SINAR HARIAN HARI INI : MENGAPA KEPEMIMPINAN PENGURUSAN PERLU MEMBINA "RESPECTFUL FEAR"

 

Yang Dihormati Kapten Industri dan Peneraju Sektor Awam,

Tugas seorang Pemimpin atau Pengurus, terutamanya bagi seorang Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif (CEO), bukanlah suatu amanah yang mudah. Tanggungjawab utama kita adalah untuk memastikan setiap warga organisasi bergerak serentak menuju matlamat Bersama - selari dari segi hala tuju, seirama dalam tindakan, dan memacu kepantasan yang mampu mengatasi persaingan.

Namun, untuk mencapai tahap sinkroni ini, komitmen yang tinggi diperlukan bagi mengimbangi kekuatan dan kelemahan setiap jabatan. Cabarannya ialah tiada formula kekal dalam mengurus sesebuah organisasi; landskap perniagaan sentiasa berubah dan menuntut kalibrasi semula pada setiap hari. Adalah tidak bermakna jika pasukan jualan cemerlang tetapi bahagian pengeluaran gagal memenuhi pesanan. Begitu juga, tidak berguna jika pemasaran memenangi anugerah tetapi sistem operasi dan penyampaian mengalami kepincangan.

Kepimpinan sebenar terletak pada keupayaan mengorkestrasikan keseluruhan sistem, bukan sekadar meraikan kecemerlangan terpencil. Inilah beban sekali gus keistimewaan seorang Teraju Eksekutif.

Definisi "Respectful Fear"

Bagi memikul tanggungjawab besar ini, salah satu sifat kepimpinan utama yang perlu kita bina adalah apa yang saya istilahkan sebagai "Respectful Fear" (Kegentaran Berasaskan Hormat). Ia merupakan satu bentuk "kengganan dalaman" untuk melanggar piawaian yang telah ditetapkan oleh seorang pemimpin yang dipercayai, konsisten, serta memiliki kewibawaan moral.

Kegentaran ini timbul daripada kesedaran bahawa mengecewakan pemimpin sedemikian akan membawa kesan yang mendalam. Walaupun ketegasan ini jarang dipamerkan secara terbuka, "kuasa" tersebut tetap wujud. Ia jarang perlu dikuatkuasakan secara keras kerana ia terbentuk daripada akar umbi kewibawaan moral dan konsistensi, bukan sekadar jawatan semata-mata. Melalui asas ini, lahirnya kawalan kendiri dan kekangan secara sukarela dalam kalangan kakitangan. Mereka bertindak dengan betul bukan kerana dipantau, tetapi kerana mereka memandang serius terhadap pemimpin, peranan mereka, serta organisasi tersebut.

Kesan Terhadap Kecekapan Organisasi

Apabila respectful fear wujud, keperluan untuk penyeliaan berterusan akan berkurangan secara drastik. Amalan pengurusan mikro (micromanagement) dapat dikurangkan, manakala proses membuat keputusan menjadi lebih pantas kerana jangkaan sudah pun difahami dengan jelas. Pemimpin tidak perlu meluangkan masa yang lama untuk membetulkan tingkah laku asas, sebaliknya boleh memberikan fokus penuh untuk memastikan gerak kerja berada pada landasan dan rentak yang betul. Akibatnya, organisasi memperoleh kepantasan dan koheren tanpa perlu meningkatkan birokrasi.

Lebih penting lagi, keberadaan respectful fear ini secara langsung meningkatkan piawaian etika dan profesionalisme. Ia membentuk budaya yang teguh tanpa memerlukan penguatkuasaan yang keras; di mana tahap kepercayaan adalah tinggi, selari dengan tahap jangkaan yang ditetapkan. Ini bukanlah model kepimpinan yang mengelak konflik atau merendahkan piawaian demi menjaga keharmonian luaran, sebaliknya ia adalah kepimpinan yang memiliki wibawa yang kental dan dipandang serius oleh semua pihak

Instrumen dan Disiplin Dalaman

Dalam konteks ini, sasaran, KPI, insentif, dan polisi tetap menjadi instrumen penting. Namun, mekanisme tersebut akan berfungsi dengan jauh lebih berkesan apabila disokong oleh sesuatu yang lebih utuh. Respectful fear beroperasi pada tahap yang lebih tinggi kerana pemimpin yang berkesan menggerakkan organisasi melalui disiplin dalaman (internalised discipline). Apabila ini wujud, sistem sedia ada akan memperkukuhkan tingkah laku positif secara automatik, dan bukannya bergelut untuk membetulkan kegagalan.

