Is Anwar Delusional on his Ministers’ Performance?

 

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has given all ministers in his Cabinet a solid ‘A’ grade for their midterm performance so far. He made the commendation during a town-hall event named Rancakkan Madani at Dataran Putrajaya recently. At the event, Anwar said the ministers’ effectiveness could be judged by whether national policies focused on human values have helped improve Malaysians’ overall well-being instead of solely relying on economic figures.

 

Source: https://www.slideshare.net

None of the ministers lagged behind. He analysed every ministry in detail.  Anwar also cited recent successes such as economic growth, the Ringgit’s appreciation, and organising the 46th and 47th ASEAN Summit as examples of his scorecard. 

Anwar’s comments come at a time where the Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition experienced its worst electoral performance in history, with PKR winning a single seat while DAP was completely annihilated in the recent Sabah state election. The pressure was further amped up when MCA president Wee Ka Siong urged Anwar to remove Education Minister Fadhlina Sidek from her position. 

It is not just Fadhlina, there is the Home Minister, the Transport Minister and a few others who are in the C, D, E or F categories. No one scored a solid “A”. And he as the PM had only a “C” according to me. Why? Because no major reforms, no new initiatives, no change to race and religion policies and no major war on corruption. If the PM wants to win the next GE, he and his ministers have to do much better! 

Reference:

Anwar Pleased with Ministers’ Performance So Far, Said All of Them Did Well, Sarah Yeoh, weirdkaya.com, 8 December 2025

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear readers,

Our blog will be taking a break from 15 December 2025. We will back on 12 January 2026!

SEASON'S GREETINGS & HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

KPIs 4 CEOs

 

Reference:

Ipreneur Startup Accelerator added a photo to the album: CHEAT SHEET TEMPLATES FOR CO FOUNDERS, Facebook, 27 November 2023 

Oil Prices Likely to Remain Under Pressure in 2026!

 

The global crude oil market will enter 2026 on a weaker footing. This is because the combined effects of sustained high supply, subdued demand growth, and ongoing global energy transition continue to exert downward pressure on prices. Despite intermittent geopolitical issues, the fundamental imbalance between supply and demand is expected to remain a dominating factor in price movements next year. MARC Ratings forecasts Brent crude prices to average between USD60 per barrel (bbl) and USD70/bbl in 2026, marking a further moderation from 2025 forecast levels of around USD68/bbl–USD69/bbl (year-to-date October 2025: USD69.30/bbl).

 

Supply dynamics will remain a key determinant of oil price direction. OPEC+ is expected to gradually ease its voluntary production cuts, which began in May 2025 and further relaxed in September 2025. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates, are expected to lead supply normalisation, with a collective output of around 17.7 million barrels per day (mbpd) to the global supply in November 2025 (2024 average: 15.7 mbpd). At the same time, non-OPEC producers, particularly the United States (US), are projected to sustain their output. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), US crude oil production could remain unchanged at 13.5 mbpd in 2026, supported by government policies to enhance energy security as well as continued efficiency gains and cost optimisation. Combined, these developments are expected to support the total global oil supply, with production forecast to be at 107.2 mbpd in 2026 (2025: 105.9 mbpd), representing an annual growth rate of 1.2% (2025: 2.6%).

 

On the demand side, global consumption of oil is anticipated to remain sluggish, constrained by the structural shift towards renewable energy and improvements in energy efficiency. China, which accounts for around 16% of global consumption, continues to face headwinds from the weak property and manufacturing sectors, while accelerating its efforts to decarbonise. The EIA projects Chinese oil demand growth to be a mere 1.4% in 2026 (2025: -1.5%) compared to an average of around 3.5% during the post-pandemic rebound years. Elsewhere, demand in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) economies will likely remain subdued due to ongoing electrification of transport and energy efficiency measures, while India may continue to provide a modest offset through steady consumption growth. India is expected to increase its demand by 1 mbpd, the largest increment globally. Overall, global oil demand growth is projected to reach 105.1 mbpd in 2026, expanding from the 104.0 mbpd in 2025, relatively sustaining the growth pace at 1.1% (2025: 1.0%).

 

The demand/supply ratio is projected to remain below parity in 2026, as production is expected to exceed consumption, consistent with the persistent oversupply trend. This marks a clear shift from the tight market conditions of 2022. The expected moderation in the ratio to around 0.96–0.97 reflects the combined effects of steady non-OPEC output, easing OPEC+ cuts, and soft demand growth.

 

MARC Ratings expects Brent oil prices to remain within the USD60/bbl–USD70/bbl range in 2026. Upside risks include the escalation of geopolitical conflicts involving major producers, a slower-than-anticipated return of OPEC+ supply, or stronger-than-expected global economic growth. Conversely, downside risks stem from a faster recovery of OPEC+ output, persistent oversupply, or accelerated clean energy adoption that further weakens demand. Overall, the crude oil market in 2026 is likely to remain characterised by ample supply, cautious demand, and constrained price upside, a reflection of a global energy system in gradual transition.  

