Shocking comments by Ahiruddin Atan

It is simply shocking to hear the defence offered by our veteran newsman Ahiruddin Atan against the Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) report, that someone as ‘experienced’ as Ahiruddin does not appear to understand the basics in journalism.

It makes sense to me now what a former editor in the Malay Mail had told me about this man whom they call Rocky Bru. We had predicted that the new Malay Mail would not survive. True enough the paper did not, after it went through some transformation at the hands of Ahiruddin.

The contents in (once upon a time) the ‘Paper That Cares’ were designed to attract the young people, but within just a couple of years, the paper went under because the response from the young people was lukewarm towards Rocky’s Malay Mail.

The paper then became a free paper and was distributed in university campuses, but from my observations, young people hardly picked up the newspaper. They would rather pick up some ‘funkier’ papers that were also circulated free than the Malay Mail, which was neither here nor there.

Based on his comments, Ahiruddin (photo) apparently does not even understand how the media works. In reporting even the worst scandals, no newspaper would put itself in a position where it could lose a case easily, which could mean that millions of dollars would be at stake. Therefore, the editors would have exercised their courtesy and discretion when they used the word ‘said’.

Before they publish a damning story on anyone, they would have carefully vetted through the evidence piece by piece. This is not only done by the journalists themselves, but a team of more senior people within the organisation.

For that reason, WSJ was fair in publishing an allegation by first giving the benefits of the doubt to the parties concerned. This is the reason why the word ‘said’ is used in the headline, because it was quoting sources close to the investigation.

Common sense will tell you why no one would claim that the WSJ should be more direct and hard hitting by dropping the word ‘said’.

After all, we are not talking about some new kid on the block; WSJ has been around since 1889, long before Ahiruddin was born.

Najib should take on WSJ

Instead of trying to defend Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, Ahiruddin should have advised Najib to sue WSJ. However, for the past nine months, Najib has been dragging his feet in much the same way that he did not turn up for the Nothing2Hide meeting.

No point of Ahiruddin saying “in the event of a lawsuit by the Malaysian prime minister”; in fact, WSJ has been waiting for the lawsuit.

But why is Najib hesitating to take up the lawsuit against the WSJ if WSJ has written many articles disparaging him and the country? I have attempted to give my answer in my previous article, ‘What if Najib sued WSJ?’

While it is true that former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad did not sue WSJ, the reasons given by Ahiruddin that “it was obvious that WSJ was on Anwar’s side” simply does not hold water.

Dr Mahathir could have sued both WSJ and Anwar Ibrahim if he had wanted, and won the case against the two parties; however, he did not because there were truths in the stories that were published. The late Barry Wain had even compiled all the information into a book.

However, a major difference between Dr Mahathir and Najib is the lifestyle that they live. During Dr Mahathir’s time, billions of ringgit may have been ‘burnt’ but in the case of Najib, the money was funneled into his personal accounts. Najib had even admitted that the money was in his personal accounts.

Najib himself had said during a ceramah in the lead-up to the 13th general election that any political donations should be channeled into the political party concerned.

Most people with a bit of grey matter would be able to see what a big contrast in the case of Parti Amanah Negara president Mohamad Sabu, who said all donations must go to the party’s official accounts. It is unfortunate that Rocky Bru cannot see where the problem with Najib’s imbroglio lies.

Instead of alleging that WSJ had intentionally tried to publish some negative stories about Malaysia in the past, Rocky should instead ask, “Why is that so?” Being a journalist, if he is worth his salt, Rocky should realise by now that such news sell.

However, why is it that WSJ has not written negative stories about the late Lee Kuan Yew? Who tells you that they would not carry a front-page story if they had evidence that Lee was in fact corrupt?

I checked the WSJ report, and it reads: “Deposits into personal accounts of Malaysia’s prime minister totaled more than US$1 billion - hundreds of millions more than previously identified - and global investigators believe much of it originated with a Malaysian state fund, people familiar with the matter say.”

What is so wrong about the report itself? Why is Ahiruddin trying to discredit WSJ without even understanding the basics of journalist? After all, the sentence merely stated that investigators or people familiar with the matter have alleged that they were able to track more than US$640 million that went into private bank accounts belonging to Najib.

What is important now is for Najib to take WSJ to court; thereafter, we shall see what WSJ would produce as evidence.

---

STEPHEN NG is an ordinary citizen with an avid interest in following political developments in the country since 2008. -Mkini