Who S The Real Traitor Here

---

 


 In a media landscape clouded by digital noise and echo chambers, the line between fact and fiction grows thinner by the day.
Over the past 48 hours, a video from Thailand has made its rounds online, levelling serious accusations against Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, branding him a traitor and a spy.
Dramatic in tone but devoid of credible substance, the claims originate from General Rangsi Kitiyansap, a former military officer turned political outlier whose standing in Thai politics is, at best, marginal.
Rangsi’s name is not new in Thailand’s political arena, but notoriety is no substitute for credibility. Once the head of the Royal Thai Army’s television network, Thai TV 5, he used the platform as a vehicle for pro-military messaging rather than public information.
In 2023, he led the Economic Party in Thailand’s general election. The result was humiliating. The party won no seats. Its only previous representative was a defector, not a victor.
In Malaysia, this would be equivalent to parties like Berjasa or Pejuang, known more for social media theatrics than real influence. They speak loudly but wield no power.
Glaring irony
The video aired on One31, a digital television channel in Thailand with limited standing. It resembles a propaganda outlet more than a national broadcaster.
Rangsi has long relied on sympathetic or less regulated media platforms to push his narrative. His use of One31 is consistent with his pattern of leveraging alternative channels to give fringe views the illusion of authority.
During the segment, Rangsi ranted about a peace agreement involving Thailand and Cambodia, claiming it was a Trojan horse that allowed the United States to interfere with Thai sovereignty, particularly in trade and rare earth resources.
He then turned his attention to Anwar. In a statement riddled with innuendo, he accused Anwar of using the deal to promote himself and even called him a spy within Asean circles.
It was an unprovoked tirade, presented without evidence, aimed at tarnishing the image of a regional leader who has been widely praised for his diplomatic engagement and statesmanship.
The irony is glaring. Here is a man rejected by his own electorate, accusing another country’s elected leader of betrayal.
His frustrations, perhaps understandable from a personal standpoint, are not rooted in facts or policy. Rather, they reflect the grievances of a former general who sees diplomacy as weakness and peace-building as a threat to militarised narratives.
Thailand’s government has not responded to Rangsi’s claims because it has no reason to. The deal in question was conducted through official channels, endorsed by leaders on both sides and hailed as a step toward regional stability.
Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul has, in fact, recognised Malaysia’s pivotal role in de-escalating the Thai-Cambodian standoff.
Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul (second from left) signing the Thai-Cambodian peace deal with Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet, witnessed by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and US President Donald Trump at the 2025 Asean summitAnwar played the role of facilitator, not broker of betrayal. That a peace initiative offends the likes of Rangsi says more about the speaker than the subject.
What makes this episode more revealing than ridiculous is the backdrop against which it unfolds.
Thailand’s military, historically intertwined with media and business, has long blurred the lines between statecraft and stagecraft.
Generals have run golf courses, football clubs, and construction firms. Some, like Rangsi, pivot into the media to propagate their views long after their political shelf life has expired.
This is not a democratic culture. It is the afterlife of a military empire struggling to remain relevant in an increasingly civilian-led region.
Shallow politicking
The tragedy is that these unfounded claims have found eager amplifiers across the border.
Back here, certain opposition supporters have pounced on Rangsi’s accusations with alarming glee. They have translated the video, added dramatic captions and shared it widely, hoping to tarnish the prime minister’s credibility without pausing to ask the most basic questions.
Who is Rangsi? And what does he stand to gain?
The truth is simpler than the fiction being spun. Rangsi was never speaking for Thailand. He was speaking for himself.
The Thai government has not echoed his views. No official rebuke of Anwar has been issued. No Asean member has challenged Malaysia’s role. The only people reacting are those who want to believe the worst because it serves their own narrow political ends.
It is worth noting that the United States, under President Donald Trump, has indeed shifted its foreign policy to emphasise reciprocal trade deals and tariff leverage. But to suggest that Malaysia is being manipulated as an American proxy is to ignore the very agency of regional actors.
Asean has always strived to maintain strategic autonomy. Malaysia’s foreign policy is built on multilateralism, not submission.
Anwar’s leadership, particularly on the international stage, has always attracted scrutiny. Some may view his diplomatic style as too image-conscious, too performative. But personal charisma does not erase effectiveness.
The same showmanship that draws cameras has also helped restore Malaysia’s visibility in global forums. That is a trade-off many Malaysians are willing to accept, especially when it leads to meaningful outcomes like regional peace.
Uncritical opposition dangeours
Criticism of leadership is healthy, but borrowing outrage from another country’s failed general is not. Patriotism means defending the nation’s dignity, even when political differences run deep.
Those who cheer at the sight of foreign insults directed at Malaysia’s prime minister are not engaging in politics; they are indulging in self-sabotage.
Rangsi is not a rogue voice. He is a remnant of a political class that refuses to retire and uses foreign policy as a stage for their own grievances.
His claims are not policy. They are propaganda. The danger lies not in his shouting, but in our own willingness to listen without scrutiny.
Malaysia should not waste time rebutting every baseless allegation hurled from across the border, especially from those with no mandate to speak.
When criticism is fair and grounded in facts, it should be answered. But when it is noise from a man already dismissed by his own nation, it deserves to be ignored.
In a region that needs peace, stability and cooperation, it is worth asking who the real traitors are. The leaders trying to end conflict, or the ones clinging to the fantasy of relevance by stirring it?
So, who’s the real traitor here? Not the leader who ends conflict, but the one who cannot let it go. - Mkini
MAHATHIR MOHD RAIS is a former Federal Territories Bersatu and Perikatan Nasional secretary. He is now a PKR member.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---