OUR PORTS: SAY NO TO US WARSHIPS

 

Malaysia stands for neutrality, justice, and international law. Hosting US warships now sends the wrong signal and risks being seen as tacit support. I disagree.

We cannot be seen, even indirectly, as facilitating a war monger. We must stand firm for peace and the protection of innocent lives.

What are our leaders thinking, allowing this?

Peace.

IRAN: ROUND 2

 

I am of the opinion, and currently working on a paper, that Iran’s bold move in standing up to the USA and, by extension, the quest for a Greater Israel, and outsmarting them thus far, will have a profound impact on Muslims all over the world, especially the youth. The impact in Malaysia will be deep as well. I have been suggesting and writing about this for many decades.

I titled this entry IRAN: Round 2, as Round 1 was Iran’s Revolution in 1979. The 1979 Iranian Revolution had a profound impact on the Islamic world by demonstrating, for the first time in the modern era, that a Western-backed secular regime could be overthrown and replaced with an Islamic system of governance. This inspired a surge of confidence in Islamic identity and political Islam across many Muslim societies, including Malaysia, encouraging movements to frame politics, resistance, and social justice in Islamic terms. It energized both Shi’a and Sunni groups, sparked Islamic activism and, in some cases, uprisings across the region, while also intensifying debates about the role of Islam in state and society.

In an article I posted at 5 pm on May 5, 2013, polling day of GE13, I stressed and predicted that PAS would do much better. In that article, I wrote:

“That Malaysia will turn more and more ‘Islamic’ is a foregone conclusion. I will share two main reasons for this; one being local while the other, global.

In Malaysia today, the Muslim majority are giving birth more than the rest. Owing to this rate, by 2050 Muslims should make up about 70% of Malaysia, compared to the current 60%. A survey on young Muslims aged 15 to 25 years old in Malaysia, published on the Merdeka Centre website, reports that more than 70% of them aspire to adopt the Islamic way of life and desire to see society move forward in the same manner. These statistics are more than just numbers; they indicate where Malaysians are heading and how that journey is reshaping our nation.

At the global front, while by the 80s and early 90s communism and nationalism, two of the forces obstructing world dominance by the USA, were no longer in a position to pose any challenge to Washington, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 thrust Islam to the fore in both national and international politics. A decade later, in 1989, the Mujahideen’s victory over Soviet Russia in Afghanistan showed that a small, organised, determined, and united group of Muslims could resist and defeat a superpower.

A new kind of confidence and consciousness was injected into the Muslim world. Muslim revivalism, which began in the nineteenth century, experienced renewed vitality. Muslims, especially the youth, rethought, reflected, and revived their rich and often forgotten history, bringing it into present memory and rekindling the spirit of their own golden era.

Furthermore, events in the Middle East, especially the treatment of Palestinians by Israel and its allies, and what is perceived as double standards by the West towards Muslim nations, continue to fuel this growing consciousness. Muslims today increasingly see Islam as a possible alternative framework for managing society and the nation. Malaysian Muslims share these ideals.”

You can read the full article here:
https://letusaddvalue.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-stronger-islamic-flavour-after-ge13.html

In a recent research paper by Syaza Shukri, “Why Young Malay Voters in Malaysia Are ‘Turning Green’,” this position is further reinforced.

Syaza's paper was written before the current conflict in the Middle East. I have strong conviction that IRAN: Round 2 will create an impact and momentum that has yet to be fully realised, not only among Muslims in Malaysia but across the world.

I look forward to sharing my full article with you after Raya, God willing.

Peace.

 

Have a Meaningful Aidilfitri - EDUCATION: Are we being honest with our children?

 

EDUCATION: Are we being honest with our children?

This is an uncomfortable question. Yet it is one we must ask.

While thousands of Malaysian students score A’s every year, our PISA rankings remain around the middle of the global table. Countries with far fewer straight-A students often outperform us. The number of our top performers rises each year, yet our global standing does not.

Are we making examinations easier or inflating grades? This may create a feel-good moment in the short term, where parents are happy, students feel good, teachers feel proud, and politicians point to the results as proof that everything is working.