 

 

Reference:

MARC Ratings Press Announcement: Oil Prices to Stay Under Pressure in 2026,
12 November 2025

Is Anthony Loke’s Express Reform Agenda Real?

 

“As the Secretary-General of the party, I take full responsibility for the shortcomings and the failure of DAP to win any seats in the 17th Sabah State Election,” Loke said right after the Sabah election results were announced. Now, when Western leaders say they are taking full responsibility, you can usually expect a resignation letter the next day. When Japanese or Korean leaders declare it, the consequences may be even more severe.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Sabah

 

When Malaysian politicians say it, however, it probably just means they might have heard the word uttered somewhere. Maybe they read it in an article or saw it in a TV drama, thought it was a neat phrase and assumed that saying it would impress everyone.  

Loke returned with another declaration – this time promising that the DAP will “accelerate the reform agenda in the next six months”. After an emergency central committee meeting, he proudly announced: “After thorough reflection, we will compile all feedback received and work closely with the prime minister (Anwar Ibrahim) to accelerate the reform agenda over the next six months.” Is this a Tamil movie with Rajnikanth? 

The way Loke is promising reform to be delivered in six months, you’d think he and Anwar are already paragons of reform, fully refined, fully reformed. Reform is slow because we plebs are slow, we can’t keep up with the political aristocrats, and that is why the political aristocrats most graciously move at a slower pace just so that we can keep up.  

Now that Sabah voters have clearly told them they are dissatisfied with the pace of reform, Loke seems to suggest he and Anwar will finally run at full speed – like they are the Usain Bolts of Reformasi.  The delusion is stunning. Where does this delusion come from? 

This delusional attitude comes from three places:

 

·        Conceit – believing you’re far better than you really are

·        Ignorance – being completely clueless about the true scale of the obstacles

·        Disrespect – assuming successful nations reformed themselves through simple tricks you can imitate in half a year 

A person who thinks they can pass exam finals with a week of studying or become a millionaire through gambling usually ends up failing exams and owing Ah Longs. 

Nothing will change, it may actually get worse because when someone thinks reforms can be done in six months he needs medical help. Even if it is possible, why don’t he list the reforms that will be done within six months. In reality, expect the night to get darker or the rain to get heavier before any reforms are done! 

Reference:

Why Anthony Loke’s ‘express reform in six months’ is doomed to fail, Nehru Sathia Moorthy, Aliran, 4 December 2025

Is PM a Statesman Abroad and a Caretaker at Home?

 

This article is based on a blog article by Betty Teh.

If you watch Anwar Ibrahim on the ASEAN stage or at the UN: he is fluent, fearless, a regional elder statesman lecturing superpowers on Gaza or peace. At home, the same man struggles to pass a budget, cannot fire a single underperforming minister, and spends half his week flying to Kuching or Kota Kinabalu to prevent the government from collapsing. 

Is this a contradiction in personality? The difference is not character; it is structural. Is it a logical consequence of coalition mathematics? 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org

Coalition politics has hollowed, turned what was once the federation’s most authoritative office into a eunuch. This transformation, is from the 2018 electoral fracture. From Tunku Abdul Rahman to Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysian prime ministers wielded near absolute control within their coalitions. Today, the job is a perpetual negotiation. The Prime Minister is no longer the architect of national destiny; he is a coalition manager, juggling incompatible agendas from partners who view governance as a zero-sum extraction game. A Malaysian Prime Minister today is not a leader. He is a coalition manager, a professional negotiator. 

The asymmetry is starkest in foreign policy versus domestic affairs. Abroad, Anwar operates in a vacuum of vetoes. No political warlord is present to demand concessions. No GPS chief to text “remember MA63”. No DAP conservative threatens to bolt over on Palestine. The international arena allows him to project Malaysia’s intent unfiltered a moderate Muslim democracy punching above its weight. It is theatre without scriptwriters, where he can afford moral clarity because the stakes are symbolic, not existential. 

At home, every utterance is impacted by a cabinet that resembles a fragile Tower of Pisa. The “unity government” 19 parties stitched together post GE15 is less an administration than a non-aggression pact.  The result? Domestic policy is a graveyard of intent. A strong government derives power from clarity of purpose: “This is our mandate; this is the timeline.” Coalitions, by nature, erode that.

 

Separating the Attorney General from the Public Prosecutor? Stalled, to avoid accelerating trials that could topple some partners. Ending race-based quotas? Whispered in private, abandoned in public to placate Malay nationalists. Survival supplants strategy. The Prime Minister cannot fire an incompetent minister without risking a defection cascade. He cannot enforce fiscal discipline if it cuts Borneo’s subsidies. He cannot advance climate policy if it threatens Sarawak’s oil or timber interests. Even anti-corruption, once PH’s rallying cry, is neutered: high profile cases crawl at glacial pace. This is not governance; it is arbitrage, where every decision is priced in parliamentary votes. 