Respectful fear melahirkan Penguatkuasaan Secara Senyap (Silent Authority) -suatu kuasa yang tidak perlu diisytiharkan tetapi kehadirannya dirasai melalui tindakan dan kepatuhan sukarela. Oleh kerana piawaian dan akibat telah difahami, pemimpin tidak perlu memberi peringatan berterusan. Maka, pengaruh kepimpinan beroperasi secara konsisten di seluruh organisasi.

Manifestasi pada Pelbagai Tahap

1. Tahap Pelaksanaan Tugasan: Penguatkuasaan secara senyap memastikan tindakan mengambil jalan pintas dirasakan sebagai suatu kesalahan moral. Kualiti terjaga tanpa perlu pemeriksaan rapi. Sebagai contoh, dalam sebuah firma pembuatan, seorang penyelia yang menyedari sedikit penyimpangan kualiti akan membetulkannya serta-merta walaupun tiada sesiapa memerhati. Beliau melakukannya bukan kerana takutkan hukuman, tetapi kerana tahu piawaian kualiti CEO adalah sesuatu yang tidak boleh dikompromi. Jabatan pemeriksaan kini menjadi lapisan pengesahan, bukannya benteng keselamatan utama.
2. Tahap Tingkah Laku Pasukan: Budaya akan menggantikan peranan "kepolisian". Kawal selia rakan sejawat (peer regulation) berlaku secara semula jadi. Rakan sejawat akan saling menegur sekiranya terdapat ahli yang bertindak di luar nilai organisasi. Contohnya, jika seorang ahli pasukan jualan menjanjikan tempoh penghantaran yang tidak realistik, rakan sejawatnya akan menegur: "Itu bukan cara kita bekerja di sini." Pembetulan dilaksanakan secara mendatar, bukan menegak. Pasukan melindungi kredibiliti organisasi kerana jangkaan pemimpin telah sebati dalam diri mereka.
3. Tahap Prestasi Individu: Penanda aras dalaman meningkat melalui motivasi intrinsik. Usaha dipacu oleh rasa bangga, tanggungjawab, dan rasa kepunyaan (ownership). Seorang penganalisis yang bekerja secara bebas tahu bahawa data yang tidak sahih akan mengakibatkan tindakan yang salah. Walaupun tanpa penyeliaan, beliau akan menyemak semula datanya kerana memahami bahawa kredibiliti yang terjejas memberi kesan lebih besar daripada sekadar ralat pada hamparan kerja.

---

Membina Kewibawaan: Konsep "Sat"

Persoalannya, bagaimanakah Pemimpin-Pengurus membina sifat ini? Satu sudut pandangan yang berguna boleh dilihat melalui konsep masyarakat Cina iaitu "Sat" (saat hei dalam Kantonis atau shā qì dalam Mandarin). Ia merujuk kepada karisma atau aura yang dapat dirasai serta-merta - suasana menjadi sunyi apabila pemimpin tersebut melangkah masuk ke dalam bilik. Sat menzahirkan kegentaran yang dihormati: keseriusan tanpa lakonan, penguatkuasaan tanpa gangguan, dan kuasa tanpa tayangan.

Kehadiran (presence) ini tidak boleh dilakonkan. Ia dibina melalui peredaran masa, bermula dengan sejati  (authenticity) dan konsistensi antara kata dengan perbuatan. Seorang pemimpin mesti sanggup membuat keputusan sukar, mengekalkan kawalan emosi, dan menunjukkan rekod prestasi yang adil serta tekal. Paling utama, ia memerlukan kewibawaan moral (moral seriousness), bukannya sekadar pesona (charm).

Para Kapten Industri dan Peneraju Sektor Awam sekalian,

Confucius merumuskan idea ini dengan ringkas: "Pemimpin yang memerintah dengan etika dan nilai murni adalah ibarat Bintang Utara; ia kekal stabil di lokasinya, manakala bintang-bintang lain secara semula jadi akan menjajar di sekelilingnya."