But if the standards are lower than the world outside our borders, we risk sending our children into a more competitive world less prepared than they think.

That is not kindness. That is not fairness. And most importantly, that is not honesty.

The world our children will enter is global, demanding and competitive. To prepare them well, we must be brave enough to measure ourselves honestly.

This Hari Raya, let us reflect and set azam baharu.

Perhaps one of the most meaningful gifts we can give the next generation is not easier marks, but stronger education and the ability to know where we truly stand. We cannot move forward if we begin without knowing.

Because loving our children also means preparing them for the real world.

Let us add add value,

Have a Meaningful Aidilfitri

 

Peace, anas

 

Photo caption

“The purpose of education in Islam is to produce a good man.” - Royal Professor Tan Sri Dr Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas (1931–2026) was a renowned Malaysian Muslim philosopher and scholar of Islamic thought and education.

 

HINDUTVA VS HINDUISM

 

When Malaysians do not understand the difference between Hindutva and Hinduism, they often end up making ridiculous claims and accusations.

Hinduism is a religion and a spiritual tradition that is thousands of years old. It includes philosophy, rituals, temples, festivals and a rich diversity of beliefs.

Hindutva, on the other hand, is a modern political ideology that emerged in the 20th century and is associated with certain nationalist movements in India.

Confusing the two is like confusing Judaism with Zionism. Judaism is an ancient religion with spiritual teachings and traditions, while Zionism is a modern political movement. One is a faith; the other is a political ideology.

When we fail to make this distinction, discussions become emotional, unfair, intellectually careless and, at times, insulting to intelligence.

These behaviours are alien to Muslim traditions and in direct contrast to the scholars of Islam’s Golden Age. Al-Biruni (973–1048), whom serious historians consider his book Kitab al-Hind to be one of the earliest works of comparative religion and anthropology in history, was extraordinary in how he studied Hinduism. Instead of relying on second-hand accounts, Al-Biruni learned Sanskrit so he could read Hindu texts directly.

His approach was extremely rare in the 11th century. Most scholars wrote about other religions without studying their original texts. He even criticised Muslim writers who misrepresented Hindu beliefs. Personally, I follow his approach. A scholar, he stressed, must present the beliefs of a people as they themselves believe them, not as critics portray them. Al-Biruni’s method teaches an important lesson: before criticising another religion or civilisation, we must first understand it deeply and fairly.

Another Muslim scholar of the Golden Age worth emulating is Al-Shahrastani (1086–1153), who wrote one of the most famous early works on comparative religion. His most important book is Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal (The Book of Religions and Sects), which examined belief systems including Islam and its various sects, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Greek philosophy and Indian religions, including Hindu philosophical traditions. Like Al-Biruni, he stated clearly that a scholar should describe religions as their followers understand them, not through polemics or ridicule.

Al-Biruni and Al-Shahrastani are scholars who helped establish what we would today call the academic study of religion. Malaysia, which has people of many faiths as fellow citizens, should teach about them and their approach in schools so that by the time we become adults and leaders, we are mature in dealing with inter-religious issues.

Coming back to Hindutva and Hinduism, if we want mature conversations in a multi-religious country like Malaysia, we must first understand what we are talking about. It is naïve to think that the already very fragmented minority community of Malaysian Indians would consider using Hindutva politics in Malaysia.

Peace.
Anas Zubedy
Penang

 

TANPA IZIN vs HARAM and ADAB MELAYU

 

In recent years, Malaysians have increasingly used the word haram when discussing places of worship. Whether it is a mosque, temple, church or shrine, the language we choose matters.

I would like to suggest a small but meaningful change in how we speak about these matters. Instead of saying something is haram, perhaps we should say it was done tanpa izin.

Why does this distinction matter?

Haram is a religious ruling within Islam. It carries a strong moral and spiritual judgement. When the word is used in public debates, especially in a multi-religious country like Malaysia, it can easily be perceived as condemning others and their beliefs.

Tanpa izin, on the other hand, simply means without permission.

It focuses on the real issue, whether proper consent, approval or process was followed.

