Hostage theatre: Trump showing Ramaphosa articles of the alleged genocide of white people in South Africa before screening the videos at the White House. Reuters

IT’S been called Ambush Diplomacy – where the intention is to put unfortunate world leaders visiting the White House in an embarrassing spot in front of the rolling cameras.

There are even questions planted to be asked by the loyal right-wing media whose credentials and right to be in the White House pool is being questioned by the mainstream press.

The biggest victim so far has been Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He landed in Washington DC expecting reassurances about continued military support in Ukraine’s war against Russia.

Instead, he found himself seated next to President Donald Trump at a hastily-arranged press conference, where the latter announced – without warning – that Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) countries “better start paying up, or maybe we will just take a break from defending Europe”.

If that wasn’t bad enough, Trump’s political wolves were unleashed and they barked at Zelenskyy for being “ungrateful” and “disrespectful”.

A reporter even asked why the Ukrainian president was not dressed in a suit and tie instead of his military-style black sweatshirt.

Zelenskyy was not just flustered – he was publicly embarrassed.

But the most bizarre episode so far came during the visit of South African President Cyril Rama-phosa last week.

He had arrived hoping to discuss tariff reduction, economic cooperation, and energy partnerships.

Trump instead launched into an unscripted rant – or maybe it was scripted – about conspiracies of a “white genocide’’ in South Africa amid tensions over Washington’s resettlement of white Afrikaners in the US.

Trump asked for the lights in the meeting room to be dimmed and Ramaphosa was shown a lengthy video with chants of “shoot the Boer [white farmer]’’. The African leader rightly insisted that such acts do not represent government policy.

It’s just like showing Trump videos of white rednecks ranting racist slogans – he would have also said they do not represent the entire United States.

These fringe lunatics exist everywhere, including in Malaysia, with their outrageous racial and religious remarks against minorities, but they are just the irritating loud minority.

There are now news reports that said that some of the pictures showed by Trump included one that actually took place in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

What is taking place at the White House isn’t diplomacy. It is downright bullying and meddling.

This is also hostage theatre. These leaders don’t appear to be visiting a world superpower so much as surviving an elaborate social experiment.

It is one man claiming that Greenland belongs to the US and that Canada is part of the US. All the gulfs have been renamed too.

Behind the scenes, embarrassed State Department officials are reportedly reduced to doing damage control, issuing clarifications, apologies, and sometimes outright denials in the wake of each press spectacle.

US diplomats, who are friends of mine stationed in several countries, have told me privately that they cannot even tell their insecure colleagues if some of them would still have their jobs next week.

As government servants, they serve the government of the day, and it is unfortunate that anger has been directed at them, as these embassy officials represent their country.

They know this is not how normal international relations should be conducted. A host does not embarrass his guests in front of the media.

When foreign leaders arrive at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they come expecting protocol, policy, perhaps even a joint press conference, and at least a press statement.

What they get is a “three- act tragicomedy of confusion, coercion, and camera flashes” as one report rightly put it.

Certainly, Chinese President Xi Jinping or Russian President Vladimir Putin would not allow themselves to be subjected to such theatrics if they meet Trump.

Like all bullies, Trump chooses his victims. They are usually the weaker leaders over whom he has leverage.

The powerful rich Arabs meet him in their traditional robes and sandals – and Trump’s boys wouldn’t dare to even squeak about dress code.

Try criticising Saudi Arabia’s Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, or MBS as he is known.

Would Trump dare?

Trump, of course, is delighted when his guests find themselves in such uncomfortable positions.

He views these encounters not as international negotiations but as opportunities for brand extension. Every foreign leader becomes a backdrop for his self-congratulatory and talking-down monologue.

International relations has become a kind of transactional show business, where allies are cast based on loyalty and flattery, and facts are optional props.

The implications of all this is his victims have chosen to play down these provocations and humiliation for fear of offending the President.

It may be good for Trump’s ego but we know how it ends: alliances strained, trust eroded, adversaries emboldened.

Brand USA has also been damaged in the process.

For a long time, an invitation to the White House and a photo with the American president has been a prized opportunity for any foreign leader.

Now, many are asking if it is worth being given an open dressing down by Trump.

Wider meaning: Ordinary citizens have no say in party polls but we surely follow them with great interest as the outcome does have a broader implication for our lives. — AZMAN GHANI/The Star

WHEN elections come around, it’s only natural that the media focus on the heat and emotions generated from the campaigns.

The campaigning for the PKR polls that is entering its final lap is no exception. After all, it is the personality clashes and factionalism, real or imagined, that “sell” the news stories.

The storylines always seem to be about who is aligned with whom, and who is gaining ground. However, this focus misses the big picture.

Party elections should not just be reduced to self-serving squabbles among feuding candidates.