Respectful fear atau Kegentaran Berasaskan Hormat berfungsi dengan cara yang sama - ia tidak diperoleh melalui paksaan, tetapi melalui penghormatan yang diraih. Apabila pemimpin membina kewibawaan moral, konsistensi, dan kawalan diri, organisasi akan menjajar secara semula jadi. Kepantasan meningkat, dan disiplin tetap utuh walaupun pemimpin tiada di sisi.

Inilah kekuatan sebenar seorang Pemimpin-Pengurus: membina kegentaran berasaskan hormat yang mengekalkan kecemerlangan melangkaui keberadaan fizikal kita di dalam sesebuah bilik.

Salam, anas zubedy

IRAN HAS LAUNCHED THOUSANDS OF DRONES AND MISSILES. BUT…

Iran has launched more than 5,000 drones and missiles in this conflict. Yet, based on what has been clearly verified so far, not a single school, hospital, or place of worship has been directly hit.

Yes, there have been civilian casualties. Yes, some strikes have landed in populated areas. But there is no consistent, credible evidence of deliberate targeting of these civilian institutions.

Now, contrast this with the US–Israel side. On the first day of the US–Israel attacks, a missile strike hit an elementary school in Minab, Iran, killing between 168 and 180 people—including more than 100 children. Reports identified 66 boys and 54 girls among the dead.

From the very beginning of this war, strikes have hit civilian infrastructure. Schools sheltering children have been struck. Hospitals have been damaged or rendered non-functional. Places of worship have not been spared. And this does not even account for the years of conflict in Gaza or its current devastating phase.

What is the most important distinction?

Iran’s strategy appears focused on military targets, with civilian harm being largely indirect. In contrast, the US–Israel strategy operates within urban battlefields where civilian infrastructure is repeatedly hit. Whether this is "justified" remains heavily debated, but the reports are clear: schools, hospitals, and civilian buildings have been impacted.

When it happens once, we may call it a mistake. When it happens repeatedly, it becomes a pattern. And when we see a pattern, can anyone be blamed for concluding that these actions are intentional?

The Chosen People?

More than 5,000 missiles and drones, yet not a single confirmed strike on a school, hospital, or house of worship. On the Iranian side, there appears to be a conscious effort to avoid civilian deaths. On the US–Israel side, children were killed on day one.

Coupled with the thousands of children killed in Gaza since October 7th and over the years, one is compelled to ask: while Zionist Israelis may claim to be God’s chosen people, are the Iranians the ones acting as such by avoiding the killing of children and civilians?

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

 

ZIONIST AMBITIONS, GLOBAL COLLAPSE

Soon, the world may come to realise that the ambitions of a few million Zionists to seize land risk pushing the global economy towards collapse, while costing countless innocent lives, especially children.

All this is enabled by politicians compromised by AIPAC, under a “bodoh sombong” US President.

So, what is the one thing the world must do right to stop this rot?

Peace,
Anas

THE THIRD FORCE FOR GE16

WHAT?

Our Core Belief

We are a nation of 34 million. We believe with certainty that we can find 222 of our best to lead us - leaders who are smart, ethical, competent, and free from lies and hypocrisy. This is our core belief.

We are MAHAL - Malaysians Against Hypocrisy and Lying.

We are the nation’s check and balance. We are not just voters. We are the conscience of this nation.

The Third Force is not a political party. It is citizens acting with discipline. It is how we think, how we judge, and how we act. We think using facts, not slogans. We care for all Malaysians, not just our group. We judge candidates based on character and competence. We refuse to give anyone a free ride. We vote above party lines and choose better candidates, even if they are not from our preferred side.

In fact, we are toughest on our own party leaders. We hold them to the highest standards. We are prepared to choose candidates we do not know over leaders who have betrayed us.

WHY?
The Need for the Third Force Now

We need the Third Force now because our politics has become predictable. We see divide and rule. We hear promises before elections. We witness the opposite after winning. This is not new, but it has become normalised.

The Third Force exists to break this cycle. We do this by remembering, by questioning, and by holding those in power accountable. We will vote out those who have played us before. To be fooled once is unfortunate. To be fooled again is our failure.

WHO?
The Third Force Is Us

The Third Force is not politicians and it is not political parties. It is us. We are Malaysians, young and old, across all races and religions. We are citizens who refuse to be manipulated.

