Thursday, June 09, 2016

So much for Pulitzer nomination

In the posting loaded with quotations, an anonymous commentator quoted the just resigned chief Editor of NST, Mustapha Kamil or Mus to his colleague. That attracted a response containing wild allegations from a commentator by the nic Jalan Tangsi.

It was too speculative. Nevertheless, Mus's resignation is strange. Many have spoken to us with similar suspicion. His action is giving the wrong ideas of himself.

Not that resigning from a Chief Editor post is strange. Really no big deal as it is common for people to quit when for whatever reason, cannot stand being in the job or moving on for greener pasture or stop doing the same job.

Some of those that parted ways unceremoniously do bitch about their former boss, former colleagues or former employer. No big deal too.

But seldom do they go to the point of writing an open letter for leaving a salaried job. At his position, it is customary to take instruction from someone above, decision making has to go through many layers and "you can't always get whatcha want" as the various interests including company's need to be measured and balanced.

The fourth estate is not perfect but why the open letter?

Even in Wall Street Journal, no one should expect to do anything as he or she likes. Quoting WSJ because Mus sort of claimed he cannot stomach defending 1MDB since WSJ was nominated for Pulitzer Prize.

By the way, WSJ did not win the Pulitzer this year.

Maybe they did not win because it is still speculative and the subject of their investigation has yet to be affirmed by court case or event as happen to Pulitzer Prize winning story on Watergate Scandal by Woodward and Bernstein.

It is not convincing work. Tend to resemble the spinning of Clare Rewcastle Brown. A lot is based on unnamed sources.

Good thing WSJ did not win.

It would have been embarassing to win and found another gaping hole in their investigation.

Rocky Bru pointed out that the error is substantive that the Singapore authority issued a one para statement. Many more wrong info may have been allowed to pass. Some may argue the way they want to hear as this is the only wrong info by WSJ. 

Not quiet. Truly professional international investigation agencies of repute will not divulge or leak any information out. They will not comment anything. The only info the public should get is in court when there are charges made.

So all the while WSJ may have got away with their so-called source from inside foreign investigators.

Since the court will be the only outlet for details to be divulged, that was very reason Wisma Putera was enraged and send out a strong disapproval when the Swiss AOG office first issued a statement.

The investigation was yet to be completed and no approach was made to 1MDB or local authorities. Not mentioned were blatant conflict of interests by the AOG.

The ANC and 1MDB detractors were reckless in their presumption and failed to read the many fine prints in WSJ and SR reports.

They never questioned when it is written that sources from investigators were not specifically mentioned as in which agency. They presumed that "linked to 1MDB" is 1MDB or PM Dato Najib when it is only a spin method to implicate without getting sued.

Hate to invoke their almost predictable rage so will not mentioned that local authorities and PAC could not pinpoint conclusively (yet, for safe measure) that Najib is a party to all these alleged wrongdoing that is being investigated.

But, the Swiss, and Singaporean have not found anything to fault Najib.

All these authorities, including FBI are concerned with offense done within their country or alleged acts reported to have adverse effect on their financial market, real estate market or economy at large.

Was the charges on BSI or eventually Goldman Sach official implicate Najib or the "operators" wrongdoings? 

Saudi have stated clearly on a government official basis that the money that was sent to Najib's account were donation. If the Saudi lied to save Najib, what for?

It is not impossible for them to donate such amount. So prove it.

Proofs require something definitive. No has proven conclusively with evidence that Good Star Ltd belongs to Jho Loh at the time of transfer. As pointed out by PAC Chairman,  even the BNM report is not conclusive.

Suppose it is a cover-up, please prove it. The burden of proof is on Tun M, Tony Pua and all the other accusers.

Tun M should use DAP's campaign platform at Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar by-elections to divulge the RM42 billion lost money. Stop asking questions and ask so and so agency to investigate till it comes out in their favour.    

The whole story on 1MDB resembles the opposition's pre-GE 12 style of media propaganda. Break a news on Malaysiakini or The Malaysian Insider or The Edge, then other media quote the story from them.

