YOURSAY | 'If WSJ did not break the RM2.6b story, who would have known?
Roguekiller: Communications and Multimedia Minister Salleh Said Keruak, the Saudi government through its foreign minister had refuted that the RM2.6 billion was a donation and also dispelled the notion that the money was meant for the 2013 general election.
Although he did agree with attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali's claim there was "no wrongdoing", it was just a diplomatic gesture to avoid hurting Malaysia and not nose into Malaysia's internal affairs.
The Wall Street Journal is actually waiting for PM Najib Razak to sue them, if he dares.
Anonymous #19098644: When you invest in something, you buy an asset - you acquire something tangible. When you donate money, you give a reasonable amount to the person or institution for a good cause.
The recipient doesn't often turn around and return a huge part of the donation of an outrageous sum. This is unheard of in the history of the world.
The Saudis said it was not a donation but our prime minister said he received a donation. Who is lying here? Also if it was an investment, what did they invest in?
Anon1: Yes, sue WSJ for defamation or just shut up. By not suing, you admit that WSJ has substance in their reports.
The funny thing is that you haven't condemned the Swiss, US and Hong Kong governments on their investigations into 1MDB.
Res Ipsa: Salleh, I only have one pertinent question to ask you. If the WSJ had not blown the cover over the RM2.6 billion that found its way into Najib's personal account, wouldn't you agree that all Malaysians, including you, would have never known anything about this financial scandal?
Even Muhyiddin Yassin, the then deputy prime minister and deputy president of Umno, was in the dark about the existence of the monies.
For the prime minister, it is his settled storyline that the monies were a political donation from the Saudi royalty, which have since been substantially returned.
For the Saudi foreign minister, it was an investment by a private citizen. So instead of just quoting the fact that the monies did indeed come out from Saudi Arabia, you would be better off in taking a firm position now as to whether it was in fact, a political donation or an investment.
Your current action in beating around the bush clearly does no favour to your credibility and that of your master. Until something firm and concrete comes out from your end, we are more than inclined to wager on the credibility of WSJ by a long shot.
Jesse: What about Najib flouting all standards required of a prime minister including receiving humongous amounts of money into his personal accounts, and failed to provide a proper accounting? This is a disgrace to the nation.
Iiiizzzziiii: Frankly, this also should apply to Utusan Malaysia too. If you point fingers at others make sure others do not point back at you. Which newspaper has more credibility, Utusan or WSJ?
Anonymous 2299391436500295: A serious American newspaper is not supposed to be anti-anything in its hard news reports. Comments for or against something is reserved for its op-ed page.
RCZ: It looks like Umno is running scared of a reputable media like WSJ. It's WSJ versus Umno. Who do you think will win hands down?
Negarawan: If indeed the reports by WSJ are anti-Malaysia, the rakyat will be the first to rise and protest against the publisher. This is clearly not the case as many Malaysians believe that the reports are credible.
The hesitation of Najib and 1MDB to take legal action against WSJ further reinforces the belief that Najib is truly guilty.
In fact, Malaysians have become more reliant on foreign news agencies and portals for information because of the clampdown on local media.
Anonymous_1421806811: Salleh, it works both ways. Malaysians are continuously bombarded with the news that Najib is innocent when we all know there is a conspiracy at the highest levels to keep him in power for reasons best known to these people.
So if we trust WSJ more than our local politicians, can you blame us?
Anonymous_4031c: Maybe it’s time that WSJ considers legal action against all those calling it a newspaper that is reporting untruths. That is defamatory by itself, given its reputation.
Discovery: Salleh, you have not produce any valid and believable evidence to convince us that the money was donated by the Saudi royalty.
Go and sue WSJ if you think you have nothing to hide. But then you don't have the guts to do that because all the dirt will be spilled for all to see, not only in Malaysia but the entire world.
Anonymous 1890491455255851: It's laughable if it weren’t so tragic that this man can even mention the word ‘ethics’. So far, they have no given us any proper clarification on the scandal.
The mere fact that that kind of money went to a prime minister's personal account is itself, highly questionable and should already have resulted in his resignation.
He seems to have conveniently sidestepped this issue. No one in the government has made anything close to a convincing case to the people.
Anonymous #7856234569: How come I don't feel WSJ is anti-Malaysia at all? -Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.