We are those who think independently, who care about unity, and who are tired of hypocrisy and lies.

WHERE?
Everywhere We Are

The Third Force operates everywhere. It lives in our homes through family conversations, among friends in our daily discussions, online through what we choose to share or refuse to share, and in our constituencies when we engage candidates.

The Third Force is not a place. It is a way of thinking and acting. It lives in the hearts and minds of Malaysians with conscience.

WHEN?
From now to GE16 and after

We must act now. Not only during elections, but at all times. Before GE16, we study, discuss, and prepare. During GE16, we question, evaluate, and vote wisely. After GE16, we monitor, remind, and hold those elected accountable.

The Third Force is continuous. It is not seasonal.

In GE16, we will exercise our power. We will vote out as many as necessary who have lied or practised hypocrisy - cakap tak serupa bikin since the last elections. We are just being stupid if we still vote for them. We are not going to vote for the lesser evil. We are going to vote out the evil we know. We will stand with MAHAL - Malaysians Against Hypocrisy and Lying.

HOW?
Head, Heart and No Free Rides

We act with both the head and the heart.

With the head, we check facts, study track records, compare promises with past actions, and refuse to be misled by emotion or propaganda.

With the heart, we choose what is fair for all Malaysians, reject division based on race or religion, care for the vulnerable, and uphold unity and dignity.

We practise "No Free Rides." We do not give blind loyalty. We question even those we support. We demand clear commitments and we record what is promised.

After they win, we remember. We make sure they do, too! We follow up, compare words with actions, and speak up when they fail.

At the same time, we spread this mindset. We talk about it, share responsibly, build small groups, and influence those around us.

REMEMBER!

Dear Malaysians, we will not be divided. We will not be misled. We will not forget. We will think with our head. We will care with our heart. And we will give NO FREE RIDES.

We are The Third Force.

Peace,
Anas Zubedy

 

STARBIZ YESTERDAY - WHY LEADER-MANAGERS MUST CULTIVATE RESPECTFUL FEAR

 

DEAR CAPTAINS of Industry and Public Institutions,

The work of a Leader-Manager, especially that of a Chief Executive, is never easy.

Our foremost responsibility is to ensure that everyone in the organisation moves together toward a shared goal, aligned in direction, synchronised in pace, and advancing at a speed that outperforms the competition.

Balancing the strengths and weaknesses of each department while ensuring all divisions move in sync is demanding work. There is no permanent formula. The landscape shifts constantly. Every day requires recalibration. It is meaningless for sales to excel if production cannot fulfil orders. It is futile for marketing to win awards if operations and delivery systems fail. True leadership lies in orchestrating the whole, not celebrating isolated excellence. This is the burden and privilege of the Chief Executive.

One of the most important leadership traits we must cultivate is what I call respectful fear. Respectful fear is the internal reluctance to violate standards set by a leader who is trusted, consistent, and morally serious.

It is also the awareness that disappointing such a leader carries consequences, even if they are rarely displayed. It arises from an authority that is real but seldom exercised. Power exists, but it rarely needs to be used. This form of fear is rooted in moral authority and consistency, not title alone. It produces self-regulation and voluntary restraint. People act correctly not because they are monitored, but because they take the leader, the role, and the organisation seriously.

When respectful fear is present, the need for constant supervision declines. Micromanagement reduces. Decision-making accelerates because expectations are already understood. Leaders spend less time correcting basic behaviour and more time ensuring that work moves in the right direction and at the right pace. The organisation gains speed and coherence without increasing control.

More importantly, respectful fear lifts ethical and professional standards across the organisation. It creates strong culture without heavy enforcement. Trust is high, but so are expectations. This is not leadership that avoids discomfort or lowers standards in the name of harmony. It is leadership that is taken seriously.

Targets, KPIs, incentives, and policies remain necessary. Organisations will always rely on them. However, they work best when they sit beneath something stronger. Respectful fear operates at a higher level because effective leaders move organisations through internalised discipline. When this is present, systems reinforce behaviour rather than struggle to correct it.

Respectful fear gives rise to silent authority, power that does not need to announce itself. Authority is felt rather than asserted. Because standards and consequences are understood, leaders do not need constant reminders or visible enforcement. Influence operates consistently across the organisation.