Compare this to coalitions that function. Australia’s Liberal National pact succeeds because both parties share a centre right worldview: free markets, rural priorities, conservative values. Their agreements are public, detailed, and enforceable, allowing the Prime Minister to lead without daily renegotiation. Germany’s traffic light coalitions (SPD-Greens-FDP) produce 200-page contracts that pre-resolve disputes, anchoring the Chancellor’s authority in shared progressive intent. Japan’s LDP dominated alliances marginalize junior partners, preserving executive primacy. 

Malaysia’s model is the inverse: a patchwork of ideological antagonists. From hudud to secular education, to Bumiputera patronage, reformist populism or regional autonomy. Coalition works only when parties share a similar ideology. Malaysia’s coalitions are marriages of convenience, not principle. 

As Betty Teh puts it, this is a political science term for “veto player proliferation.” Each coalition fragment becomes a gatekeeper, diluting executive intent until only the lowest common denominator remains - don’t collapse. Anwar’s government holds 148 seats but bleeding support. 

The consequences cascade. Voter cynicism spikes and turnout dipped to 61 percent in Sabah, foreshadowing GE16 apathy. Institutional decay accelerates, gerrymandering persists, political financing stays opaque, judicial independence remains aspirational. Economic growth sputters under policy inconsistency; foreign investors eye Indonesia’s decisiveness instead. 

Do we elect negotiators or government? Eventually it is assembled like IKEA furniture. And with the wrong screws missing parts and an instruction manual written in 5 different languages, it works like an intermittent wiper. Anwar knows this. His partners know this. The rakyat must internalize it: we have traded statesmen for caretakers, vision for vigilance. The premiership, once a decision-making office, is now a tightrope. And in Malaysia’s endless balancing act, the only sure winner is inertia. 

Reference:

The Hollow Crown, Why Malaysia’s Prime Minister Is a Statesman Abroad and a Caretaker at Home, Betty Teh, 4 December 2025

 

10 Leadership Mistakes That Burn Out Your Team

 

Reference:

Jen Blandos’ post on Linkedin

Can We Do With More Efficient Meetings?

 

Walk into any government department and ask to see an officer. The standard reply is almost predictable: “He’s at a meeting.” Are work done through meetings? 

Anyway, meetings are supposed to solve problems, make decisions, and move organisations forward. But Malaysian civil service (or even private sector), meetings have become rituals held for their own sake. They are long, unfocused, repetitive, and often end with no decision made. Everyone walks out with the same unresolved issues they walked in with.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org

 Why Are Our Meetings So Unproductive? 

1. Attendees come unprepared or half-prepared

Working papers are circulated, yet many participants arrive without reading them. Some flip through the documents only when the meeting begins. How can serious, in-depth decisions be made when the very people responsible for making them have not done the basic homework? 

2. The people in the room lack authority.

This is perhaps the biggest flaw. Too often, officers are sent as substitutes at the last minute — with no mandate to speak, decide, or commit. They are merely note takers. When decisions cannot be made, everything gets postponed to the next meeting… and then the next. 

3. Even the Chair is sometimes not ready.

A meeting cannot be productive when the person leading it has not previewed the working papers, has no clear agenda, or allows the discussion to wander. When the Chair is ineffective, the meeting becomes a talking shop (or a makan shop) instead of a decision-making platform. 

In my previous place of work, some members of the highest Credit Committee in the bank came to the meeting without reading the credit papers.  How do you know? By the way they flip the pages and the questions they ask. 

4. Newly formed “high-level committees” lose steam quickly.

At the first meeting, the big names show up. At the second, a few still attend. By the third, they send junior officers with no clout. The quality of discussion drops instantly, and the urgency that triggered the formation of the committee evaporates. 

5. Pre-council meetings

There is a tendency for the government officers to meet prior to any private sector party is invited into a meeting room. These pre-meetings are held on the same day and usually takes an hour or more before a proper meeting starts. This is highly inefficient. Private sector invitees are held-up for that one hour or more. Worse is when after the pre-meeting, the chairman decides to postpone the meeting because a key officer from a Ministry is unable to attend. He or she has another, more urgent meeting to attend. “Minta maaf” is not the answer. Somebody must pay! 

Today, few are held accountable for poor-quality proposals, sloppy preparation, or empty participation. And because promotions are rarely linked to effective performance at these committees, officers feel little pressure to contribute meaningfully. 

If Malaysia wants a more efficient government and private sector, we must rethink our meeting culture. Trim the number of committees. Reduce unnecessary meetings. Ensure attendees are prepared and are decision-makers. And hold meetings within a allocated time of say, one hour. 

The public deserves better than a system bogged down by endless, unproductive discussions. We must create a culture where meetings are not places to delay decisions, but platforms to make them. It’s time we raise the bar. 

Reference:

Streamlining Meetings: A Call for Real Change in the Way We Work, Pola Singh, https://newswav.com, 28 November 2025