These days the story on 1MDB or anything "linked to 1MDB" by media will quote the WSJ story.

At one time, WSJ would quote their source as the website  Sarawak Report. Their role were elevated to be the story rather than the messenger or in other word, become the viral center when SR website was blocked by MCMC.

Many of happenings and events about to happen involving 1MDB and linked to 1MDB (including possibly more information on fund flow soon) have it's reasons and explanations, thus the reason there is no patience to wait for the due process of law and need to bring Najib down by political means including using lies and shallow propaganda.

As we posted earlier, no point explaining when many people out there are presumptive and reckless in their assessment. We will wait when the time is right to give the explanation. Our assurance it is not a last word or last laugh.

Our only concern will be for Mus. The calls we get suspiciously presumed he was renumerated to pull off such a stunt. His future endeavour and lifestyle will be under scrutiny.

We tend to think that he was talked into by a former NST colleague or his mentor but off course, due respect, he has his own mind. Even if it was out of his conscience, should have given it some time. 

Interestingly, the last commentator asked commentator Jalan Tangsi for proof before making any accusation. The commentator sounded like a typical ANC or 1MDB detractor. Funny that they are interested in proofs.

Thought facts does not matter but only headline matters.  


Anonymous said...

Well, many of the accusations have yet to be denied by our donation King..
Funny how just after 1 week of the approved Goldman Sachs bond issuance (which was wired to BSI Switzerland); somebody received a donation amounting to 2.6 B...Wonder who?


Khir said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
playmistyforme said...

I think that the WSJ reports are penned in much better English than what is contained in your blog.

Which is perfectly understandable seeing as how English isn't your native language or mother tongue.

Which begs the question as to how reporters and journalists in the Singapore mainstream media can express themselves in fluent and grammatically correct English with nary a trace of Singlish.

Maybe it is the Singapore education system....

Coming back to the issue of Pulitzer Prizes, it should be easy enough to check if any were awarded to the WSJ and the New York Times.

But why should that concern you?

Unless you think that the Malaysian mainstream media (such as the NST, The Star, Utusan etc) should not aspire to achieve such levels of journalistic excellence?

It's a colonial hangover after all....

A Voice said...


Goldman Sach bond went into BSI?


Opinion appreciated. Cheap insult not appreciated.


Never deny our english is not wsj standard. But nevertheless you still read. If you want better english, read Sarawak Report. Its written by native english speaker.

But what you get will be language. Command of language is one thing. But the content is another.

Ppl can easily get fooled by well written reports in good english but twisted words. Common ppl can easily ppl get fooled by the english than the twisted facts.

WSJ is still insistent that Good Star was Jho Loh's. So did Tun M and even some investigators we heard. But where is the proof? Quite sure good english cannot hide that fact.

BTW ... is the WSJ Asian version based in spore or Hong Kong?

Anonymous said...

4:83 And when there comes to them information about [public] security or fear, they spread it around. But if they had referred it back to the Messenger or to those of authority among them, then the ones who [can] draw correct conclusions from it would have known about it. And if not for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have followed Satan, except for a few.

Its a 60 billion robbery! said...

62 billion loans were taken by Najib as Chairman of 1MDB.
Not a cent benefited the citizens.
That is the main issue. EPF loan guaranteed by Gov. No worry.
KWAP loan guaranteed by government. No worry. Said the CEOs.
The government get its money from the people!
We obviously got imbeciles running the country.
I hope you understand the seriousness. Its plunder and
robbery of the highest order.
The robbery was executed perfectly until you do not know where
the money from the loans were transferred to. Why not just ask
Goldman Sachs? Whether its BSI or Singapore or Swiss surely that is secondary...

A Voice said...

sorry no din. you address wrong person

A Voice said...

Shd address as a voice or moderator for issues relating to posting.

Personal attack wont get published. That is worse than adversarial comments and insults which are disallowed.

Stricty matters in hand.

My Say