At the level of task execution, silent authority ensures that shortcuts feel wrong. Quality is protected without inspection. Work is done properly even in the leader’s absence. For example, in a manufacturing firm, a production supervisor notices a minor deviation that could speed up output but risks compromising specifications. No one is watching. There is no audit scheduled. Yet he corrects it immediately because he knows the CEO’s standards on quality are non-negotiable. Not because of punishment, but because compromising that standard carries weight. The inspection department becomes a verification layer, not the primary safeguard.

At the level of team behaviour, culture replaces policing. Peer regulation emerges, and team members correct one another before issues escalate to management. Teams align themselves to goals, not merely to instructions. Consider a sales team where a sales team member begins to overpromise delivery timelines to secure deals. Before the issue reaches management, a colleague pulls him aside and says, “That is not how we operate here.” The correction happens horizontally, not vertically. The team protects the organisation’s credibility because the leader’s expectations are already internalised. Culture acts before compliance mechanisms are triggered.

At the level of individual performance, the internal bar rises. Motivation becomes intrinsic. Effort is driven by pride, responsibility, and ownership rather than pressure. Individuals move faster and more cleanly toward outcomes because they are self-directed. An analyst working independently on research that will drive execution decisions knows that flawed numbers will cascade into flawed action. No one is supervising. Yet he re-checks the data, tests the assumptions, and validates the findings before submission. He understands that credibility, once compromised, affects more than a spreadsheet. His discipline is not enforced. It is internal.

This is the leadership mechanism at work. Silent authority converts external control into internal commitment. When commitment is internal, performance scales without increasing supervision, and influence endures even in the leader’s absence. There can be no silent authority without respectful fear.

How then do Leader-Managers cultivate it?

One useful lens comes from a Chinese concept often referred to colloquially as “sat”, known in Cantonese as saat hei and in Mandarin as shā qì. It refers to a presence or aura that is immediately felt. People often describe it simply as, “He doesn’t have to say much, but the room quiets when he enters.” Sat expresses respectable fear. It is seriousness without theatrics, authority without noise, power without display.

This presence is not performed. It is built over time. It begins with authenticity and consistency between words and action. Leaders must be willing to make hard decisions and stand by them. Emotional control matters. Calm judgment carries more weight than volatility. Respectful fear is strengthened through a clear track record of consequences applied fairly and predictably. Above all, it requires moral seriousness rather than charm.

Dear Captains, Confucius captured this idea simply when he observed that a leader who governs by virtue is like the North Star, steady in its place, while others naturally align themselves around it. Respectful fear works in the same way. It is not imposed. It is earned. When leaders cultivate moral seriousness, consistency, and restraint, organisations align naturally. Speed increases without noise. Discipline holds even in the leader’s absence.

This is the true strength of the Leader-Manager: to build respectful fear that sustains performance long after authority leaves the room.

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

For previous articles go here - https://letusaddvalue.blogspot.com/2026/02/from-worklife-balance-to-worklife.html

 

ARE WOMEN INFERIOR? SHAH VERSUS AYATOLLAH

 

Many around the world, Malaysians included, have distorted, Western-influenced views of Iran and its leadership. Many are not willing to put in the effort to study deeper or seek information from balanced, non-partisan sources. Some naively accept propaganda from one side, while others adopt equally biased views from the other.

One common but often unexamined belief is that the Shah had a better position on women compared to the Ayatollah.

However, in a 1973 interview with Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, expressed views that reflected a clear belief in male superiority. While he acknowledged that women could be equal under the law, he argued that they were not equal in ability. He also emphasised that a woman’s value lay in being beautiful, graceful, and maintaining femininity.

In short, his remarks suggest that he saw women’s primary role as tied to appearance and charm rather than leadership or intellectual influence, revealing a deeply patriarchal outlook, if not implying women’s inferiority, despite his government’s broader modernising facade.

Watch the attached video to hear what the Ayatollah’s position was.

More importantly, we need to look at measurable data and facts. We must look at real outcomes.

Under the Shah, women’s education remained limited and uneven. Female literacy was only around 24% to 35%, meaning that over 60% of women were still illiterate, especially in rural areas. Even at higher levels, access was restricted, with women making up only about 28% of university students. This shows that while opportunities existed, they largely benefited urban and elite groups rather than the wider population. We must also remember that during the Shah’s time, no economic sanctions were imposed by the international community.

