logo
Trump's nominee for Singapore ambassador criticised in Senate for lack of regional knowledge

Trump's nominee for Singapore ambassador criticised in Senate for lack of regional knowledge

Independent2 days ago
Donald Trump 's nominee for ambassador to Singapore faced sharp criticism during his Senate confirmation hearing after repeatedly failing to answer questions on US-Singapore relations and broader Southeast Asian affairs.
Anjani Sinha's hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was marked by a tense exchange with Democratic senator Tammy Duckworth, who said the nominee was "not currently prepared for this posting" and even accused him of treating the role like a "glamour posting".
The exchange went viral on social media in Singapore and prompted widespread ridicule, with commentators calling him 'more embarassador than ambassador'.
Mr Sinha, an orthopaedic and sports medicine surgeon originally from India, was nominated for the position in March.
He has no diplomatic experience but has long been a supporter of Mr Trump, with Republican senator Lindsey Graham introducing him as 'a friend of President Trump for over a decade', the BBC reported.
The president, in his nomination statement, described Mr Sinha as 'a highly respected entrepreneur, with an incredible family!'
Mr Sinha struggled under questioning. When asked about the US trade surplus with Singapore, he gave an incorrect figure of $80bn, then $18bn, before Senator Duckworth clarified it was $2.8bn in 2024.
To questions about how he would explain Mr Trump's recent 10 per cent tariff on Singaporean goods and when Singapore would next chair the Association of Southeast Asian Nations bloc, Mr Sinha gave answers ending with 'the dialogue is not closed'.
He incorrectly claimed Malaysia held the Asean chair and was unaware that Singapore would take over in 2027. 'You've not even done your homework, sir," Senator Duckworth said. 'You think this is a glamour posting, that you're going to live a nice life in Singapore, when what we need is someone who can actually do the work.'
She added that Singapore was 'one of the most important alliances and friends' that the US had in the Indo-Pacific.
In his testimony, Mr Sinha described himself as a 'lifelong bridge builder' and said he hoped to strengthen ties with Singapore in areas such as defence, trade and technology.
He cited a personal connection with Singaporean foreign minister Vivian Balakrishnan and spoke of shared cultural values.
Mr Sinha is likely still to be confirmed given the Republican majority in the Senate.
Prof Joseph Liow, Southeast Asian politics expert at Singapore's S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said that the nominee "could have been better prepared" but pointed out that Singapore had historically maintained strong ties with the US regardless of the ambassador in place.
'It is true he did not give the best account during the hearings and could have been better prepared,' he told the South China Morning Post. 'It probably did not help that he was quizzed by Tammy Duckworth, who has a distinguished military record, is very familiar with Southeast Asia and speaks a few regional languages.'
Former Singaporean diplomat Bilahari Kausikan urged the public not to rush to judgment, noting that even ambassadors with rocky confirmation hearings, such as Richard Kniep under president Jimmy Carter, had served the relationship well.
'We should treat the new ambassador with courtesy and respect and not prejudge him,' he said on his social media page.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Immigration officials can't detain people based on race, speaking Spanish in Los Angeles, judge rules
Immigration officials can't detain people based on race, speaking Spanish in Los Angeles, judge rules

NBC News

time2 hours ago

  • NBC News

Immigration officials can't detain people based on race, speaking Spanish in Los Angeles, judge rules

A federal judge on Friday ruled that immigration officers in southern California can't rely solely on someone's race or speaking Spanish to stop and detain people. Magistrate Judge Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order after a lawsuit was filed by three men who were arrested as they waited to be picked at a Pasadena bus stop for a job on June 18. Frimpong's order bars the detention of people unless the officer or agent "has reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law." It says they may not base that suspicion solely on apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; presence at a particular location like a bus stop or day laborer pick-up site; or the type of work one does. The lawsuit, against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the head of Immigration and Customs and Enforcement, was filed as the federal government under President Donald Trump has aggressively made immigration arrests in Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California. The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California called the restraining order a victory for rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. 'No matter the color of their skin, what language they speak, or where they work, everyone is guaranteed constitutional rights to protect them from unlawful stops," Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, said in a statement. "While it does not take a federal judge to recognize that marauding bands of masked, rifle-toting goons have been violating ordinary people's rights throughout Southern California, we are hopeful that today's ruling will be a step toward accountability for the federal government's flagrant lawlessness that we have all been witnessing," Tajsar said. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats, have objected to the federal immigration actions in Southern California. Bass has said they are they are motivated by a political agenda 'of provoking fear and terror.' The Trump administration has defended the crackdown on people in the country without authorization. President Donald Trump ran on a campaign that promised deportations.

US Justice fires nine more employees from Jack Smith's team, sources say
US Justice fires nine more employees from Jack Smith's team, sources say

Reuters

time2 hours ago

  • Reuters

US Justice fires nine more employees from Jack Smith's team, sources say

WASHINGTON, July 11 (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday fired at least nine more Justice Department employees who worked for Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate President Donald Trump's retention of classified records and efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to five people familiar with the matter. At least two of the people fired were prosecutors who most recently worked in other U.S. Attorney's offices in Florida and North Carolina, three of the sources told Reuters. The other seven people served as support staff to Smith's team, two other sources said. The Justice Department since January has been purging employees who worked on matters involving President Donald Trump or his supporters. Fourteen attorneys who worked on Smith's team were fired on January 27 because of work on cases against Trump, becoming some of the department's earliest casualties in the purge. Including the people fired on Friday, at least 26 people who worked on Smith's team have been terminated since Trump took office on January 20. The Justice Department in recent months has also fired people who handled casework involving defendants who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an attempt to block Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's 2020 election win. In late June, two prosecutors and a supervisor, one of whom had worked on cases involving the Proud Boys, were fired. Earlier this month, Bondi also fired a career veteran of the department who served as a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington. In late January, the Justice Department also fired probationary prosecutors who had worked on January 6 cases.

US government sues California over egg prices
US government sues California over egg prices

Reuters

time2 hours ago

  • Reuters

US government sues California over egg prices

NEW YORK, July 9 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday sued California over its regulation of eggs and chicken farms, saying that the state's anti-animal cruelty laws created "unnecessary red tape" that had raised egg prices throughout the U.S. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles federal court, argues that the federal Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970 pre-empts state laws related to eggs. The federal law authorizes the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to regulate eggs in order to protect consumers' health and welfare, and it also requires "national uniformity" in egg safety standards, according to the Trump administration's lawsuit. The California attorney general's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Since the federal law's enactment, California has passed several laws to regulate eggs and chicken farms, including voter initiatives passed in 2008 and 2018 that prevent farmers from packing chickens together so tightly that a hen is unable to "lie down, stand up, fully extend its limbs, and turn around freely." Those state laws aimed to reduce both animal cruelty and the risk of foodborne illness, but the U.S. government said in its lawsuit that only the federal government can regulate egg safety. California can regulate chicken farms within the state, but it cannot impose additional requirements on eggs from other states that are sold within California, according to the lawsuit. The California voter initiatives have survived previous challenges from farmers and other states. Six states – Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky and Iowa – sued California over its egg regulations in 2014. The states who sued also argued that the federal law preempted California's laws, and they lost in both a federal district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 preserved one of the California voter initiatives, which was challenged in a lawsuit by pig farmers. The pig farmers had argued that California's 2018 ballot measure, which creates minimum space requirements for pigs and cows as well as chickens, impermissibly regulated out-of-state farmers.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store