MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku



10 APRIL 2024

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Who do you trust - Zahid or WSJ?

YOURSAY | ‘WSJ has more credibility than Najib and Zahid put together.’
Anonymous 2299391436500295: BN politicians always call Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reports "unverified."
A newspaper of the standing of the WSJ, New York Times (NYT) and Washington Post verifies such reports by having at least two solid sources or in this case, a solid paper trail. This is the nature of investigative journalism. This is how the Post brought down President Nixon for involvement in the Watergate scandal.
True, newspapers make mistakes, such as the false leads on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That was a case where the NYT allowed their reporter to rely on only a single source, which I find mystifying in the extreme.
Nevertheless, the WSJ is not a supermarket tabloid with stories about Scarlett Johannson spawning alien babies. It's not in the business of making up fantasies just to bring down a minor foreign government nobody in the United States cares about.
Mushiro: Indeed, WSJ has more credibility than PM Najib Razak and DPM Ahmad Zahid Hamidi put together. It is now for Najib and 1MDB to prove that the US$850 million has not disappeared.
Grey Matter: Dear DPM, firstly, WSJ has sighted documents first hand of these transfers of US$850 to an offshore account.
Secondly, WSJ has given an opportunity to Abu Dhabi-owned International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) to deny the report which it did not.
Thirdly, IPIC had declared in its financial statements that it does not have any off-shore accounts. Fourthly, IPIC through its financial statements have not received these monies in their account as disclosed to the London Stock Exchange.
Fifthly, IPIC has terminated or suspended it senior management due to this financial debacle. Sixthly, until today 1MDB has only issued a bare denial of the report and did not specifically deny the transaction.
Lastly, prior to publishing the report 1MDB had been given an opportunity to deny its contents which it did not.
Since this report has been published a few weeks ago and if it is not correct, I believe 1MDB must take action against WSJ, asking them to withdraw the untrue statements or sue WSJ for defamation in an international court.
Odin Tajué: Zahid, 1MDB caused US$850 million (RM3.655 billion) to be transferred to a company called Aabar Investments PJS Ltd. This receiving company was obviously formed and registered to apparently:
1) hoodwink the less observant or the less careful to believe that it was the same as Aabar Investments PJS, a bona fide business entity owned by IPIC; and
2) to siphon off the aforesaid colossal sum of money, the reason being that it was closed down soon after receipt of the money.
The addition of the abbreviation ‘Ltd' in the name of the dubious company would not raise any suspicion in the less observant or the less careful, for the simple reason that many companies are ‘limited' ones.
Furthermore, 1MDB had had dealings with IPIC/Aabar Investments PJS before the transfer of the money, and this would further negate the possibility of suspicion being aroused.
Any sane, straight individual would accept WSJ's exposé as veracious, and reject your statement outright for the following reasons:
1) No action has been taken, and it is highly likely that none will ever be taken, to take the WSJ to court;
2) your character is dubious as amply illustrated by your writing of a letter to the FBI to bail out Paul Phua, a triad kingpin; and
3) 1MDB and the Finance Ministry have allegedly told lies. There are many other reasons, but these suffice.
Res Ipsa: After this latest expose by WSJ, 1MDB chief Arul Kanda claimed that there was a smear campaign on the company and old issues were being recycled.
Now after a further 10 days of eerie silence, the DPM cautioned the public not to fall for the unverified news report.
How else did the government expect the public to react when the earlier expose by WSJ on the RM2.6 billion channelled into Najib's personal account eventually turned out to be true?
Instead of making bare denials or issuing superfluous statements, perhaps Zahid or those in the know could shed some light by providing cogent evidence to show that the transaction was genuine with no element of fraud.
Go after WSJ and bring them to their knees. Until such time, the public would certainly believe and keep believing that a mega fraud has been committed and the guilty ones should face the music.
That is the only irresistible conclusion given the credentials of WSJ and the fact that todate no legal action has been taken by Najib or 1MDB.
Guna Otak: Zahid, if the WSJ report is based on an unverified source and should not be trusted, can you tell us if there is a verified source which we can believe in? Utusan Malaysia?
If the WSJ report is not credible, I wonder how does it attain its consistent international reputation for news? Mind you, an international reputation.
Based on my poor English, can you tell me what is a high-level credential? Who are the high-level credentials investigation bodies?
Last I heard, the investigation bodies were "taken out", according to deputy minister Ahmad Maslan. So, any high-level investigating bodies left?
Anonymous #21828131: The DPM is talking about investigations by the authorities. What investigations?
Most of the ongoing investigations have been dismantled, scuttled, delayed and finally thrown out by the AG. So who are we trying to bulls**t here?
Donplaypuks: What utter nonsense from the DPM. 1MDB or Najib have not sued the WSJ, so everyone has every right to assume these unchallenged reports are correct and that 1MDB deliberately transferred US$850 million to a company that bore almost the same name as an Arab company.
Why the deception and under whose control did that huge sum of money goes to and what was it used for?
If unchallenged, 1MDB can be accused of criminal breach of trust (CBT), fraud and misappropriation of money, can it not?
Unafraid: If we are to choose who to believe in, DPM or WSJ, who do we believe more? The answer is obvious.
One is a reputable respected journal that publishes only after careful research, the other is a politician with dubious credentials and a suspect track record.
One seeks to uncover the truth, the other hides the truth and abuses power to stifle the truth. It is very obvious who has more credibility. -Mkini

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.