This is adapted from P Ramasamy on foreign "approach"
For Third Tier, wannabe global leaders, a phone conversation with US President Trump matters. The absence of a phone conversation between Trump and any wannabe Third Tier global leader would not be inconsequential. Following his inauguration Trump prioritized calls with leaders he deemed strategically significant. In Southeast Asia, he spoke to Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto.
Benua Asia Tenggalam however, did not make the cut. Trump’s advisors reportedly dismissed the idea of engaging with Benua Asia Tenggalam as it was not considered a strategic priority.
Making things worse, the Ambassador's public display of a “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) placard was a diplomatic misstep, symbolizing unnecessary 'bodek' towards the U.S. If nothing else, this lapse alone could justify recalling the Ambassador.
Trump's lack of recognition of Benua Asia Tenggalam contrasts with their own portrayal of their leader as a global leader.
Over the past two years, the frequent travels and vocal support for Hamas have tarnished the international profile. Taking credit for a non-existent role in the ceasefire discussions and pledging financial aid for reconstruction, despite pressing domestic issues such as inadequate public hospitals, housing shortages, and mounting national debt. Where these funds will come from remains unclear.
If he was truly a significant global leader, the U.S. president would have acknowledged him, most certainly. But he is not. The absence of a phone call from Trump suggests that their international stature is more self-promotional than substantive. Syok sendiri.
The inability to even secure a telephone call to President Trump exposes the gap between their self boosting rhetoric and the reality of their zero global influence. In contrast even Sheikh Hasina, the deposed prime minister of Bangladesh, now in exile in India, was able to talk to President Trump on the phone.
Their failure to secure a direct conversation with Trump reflects their diminished diplomatic leverage. They sought to position themselves as champion of Hamas, claiming credit for diplomatic efforts and pledging financial aid. However, these commitments remain largely symbolic. Their rhetoric on Palestine may have contributed to the diplomatic sidelining by major powers.
The decision to appoint the corrupted former Thai Prime Minister as an adviser has raised concerns. The former Thai PM's fraught relationship with Thailand’s monarchy makes him a contentious choice, potentially straining Thailand relations.
Critics question why they did not appoint a qualified local for the role, further casting doubt on their judgment in regional diplomacy.
Persistent regional conflicts, such as the ethnic insurgency in southern Thailand and the Myanmar crisis, remain unresolved. The past mediation efforts—especially in the Thai-Muslim conflict—have been largely ineffective.
If they are struggling to manage domestic ethnic and religious divisions, their ability to steer ASEAN toward conflict resolution is doubtful. Despite lofty promises, their domestic leadership has fallen short, with stalled reforms and growing political disillusionment.
ASEAN is likely to follow a similar trajectory—characterized by rhetoric rather than meaningful progress. Any notions that they will reshape ASEAN appears ridiculous. In the end, everything will pass with no defining impact. If the domestic non-governance is any indicator, the regional leadership will be just as underwhelming.