Under the Islamic Republic, including the Ayatollah’s leadership, education expanded dramatically across society. Female literacy rose to around 80% to 90% and above, with primary education completion reaching about 99% for girls. University participation saw an even sharper rise, increasing from about 3% in 1978 to around 59% and above, with women forming the majority of students in some years. This reflects a shift from limited access to mass education for women across the country. These achievements were made under strict international sanctions, with far fewer resources.

It is unfortunate that discussions are often reduced to dress codes, overshadowing more important issues. Focusing only on this is limiting and narrow. I have written about this before. If interested, you can read it here:
https://letusaddvalue.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-best-way-to-dress-quranic-point-of.html

We need to look at the larger picture.

Peace.

Anas

 

THE PROBLEM WITH WAR – Children Die

 

War must always be avoided, and fighting should only ever be for defence.

Each time I watch a video of a place being bombed, my first fear is this: innocent children are dying. In Gaza, thousands have died or are wounded for life, not just since October 7th, but for decades. At the start of the illegal war the US and Israel imposed on Iran, 66 boys and 54 girls aged 7 to 12 perished. Since then, we can be sure many more have. Innocent children in Iran, Lebanon and Israel. Yes, Israel too.

As far as I am concerned, the children of Israel are innocent. We cannot blame them for the amathia and distorted beliefs of their adults. These children are moulded into what they later become by the Zionist regime. They began innocent. They are shaped, conditioned, and taught to see ideas like Amalek as a God-given right.

We must remember that this is not new. It is a wicked approach used by many. Take Idi Amin in Uganda. Power was sustained not just by force, but by shaping the minds of those who carried it out. He drew in young, vulnerable recruits, cut them off from moral anchors, and made loyalty to him their only compass.

Brutality was not always formally taught as a “right,” but it was clearly rewarded and protected. Over time, this eroded all sense of right and wrong, turning violence into a tool of belonging and survival. When authority removes accountability and reshapes values, ordinary people can be conditioned to commit extraordinary harm.

War is for the uncivilised. Benjamin Netanyahu and his comrades are barbaric savages, especially those who go as far as invoking Amalek, are acting with a dangerous moral blindness. Coupled with a “bodoh sombong” US President Donald Trump, who appears to act from misguided certainty or willful ignorance, we have a potent formula for senseless war, needless destruction, and catastrophic loss of human life.

The problem with war is simple.

Children die.

Peace.

Anas

 

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.

THE QURAN - SUNNI, SHIA & IBADIYAH

 

A few days ago, during a speech addressing regional tensions in the Middle East and the conflict involving Iran, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called on Muslims to reject sectarian divisions and unite as one community. His message stressed a simple but powerful point:

“We do not have a religion like Sunnism or Shiism. We have only one religion, and that is Islam.”

He further emphasised that Muslims should not divide themselves by sect or ethnicity. Turks, Arabs, Sunnis, Shias, Kurds and others, he said, should not be treated as separate identities when it comes to faith.

In essence, Erdogan reminded Muslim leaders and audiences of a fundamental principle. There is no Sunnism or Shiism as separate religions. There is only Islam. Muslims should see themselves first and foremost as Muslims, not as members of competing sects.

Many people may not realise that besides the Sunni and Shia traditions, there is also a third historical branch of Islam known as Ibadiyah. Some historians trace its origins to the very early period of Islamic history, emerging from debates that followed the first political conflicts among Muslims. Today, the Ibadi community is found mainly in Oman, where it forms the majority of the population, with smaller communities in parts of North and East Africa.

At the same time, it is important to understand that the Muslim world is far more diverse than these three broad groupings suggest. Within both Sunni and Shia traditions there are numerous schools of thought, theological orientations and spiritual movements. Among Sunnis, for example, there are the well known legal schools such as Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i and Hanbali, alongside movements often described as Salafi or Wahhabi. Within the Shia tradition there are branches such as the Twelvers, Ismailis and Zaidis.

Beyond these distinctions, there are also Sufi traditions that emphasise spirituality and inner purification, and whose followers may come from either Sunni or Shia backgrounds. In recent times there are also Muslims who identify themselves primarily as Qur’an focused or Qur’anist, placing particular emphasis on the Qur’an as the central source of guidance.

