather than moral lecturing.

In branding terms, China looks transactional and stable, while America looks emotional, divided, and punitive.

If Brand America wants to win back trust, it must find balance and wisdom. It can pursue MAGA and national prosperity, but not at the expense of others.

Most critically, America must decouple its global moral identity from Israel’s actions. Leadership is not about loyalty at all costs, it is about moral independence.

Final note.

For the global community, the best outcome is not America versus China, but America and China both doing well.

Economics is not a zero sum game. Growth can be win win if leaders stop being greedy and trying to take everything for themselves.

The real strategy is not domination, but expanding the cake so others can prosper too.

Peace, anas

NATO: DONALD TRUMP GOT IT WRONG, BEIJING IS DOING IT RIGHT

 

When Donald Trump says America’s allies are “nothing” without the United States, he points to a real imbalance but reaches the wrong conclusion. The US does maintain a vast military presence across NATO countries. That presence gives Washington unmatched command, logistics, intelligence, and reach. Without the US, NATO would clearly be weaker.

But American power in Europe exists by consent, not entitlement. US bases sit on allied soil because partners provide geography, access, and political legitimacy. These bases allow the US to operate far beyond Europe, into the Middle East, Africa, and the Arctic. Without allies, America would be more isolated, more stretched, and less effective.

Now imagine those same bases are no longer given to the US, but to Russia or China. US power would shrink fast. Forward command centres disappear. Intelligence reach weakens. Power projection slows and becomes costlier. Influence retreats behind oceans.

The reality, then, is not “everything versus nothing,” but asymmetrical interdependence. NATO allies rely heavily on US capabilities, while the US relies on NATO to sustain its global reach. Confusing imbalance with insignificance may sound strong, but it misunderstands how power actually works.

Perhaps Trump can learn some strategy from a Malay peribahasa:

“Bulat air kerana pembetung, bulat manusia kerana muafakat.”

Water takes its shape because of its channel. People gain strength because of consensus.

Trump can also learn from The Art of War, the Chinese classic on strategy that Beijing is quietly practicing today. Sun Tzu taught that real power is not brute force, but positioning. The strongest power is the one others still choose to support.

Lose that consent, and power fades faster than any battlefield defeat.

Peace, anas