This approach is also very much in line with Adab Melayu. In our culture, we are taught to speak with restraint, courtesy and wisdom. When disagreements arise, we try to lower the temperature, not raise it. Our elders remind us that good manners and careful words are the foundation of social harmony.

Saying something happened tanpa izin reflects a spirit of calm and respectful correction rather than harsh judgement.

It focuses on the real issue and allows room for discussion, correction and resolution, while showing respect to fellow Malaysians of different faiths.

Using haram in such situations can unintentionally escalate tensions. It may make people feel that their religion itself is being judged rather than the specific action.

If we have adab, we say tanpa izin.
If we tidak beradab, we use the word haram.

Mari jadi orang beradab.

Peace.

Anas zubedy

Penang

 

Can Malaysian politics pivot? - By Philip Golingai

By Philip Golingai

It's Just Politics

The Star 

Sunday, 15 Mar 2026

Kedah. Pahang. Johor. Kedah. Penang. Pahang. Kedah. Johor. Pahang. Penang

Will the next one be from Sarawak or Sabah?

For nearly seven decades, these are the only states from which our prime ministers have hailed. Is it finally time for a change in the political geography?

Historically, the “Big Three” – Johor, Kedah, and Pahang – have held a near-monopoly on the premiership, anchoring the nation’s leadership in the traditional Malay heartland. It wasn’t until 2003 that we saw Penang’s rise, when Tun Abdullah Badawi broke the mould, followed later by current PM, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Sarawak, with 31 seats, and Sabah, with 25 seats, hold a combined 56 parliamentary seats in the 222-member Dewan Rakyat. While this represents only 25% of the House, their cohesive voting blocs mean that no federal government can realistically stand without them.

In an era when Bornean kingmakers decide the fate of Putrajaya, the question is no longer just about geography – it’s about whether the equal partnership that makes up Malaysia is ready for its ultimate test.

I thought about this when I read social commentator and unity advocate Anas Zubedy’s blog entry on the 16th General Election, “GE16: Why not a PM from Borneo” published yesterday (at bit.ly/4cNGbYY).

Anas argues that race-centred politics is currently stalling our political engine. He suggests that we are trapped in a cycle of asking which race or religion a leader represents rather than who can best serve the nation as a whole.

To illustrate his point, Anas looks to the corporate world, citing Volvo’s pivot to safety in the 1970s with a CEO from the insurance sector and Citibank’s shift towards consumer technology in 2021 under a leader with a management consulting background as examples of how choosing a leader from outside the traditional circle can fundamentally reorient an organisation’s purpose.

Malaysia, he argues, needs a similar reorientation. By looking towards Sabah or Sarawak, he contends that we look towards a political culture that is historically more multi-ethnic, pragmatic, and less burdened by Peninsular Malaysia’s sectarianism.

“Choosing a leader from Borneo would therefore not simply be about geography. It could represent a shift in how Malaysia thinks about leadership itself. Just as Citibank reoriented banking towards customers, and Volvo reoriented the automobile industry towards safety and human values, Malaysia too could reorient its politics towards national purpose rather than racial contestation.”

He continues: “After all, Malaysia was founded as a federation of regions and peoples. Perhaps the time has come to reflect that spirit in our highest office.”

Anas ends his piece with a provocative challenge: “So the question may not be whether it is possible. The question may simply be: Why not?”

To be cynical, however, the “Never-Going-to-Happens” are deeply entrenched in the peninsula’s political conventions. While the logic behind electing a Bornean PM is sound, it faces the formidable wall of peninsula anxiety. If we are to be honest about the obstacles, they look something like this:

The Malay-Muslim hegemony: For decades, the narrative has been carefully curated to say that the PM must be a Malay Muslim from the heartland. Even though the Federal Constitution does not state a race requirement, the political reality is that many in the peninsula’s conservative base view the prime minister as the ultimate protector of Malay rights – a role they have yet to even imagine trusting to a leader from the more pluralistic Borneo states.

The numbers game: Geography remains a stubborn hurdle. The peninsula has 165 seats, Sabah and Sarawak have 56 so the path to the top still runs through the crowded corridors of Peninsular Malaysia. A Bornean leader would need to command a significant chunk of these peninsula seats, a feat difficult to achieve without massive, transregional party machinery.