Reporters are also often guilty of asking leading questions, like whether the contests would lead to a split in the party.

Surely they can’t expect their interviewees to say “Yes, it would lead to a disastrous divide”. They just have to play coy.

The core purpose of democratic elections is to offer meaningful choices. That is the essence of it.

Elections are fundamentally about choices, not splits, it’s that simple.

If the contenders do not handle the competition well, and reduce it to mud-slinging bickering, then it merely reflects on the immaturity or selfishness of the contender.

Incumbents, in any position, should expect to be challenged. Surely they do not believe they can stay on in their seats forever?

As with all elections, there will be winners and losers.

Elections should be a time when the electors are able to weigh competing visions, evaluate policies, and decide which leaders are best equipped to address the challenges they face.

When the narrative focuses disproportionately on who’s fighting whom, it drowns out the debates that actually matter, such as how leaders can elevate the party and set future directions, especially in attracting women and youth voters, and improving governance.

The real questions are: What are their values and visions of leadership? As one candidate rightly put it – are party leaders, those holding government posts, accessible now?

Even members of the media have asked the same questions when their calls go unanswered, in stark contrast to the days when they were wooed by these “wannabe leaders”.

Party voters should scrutinise and evaluate if their candidates, especially if they are holding government posts, are actually performing competently.

The ordinary citizens have no say in party polls but we surely follow them with great interest as the outcome does have a broader implication for our lives.

The outcome of the PKR polls will not just shape the party’s future but potentially the national political landscape.

This party election will likely put in motion the succession plan of “who after Anwar Ibrahim”.

When contenders do not know how to conduct themselves appropriately in what is essentially an internal affair, it will breed public cynicism and alienate the general public, reinforcing the perception that politics is little more than an egotistical dispute.

In doing so, it undermines trust in democratic institutions and discourages informed participation.

The media has a responsibility not just to report but to inform, so reporters need to frame the right questions, which means shifting the spotlight to the real issues at stake.

What are the candidates proposing and how will their proposals impact the party, and by extension, the country?

Are reformists principles still burning and who is re-igniting the fire if they aren’t?

What are the difficulties and obstacles faced by PKR in wanting to carry out electoral promises, now that it is in government?

How should PKR better position itself within the larger unity government, and would the partners break away from this arranged coalition in the next general election?

These may be uncomfortable questions but PKR has to deal with them, even if it is internally.

Once the PKR elections are over, the newly elected leaders will have to set their attention on the general election, which is less than two years away.

Many Malaysians often forget that the PKR is a young, multiracial party that has created history by leading the Federal Government. It has not been an easy path when race and religion still dominate national politics.

Like everything else in life, there are never any perfect choices.

But elections are about choices – whether they are party or national polls. And we decide what we get. initial projection of 5% growth for Malaysia this year no thanks to global trade tensions.

There’s also a possibility that the government will increase spending to counter headwinds from US-imposed levies, Christian De Guzman, senior vice-president at Moody’s, said, according to Bloomberg.

“If the global economic outlook were to turn very significantly and the government would perhaps take measures to offset some of that weakening in the global economy, they could perhaps delay or postpone the petrol subsidy re-targeting,” he said.

He was referring to the government’s plans to end blanket subsidies for the country’s most popular gasoline by mid-year.

“The risks to fiscal consolidation are there,” he said in the interview on Monday.

Malaysia has since 2004 enjoyed an A3 rating at Moody’s – the highest among peers in developing South-East Asia.

The report said that while our credit score has withstood the fallout from the 2008 global financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic, the blow from US tariffs clouds the country’s prospects.

Moody, in fact, changed its outlook for Thailand to negative just last week, citing potential impact from higher levies.

Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, meanwhile, mastered the geopolitical narrative effectively to win handsomely in the 2025 elections.

I am not sure if our voters would want to hear the implications of tariffs for Malaysia as an issue at ceramah gatherings. Race and religion are likely to continue to be the selling point.

What is certain is that the majority of PAS leaders are not competent enough to talk about the economy, let alone negotiate in Washington DC.

In Singapore, government leaders are often cautious and measured in their speeches, preferring to assure and comfort their people. However, during the recent campaigning, Wong framed these developments not as distant economic shifts, but as immediate national concerns.

In simple language he frightened the voters sufficiently to send the message that they have to vote for PAP as an experienced and steady party in government, and that it was not the time to be politically adventurous.

Wong went on the offensive by tying renewed US tariffs directly to Singapore’s domestic wellbeing – highlighting potential disruptions to supply chains, cost of living pressures, and long-term economic competitiveness.

More critically, he used these threats to draw a stark contrast between his administration’s seasoned leadership and what he portrayed as the untested alternatives offered by the opposition.

