From Phar Kim Beng
In the complex corridors of Southeast Asian diplomacy, especially within Asean, the question of trust is often overrated and misapplied. The real currency of diplomacy is deliverables: who can get things done, not who can be trusted in some abstract, personalist sense.
It is through this lens that we must assess the recent diplomatic overture involving Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and Thailand’s former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
Let us be clear: the question is not whether Anwar should “trust” Thaksin. The core issue is whether Thaksin delivered on what he promised. And, in this particular instance, he did.
The context is critical. When Anwar sought to initiate a quiet diplomatic track with Myanmar’s military leadership, Thaksin played the crucial role of intermediary. He gave his word that he could bring Myanmar’s senior general Min Aung Hlaing to the table, or more precisely, to Bangkok for a face-to-face engagement. True to his word, the junta leader showed up.
In diplomacy, where protocols can take months or even years to arrange, the ability to facilitate a high-stakes meeting is half the victory. As the saying goes, “half of life is about showing up”, and Thaksin made that happen.
Asean chairmanship requires more than national calculations
As chair of Asean in 2025, Malaysia cannot afford to be parochial or overly cautious. Regional leadership demands taking calculated risks to achieve regional peace. Critics who question Anwar’s engagement with Thaksin misunderstand the nature of diplomacy.
It is not a quest for moral purity or ideological consistency – it is about problem-solving, building bridges, and sometimes, working with controversial actors for the greater good.
Thaksin, for all his checkered past in Thai politics, represents an extraordinary repository of experience. Since his ousting in 2006, he has lived and travelled extensively across the globe, learning from the governance models of both the East and West.
Like it or not, Thaksin understands power and persuasion. Anwar, in his capacity as chair of Asean, would be remiss not to leverage this experience, especially in navigating delicate issues such as Myanmar’s political paralysis, the bloc’s relations with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and the increasing contestation between China and the West.
In fact, Thaksin’s experience with the GCC during his premiership – when he cultivated ties with Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – offers insight into how Asean could build more robust economic and diplomatic relationships with the Middle East.
These efforts laid part of the groundwork that would later allow Malaysia, under Anwar’s chairmanship, to steer the Asean-GCC-China Economic Summit towards a substantive and balanced dialogue between civilisations.
Trust as a diplomatic red herring
In international relations, trust is rarely the starting point. In fact, it is often irrelevant to the broader context of the Asean chairmanship. Anwar must do what all previous Asean chairs have done: broaden the net to be as inclusive as possible. Thaksin fits the bill to reach Myanmar’s junta leader. At this moment, Thaksin is the man for the job. Period.
Invariably, and precisely because of Thaksin’s role as a conduit, the Myanmar military is now more willing than ever to consider a longer and stronger ceasefire. Process has become progress, no matter how painful.
Anwar understands patience, given that he is the only prime minister to have waited so long before finally taking office on Nov 24, 2022, after almost 12 years of total imprisonment.
Thaksin respects Anwar just as much, given that he, too, was briefly jailed for a year before receiving a pardon.
All Asean nationals should understand that political achievements are not easy to attain, whether on the first attempt or after many tries.
Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.