The outsider perception: Despite being “Equal Partners” on paper, Sabah and Sarawak are often still viewed by the peninsula political elite as “fixed deposits” (ie vote banks) or kingmakers rather than the source of a leader.

The lack of a national party: Currently, the strongest leaders in Borneo belong to regional blocs (GPS, GRS and Parti Warisan). While this gives them immense leverage, it also tethers them to their home states. Without a truly national brand that resonates in Kelantan’s warung and Petaling Jaya’s kopitiam, a Bornean candidate remains a regional choice in a national contest.

Ultimately, while the corporate world can pivot overnight to a new orientation, the machinery of a nation-state is subject to the friction of identity politics. The “why not” doesn’t refer to a lack of talent or merit – it is a lack of imagination on a peninsula that has spent 70 years looking only at its own reflection.

But. There is a but.

There once was a possibility of someone from Borneo becoming the PM. In 2020, following the collapse of the Pakatan Harapan government (remember the Sheraton Move?) and then Tan Sri Muyiddin Yassin stepping down as PM, the Opposition (then comprising Pakatan and its allies) had a choice over who to put up as a PM candidate: Anwar of PKR or Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal of Sabah’s Parti Warisan.

Eventually, Anwar’s name was offered as the primary candidate after a period of intense deadlock. Even GPS, the Sarawak bloc that controlled 18 seats at the time, didn’t support Shafie, a fellow Bornean, aligning itself instead with the peninsula-based Perikatan Nasional.

Another opportunity emerged after GE15 in 2022. While the headlines focused on the flashy race between two former prime ministers, Perikatan chairman Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and Pakatan chairman Anwar, there was a significant undercurrent of discussion regarding a Borneo candidate to break the deadlock.

Specifically, GPS’s Petra Jaya MP, Datuk Seri Fadillah Yusof, was widely considered a potential PM candidate during the post-election negotiations. GPS secured 23 seats, cementing its role as the ultimate kingmaker. Had the peninsula coalitions failed to find common ground, Fadillah could have been the compromise leader the nation needed.

Today, he serves as Deputy Prime Minister II and the Energy Transition and Water Transformation Minister. His appointment as DPM II was a historic milestone, making him the first leader from Sarawak to hold the country’s second-highest office. Yet the fact remains that even with the deputy PM post in hand, the top floor of Putrajaya continues to elude the Bornean territories.

If we are to move from a race- driven framework to a nation- centred one, as Anas suggests, the peninsula must first break its 70-year habit of looking inward. The talent is there, and the seats are there – the only thing missing is the political courage to cross the South China Sea.

Kedah. Pahang. Johor. Kedah. Penang. Pahang. Kedah. Johor. Pahang. Penang. And Sarawak or Sabah?

Why not?

Link - https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/its-just-politics/2026/03/15/can-malaysian-politics-pivot

GE16: WHY NOT A PM FROM BORNEO

 

Since I can remember, throughout my entire adult life we have heard debates about whether a non-Malay can become Prime Minister in Malaysia. Then the question follows: must he or she also be a Muslim?

This is the direct effect of our main political actors on both sides of the divide, mainly UMNO and DAP, whose politics continue to revolve heavily around race and religion.

When a political party’s engine runs on race, that becomes the main commodity that is transacted.

That is why we have yet to hear any serious discussion about the possibility of a Prime Minister from the Borneo states. I seek to change that.

First, let us learn from two global corporate examples where organisations chose leaders who were within the system but came from different backgrounds. These choices helped rejuvenate the organisation and strengthen their brands in line with changing market needs.

Volvo

In the early 1970s, the board of Volvo chose a CEO from outside the traditional circle of automobile executives. The Swedish carmaker appointed Pehr G. Gyllenhammar as its CEO at the age of 36. Unlike many leaders in the automobile industry, Gyllenhammar was not an engineer or lifelong car executive. His main professional background was in the insurance sector, where he had served as CEO of the Swedish insurance company Skandia.