The key points were on Singapore’s position in an increasingly unstable world, keeping jobs, a lower economic growth, and inflation – but also how to keep Singapore economically relevant and diplomatically balanced.

The election outcome underscored the strategy’s success: the PAP increased its vote share to 65.6% – up from 61% in 2020 – and secured 87 of 97 seats. Opposition gains remained modest, with the Workers’ Party continuing to hold a small but stable minority.

In Malaysia, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has spoken widely on the tariff issues and even convened a special Dewan Rakyat meeting to address our lawmakers on financial support for small and medium enterprises.

Investment, Trade and Industries Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Zafrul Aziz must be commended for his regular video-clips on the tariff issues with simple, easy to understand narratives without the economic jargon.

On point: Anwar and Zafrul after the special Dewan Rakyat meeting to address Trump’s tariffs. They have been working hard to communicate with the public on the issue. — Bernama

LET’S face it – the world economy will never be the same again – and that includes Malaysia as well – following the implementation of the reciprocal tariffs by the Trump administration even if they are reduced or eliminated.

Malaysia will face strong economic headwinds and while the ordinary Malaysian may still not feel it, they will eventually.

So it is better that our leaders prepare our citizens for the implications of the long-term shifts that are already challenging global trade dynamics and geopolitical trust.

Unfortunately, most of our Malaysian politicians are still engrossed in playing up inconsequential issues to win attention.

Some are still squabbling over whether they are more Malay or Malaysian while the world economy is crumbling.

The World Bank has projected our 2025 GDP growth rate to be reduced to 3.9%, lower than Bank Negara’s current projection of 4.5% to 5.5%.

Last week, Moody’s Investors Service said the tariff shocks posed a major threat to Malaysia’s sovereign credit ratings.

The ratings firm sees downside risks to its initial projection of 5% growth for Malaysia this year no thanks to global trade tensions.

There’s also a possibility that the government will increase spending to counter headwinds from US-imposed levies, Christian De Guzman, senior vice-president at Moody’s, said, according to Bloomberg.

“If the global economic outlook were to turn very significantly and the government would perhaps take measures to offset some of that weakening in the global economy, they could perhaps delay or postpone the petrol subsidy re-targeting,” he said.

He was referring to the government’s plans to end blanket subsidies for the country’s most popular gasoline by mid-year.

“The risks to fiscal consolidation are there,” he said in the interview on Monday.

Malaysia has since 2004 enjoyed an A3 rating at Moody’s – the highest among peers in developing South-East Asia.

The report said that while our credit score has withstood the fallout from the 2008 global financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic, the blow from US tariffs clouds the country’s prospects.

Moody, in fact, changed its outlook for Thailand to negative just last week, citing potential impact from higher levies.

Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, meanwhile, mastered the geopolitical narrative effectively to win handsomely in the 2025 elections.

I am not sure if our voters would want to hear the implications of tariffs for Malaysia as an issue at ceramah gatherings. Race and religion are likely to continue to be the selling point.

What is certain is that the majority of PAS leaders are not competent enough to talk about the economy, let alone negotiate in Washington DC.

In Singapore, government leaders are often cautious and measured in their speeches, preferring to assure and comfort their people. However, during the recent campaigning, Wong framed these developments not as distant economic shifts, but as immediate national concerns.

In simple language he frightened the voters sufficiently to send the message that they have to vote for PAP as an experienced and steady party in government, and that it was not the time to be politically adventurous.

Wong went on the offensive by tying renewed US tariffs directly to Singapore’s domestic wellbeing – highlighting potential disruptions to supply chains, cost of living pressures, and long-term economic competitiveness.

More critically, he used these threats to draw a stark contrast between his administration’s seasoned leadership and what he portrayed as the untested alternatives offered by the opposition.

The key points were on Singapore’s position in an increasingly unstable world, keeping jobs, a lower economic growth, and inflation – but also how to keep Singapore economically relevant and diplomatically balanced.

The election outcome underscored the strategy’s success: the PAP increased its vote share to 65.6% – up from 61% in 2020 – and secured 87 of 97 seats. Opposition gains remained modest, with the Workers’ Party continuing to hold a small but stable minority.

In Malaysia, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has spoken widely on the tariff issues and even convened a special Dewan Rakyat meeting to address our lawmakers on financial support for small and medium enterprises.

Investment, Trade and Industries Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Zafrul Aziz must be commended for his regular video-clips on the tariff issues with simple, easy to understand narratives without the economic jargon.

Kudos to the police and MACC for acting against these corrupt VVIPs. — The Star

EVERY time a titled person, usually a Datuk or Datuk Seri, is arrested and is investigated by the authorities, many of us in the media would get calls from people who want to find out who has been snared.

It is a standard practice, both by the media and enforcement agencies, not to name the person implicated at the investigations stage.