All of this reminds us that the Muslim community has historically contained a wide range of interpretations, schools and spiritual paths. Yet despite these differences, we all share the same foundational testimony of faith and belong to the broader community of Islam.

While Erdogan’s rhetoric has appeared periodically in Turkish diplomacy, especially when Ankara positions itself as a bridge across the Muslim world, the message is timely. The Sunni Shia divide has long shaped the politics of the Middle East, often reinforced by rivalries between states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Erdogan’s framing seeks to shift the focus back to a more fundamental principle: placing the Ummah first, recognising the shared history of early Islam, and strengthening unity at a time when division only weakens Muslim societies.

Personally, I have always been open to learning from all these different groupings within Islam. I listen, study and reflect, choosing what appears best while using the Qur’an as the primary guide. The Qur’an itself encourages such an approach. In Qur’an 39:18, it praises:

“Those who listen to speech and follow the best of it. Those are the ones Allah has guided, and those are people of understanding.”

The Qur’an is also clear in warning Muslims against sectarian division and repeatedly stresses the brotherhood of believers. Verses such as 3:103, 3:105, 6:159, 49:10 and 42:13 all caution against splitting the religion into competing factions.

Yet like many crucial teachings in the Qur’an, it does not merely issue a pronouncement. It also explains what sectarianism actually looks like.

Two verses capture this clearly.

“Of those who have divided their religion and become sects, every faction rejoicing in what it has.”
Qur’an 30:32

“And indeed this, your religion, is one religion, and I am your Lord, so fear Me. But they divided their affair among themselves into sects, each faction rejoicing in what it has.”
Qur’an 23:52–53

The first verse describes a psychological reality of sectarianism. Each group becomes convinced that its own interpretation is the correct one and celebrates it. The second verse is even stronger. It begins by affirming that the religion is one, and then explains how people later divide it into sects, each believing that it alone is right.

What the Qur’an criticises here is the arrogance of sectarian certainty, the belief that one group has a monopoly over truth and over Allah’s guidance. The Qur’an recognises that differences of opinion will always exist. Human beings think, interpret and disagree. That is part of how we were created. What the Qur’an warns against is allowing those differences to grow into rigid camps that believe only they are right and everyone else is misguided. When sectarian arrogance goes too far, some begin to label all those outside their own school of thought as deviationists, or even worse, declare them unbelievers through the practice known as takfir. History has shown that once communities reach that stage, unity collapses and conflict soon follows.

The Qur’anic method does not merely issue a decree. It also explains what the problem actually looks like and the criteria by which we should understand it. This approach appears repeatedly throughout the Qur’an.

Take for example Qur’an 5:82, which speaks about Christians:

“You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers to be the Jews and those who associate others with Allah; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, ‘We are Christians.’ That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant.”

While the Qur’an notes that Christians were often among the most friendly or compassionate toward Muslims during the time of the Prophet, it does not leave the statement unexplained. The verse immediately gives the reason. It points to character traits rather than identity alone. It highlights humility, spiritual devotion and the absence of arrogance. In other words, the Qur’an is teaching a broader principle. Anyone, not only Christians, who possesses these qualities is more likely to approach others with kindness and goodwill. Yes, Jews included.

Another important example of this Qur’anic approach is the instruction for Muslims to obey and follow the Prophet. Numerous verses stress this, including Qur’an 33:21, 3:31, 4:80, 4:59, and 59:7. Yet the criteria for how to follow him can be seen in Qur’an 7:158 where the Qur’an declares:

“Say, ‘O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, [from Him] to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death.’ So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him that you may be guided.”

So, the way to follow the Prophet is to believe in Allah and His words, the Qur’an. Elsewhere the Qur’an explains:

“And We have not revealed to you the Book except for you to make clear to them that wherein they have differed and as guidance and mercy for a people who believe.” - Qur’an 16:64

Thus, whether we are Sunni, Shia, Ibadiyah, Salafi, Wahhabi, Sufi, Deobandi, Barelvi, Ismaili, Zaidi, Qur’an focused or belong to any other school or movement within Islam, let us support Erdogan’s call. The Qur’an warns us about becoming groups that rejoice in their own faction while forgetting that the religion is one. Let us remain Muslims first. And, when we differ, we refer back to the Quran.

Peace,
anas