Coming from insurance gave him a different perspective on risk, safety and human factors. Under his leadership, Volvo strengthened its global identity as the car company most committed to safety. The company also experimented with new factory systems that gave workers greater autonomy and responsibility. Volvo’s brand became strongly associated with safety, quality and human centred values. By choosing a leader from outside the traditional automobile establishment, Volvo sharpened its purpose and built one of the most distinctive identities in the global car industry.

Citibank

A similar example can be found at Citibank. In the 1970s and 1980s, the bank faced a strategic crossroads. Traditional bankers focused mainly on corporate lending and elite financial clients. Retail customers were often seen as secondary. At this moment the board elevated John Reed, a leader whose thinking differed from the conventional culture of corporate banking. His interests were strongly shaped by technology and systems rather than by the traditional corporate lending mindset.

Reed believed the future of banking lay with ordinary consumers supported by technology. Under his leadership, Citibank invested heavily in automated teller machines, global electronic banking networks and mass consumer credit cards. This shift transformed Citibank into one of the world’s largest global consumer banks. By choosing a leader who approached banking from a different angle, Citibank repositioned itself ahead of many competitors and moved from a product driven bank to a customer centred financial services platform.

What does this have to do with Malaysia?

In both examples, the change in leadership produced something deeper than a new face at the top. It produced a change in orientation. Citibank moved from a product driven bank to a customer centric financial services platform. Volvo moved from being just another automobile manufacturer to becoming the global benchmark for safety and human centred design.

In both cases the leader did not merely manage the organisation. The leader helped the organisation see its purpose differently. Malaysia may also benefit from such a shift in orientation.

For decades our political system has largely been driven by race centred politics. Political competition often revolves around which group gains more power, protection or privileges. Naturally, this produces endless debates about whether a Prime Minister must come from a particular race or religion.

Over time, this orientation begins to influence almost every national conversation. Many challenges in the country are viewed through the same racial lens. Even areas where compromise should never occur, such as corruption, sometimes become entangled in political calculations shaped by race. Hypocrisy is tolerated because of racial loyalties or political alignments. In this environment, even policies that are fundamentally sound, such as affirmative action for the genuinely needy, become diluted because they are framed through race rather than need.

Because race and religion are closely intertwined in Malaysia, religious matters too are often drawn into the same political currents. Issues involving temples, places of worship and religious celebrations can easily become part of wider racial debates. The political culture in Sabah and Sarawak, however, has historically been less burdened by such deep seated racial and religious sectarianism.

But what if we shift the orientation?

Instead of asking who represents which race, we could ask a different question. Who can best serve the nation as a whole? In other words, Malaysia too can move from a race driven political framework to a nation centred leadership framework.

One way to trigger such a shift may be to look beyond the usual political mould. A Prime Minister from Sabah or Sarawak could symbolise exactly that. The Borneo states sit somewhat outside the intense race based political competition that dominates Peninsular politics. Their political culture has historically been more multi ethnic, more pragmatic and more grounded in local realities.

Choosing a leader from Borneo would therefore not simply be about geography. It could represent a shift in how Malaysia thinks about leadership itself. Just as Citibank reoriented banking toward customers, and Volvo reoriented the automobile industry toward safety and human values, Malaysia too could reorient its politics toward national purpose rather than racial contestation.

After all, Malaysia was founded as a federation of regions and peoples. Perhaps the time has come to reflect that spirit in our highest office.

So the question may not be whether it is possible.

The question may simply be:

Why not?

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

Penang

 

NOTE: This is the first article in a series on this subject. I have begun with the question “Why not?”. In the coming pieces, we must also discuss the “How” and what needs to be done to make such an idea possible.

In Malaysia, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong appoints as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament who, in His Majesty’s judgment, commands the confidence of the majority of the House. In practical terms, this means the individual who is able to secure the most parliamentary support.

There is therefore much that needs to be thought through and done if such a possibility is to become reality.

If this idea resonates with you, please reflect on it and expand the conversation. Share it with your family and friends. Let the discussion begin and gather momentum.

Perhaps this could be one of the ways we move Malaysia toward a more united and confident future. Thank you.