It’s only when these people are finally charged in the courts that their identities may be revealed along with the details of the charges.

There is really nothing in the law to stop the media, the police or Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission from naming people under investigation or who have been remanded.

But it is fairly common for suspects to be arrested and later released with no charges being pressed against them despite the raids that hit the headlines.

These could be due to lack of sufficient evidence or because the prosecutors do not wish to proceed. Suspects also sometimes become prosecution witnesses against a bigger target.

But there are exceptions if the cases involve high profile personalities and the cases are of public interest.

Former prime minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaacob is one example. He has been openly named as a suspect in the case where over RM170mil in assets were seized from several “safe houses”.

However, with social media, the names of suspects in various cases have gone viral with unsubstantiated information and allegations, and from unknown sources.

People who post such allegations do not have to face legal implications unlike the established media.

There is another unprecedented case. In my over 40 years as a journalist, I have never come across so many Tan Sris being arrested at one time over one case.

Last week, a third Tan Sri was nabbed over his alleged involvement in the Mobility Beyond Imagination (MBI) investment scam.

The 53-year-old man was detained at about 2am on May 1 in Penang after he returned from abroad.

His name had been circulating for weeks among the media and some reporters had prematurely reported his arrest.

The well-known developer has been reported by the press to be a proxy for a syndicate as well as a business partner of some of the suspects. It is claimed he received profits from the investment scam for money laundering purposes.

Previously it was reported that another Tan Sri, said to be a Kedahan, and a Datuk Seri were arrested under Ops Northern Star, which has now seen the seizure of RM3.5bil in assets linked to the MBI investment scheme, including a hotel and durian plantations.

A Rolls Royce belonging to the Tan Sri, known to be close to political personalities in the Kedah state government, is said to have been seized, and 299 bank accounts with RM123,614,594 frozen.

Titled lawyers from Penang have also been nabbed by the police over the case.

In March, another Tan Sri, a chairman of a public listed company, was arrested for alleged involvement in a RM10mil scam – it was claimed the money would be handed over to the police to resolve money laundering cases.

The prominent Chinese community figure has since stepped down from his posts in the oil and gas company. This case is, however, not related to the MBI scam.

In all fairness, none of these Tan Sris, who were given these high titles for their purported contributions to the country and community, have been charged yet.

Last year, the late Tun Daim Zainuddin was charged with failing to declare his assets but the former Finance Minister was freed of the charge after his demise.

Former PM Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is also facing abuse of power and money laundering charges.

We have lost count of lesser ones – those with Datuk and Datuk Seri titles – who have been jailed.

The most famous one, of course, is our former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak who has been convicted and is now serving his jail sentence.

He remains a Datuk Seri because not all the state Rulers have revoked his title. In 2022, Selangor and Penang revoked the titles awarded to Najib.

His wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, who was awarded the Datin Paduka Seri title by the Selangor Ruler in 2005, also had her title taken back after being convicted by the Kuala Lumpur High Court in 2022 on three charges of soliciting and accepting bribes.

Malaysians are no longer surprised by the increasing number of titled Malaysians facing arrests and convictions, mostly involving criminal offences ranging from corruption and money laundering to abuse of power and fraud.

These developments are causing public concern and raising questions over the integrity of the honorific system, the accountability of the elite, and the broader implications for governance and public trust in Malaysia.

Malaysia’s honorific titles are bestowed by federal and state rulers as recognition for service, contributions to the country, or achievements in various fields.

Titles like Datuk, Datuk Seri, and Tan Sri confer a degree of prestige and societal standing.

However, in recent years, there has been a proliferation of such titles, sometimes granted in questionable circumstances or seemingly with little regard for merit or public service.

Their service, achievement, and leadership have become tainted or even meaningless in the face of moral and legal decay.

Let’s face it. The huge number of titled Malaysians have taken the shine off these awards.

Some states like Selangor, Johor, Perak, and Sarawak have always limited their number of awards.

Selangor even stipulates a minimum age for recipients and a maximum number of awards.

Rightly or wrongly, some states seem to be too generous in their awards, giving rise to various allegations, unproven of course, but which have nevertheless eroded public confidence in the system’s integrity.

It suggests that the mechanism for vetting honourees may be flawed, and that wealth, political connections, or influence can overshadow character and ethical behaviour.

There is a need to examine the award process, a clear and standard revocation method, serious enforcement by the police, and integrity at all levels.

There is also an increasing number of brazen Malaysians who pass themselves off as title holders when they are not, as the Malaysian Datuk-Dato Council would be able to testify.

Kudos to the police and MACC for acting against these corrupt VVIPs. Prestige and honour should not be undermined by scandal.

The last thing we want is to see our prison wardens having to address their inmates as YB, when they have already lost the right.