How Najib countered Mahathir’s WMD attack

By MT Webmaster Last updated Apr 8, 2016

And the new story is that Najib and/or his wife spent US$15 million to shop and that the financing for the movie “The Wolf of Wall Street” came from 1MDB. Does Najib need to reply to this? Well, from experience, all these stories would later be proven false, so Najib might as well just do nothing. And even if Najib does reply they will just move the goalposts, yet again, and come out with yet another story.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Scott Ng’s opinion piece (SEE BELOW) makes a lot of sense and for that reason I decided to publish it here instead of in the usual manner. In short, the ABC Four Corners special report is based on conjecture, half-truths, insinuations and suggestions and not based on tangible evidence.

However, the way these facts and fiction have been very cleverly weaved into the tapestry, those who focus on the tapestry rather than on the brush-strokes would only see the ‘big picture’ and not the ‘fine print’.

And that is how spin doctoring is done (and that is what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad called me — a spin doctor). I think it was Jocelyn Tan of The Star who said that I am a master of weaving fact and fiction to make lies appear the truth. Should I take that as a compliment and wear it as a badge of honour?

But then is this not what everyone does? And is that not what the ABC Four Corners special report on Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak also about? They weave truth and lies, fact and fiction, and suddenly Najib is involved in every unsolved murder in Malaysia.

When I said that Mahathir’s real agenda is to make his son, Mukhriz, the Deputy Prime Minister, and then Prime Minister in 2020, it was brushed off as fiction. Now even Professor James Chin says that, plus many other political analysts as well.

When I said the money that was banked into Najib’s personal bank account was not stolen from 1MDB but actually came from a Middle East donor, it was brushed off as fiction. Now The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), plus many others, say the same thing.

When I said that the donation from the Middle East was US$1 billion and not US$700 million, it was brushed off as fiction. Now even WSJ says it was US$1 billion and not US$700 million.

When I said that there were six Tan Sri involved in the ANC (Anti-Najib Campaign), it was brushed off as fiction. Then the six Tan Sri revealed themselves for all and sundry to see.

When I said that a certain non-Malay Tan Sri (the ‘six Tan Sri’ are all Malays) and his mistress (who was also sexually connected to one of the six Malay Tan Sri), was the link between the MACC and Clare Rewcastle Brown of Sarawak Report, it was brushed off as fiction. Then Clare herself confirmed it and the non-Malay Tan Sri and his mistress were arrested.

When I said that Mahathir’s allegation that RM42 billion of 1MDB’s money had disappeared into thin air is false, it was brushed off as fiction. Now it has been proven that RM42 billion of 1MDB’s money had not disappeared into thin air after all.

And I can go on and on regarding what I said, which at that time were all brushed off as false, (while I was alleged to be spinning), and which now have been proven true in the end. And you know what, much of what I alleged were confirmed true by those people involved themselves.

Some say Najib must sue WSJ, Sarawak Report, and all those others who have made various allegations against him. They say if Najib does not sue (and does not win the case as well) then people would believe those allegations. Only if he sues — and either wins the case or manages to extract an apology from them — will Najib be seen as innocent.

Yes, that is what Mahathir also says. But has Mahathir himself sued anyone who has made allegations against him since the last 30 years? Why is Mahathir asking Najib to sue when there are ten times more the allegations against him and he has not sued anyone? Is Mahathir then suggesting that the allegations against him are true?

A foreign publication said that Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (Ku Li) was involved in the BMF scandal (the biggest financial scandal of its time) and was also involved in Jalil Ibrahim’s murder in Hong Kong. (The hit man was a good friend of mine from the 1970s, Mak Thoon Fan a.k.a. Dax Mak, who was arrested and jailed in Hong Kong).

Ku Li sued that foreign publication and won. However, those who believe Ku Li was involved in both the financial scandal and Jalil’s murder still think so in spite of him winning his case.

Anwar Ibrahim sued Khalid Jafri regarding his book ‘50 Dalil Kenapa Anwar Ibrahim Tidak Boleh Jadi PM’ and won. However, those who believe the allegations in that book still believe so in spite of Anwar winning his case.

Many people have sued me as well, many people, and they all won mainly because I did not bother to appoint a lawyer to contest the case. So they all technically menang tanpa tanding. But how many people no longer believe my allegation just because they have sued me and have won their case?

In fact, people even still believe allegations I never made in spite of me clarifying that I never made such an allegation — that Rosmah Mansor was at the scene of Altantuya Shaariibuu’s murder, as one example. And if Rosmah had sued me and won, would that change anyone’s mind (notwithstanding the fact that Rosmah would have to sue me on an allegation I never made)?

If people believe based on fact and evidence and not based on mere conjecture, then no one in this world would believe in God and all those other things regarding religion that they believe in. Religion is all about conjecture and allegories. You need to believe based on faith and not based on evidence. And ‘faith’ is the word we use to describe lack of evidence.

So tell me, what in the world can I do to convince you that God does not exist and that religion is crap if you are already a believer? If I were to drag the Pope in Rome to court and win my case would all you Christians become atheists? Probably one of the Christian Taliban would bomb my house instead (and there are many Christian Taliban all over the world).

So, back to Scott Ng’s article below. WSJ, ABC, SR, and all those others, can raise as many questions as they want. Should Najib sue them or even bother to reply, as Scott suggests? After all, as Scott said, they have raised questions, not provided answers. But they have very cleverly done it in such a way as if the questions are the answers.

What Najib is being subjected to is in essence a trial by media. And he is being tried, convicted and sentenced in the court of public opinion. So how does one win a trial by media in the court of public opinion?

Saddam Hussein was subjected to the same thing. The US used the media to try Saddam on the allegation that he had WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). And Saddam did not know how to counter this media onslaught. What he should have done is to just allow the foreign investigators to search Iraq high and low for these WMDs to prove that they do not exist.

Anyway, because the onus was on Saddam to prove his innocence, and since he did not do that then he was assumed to be guilty, they invaded Iraq and millions suffered because of it (until today) while Saddam was hanged.

That is how the western trial by media and conviction in a court of public opinion works. They can invade your country and subject your people to endless misery and hang your leader mainly because the white skins are never wrong (and that is why Jesus Christ is depicted as a tall, blond, blue-eyed Viking and not as fellow Palestinian Yasser Arafat — because white is right).

So it would be pointless for Najib to sue or fight the western media. All he needs to do is do nothing and allow time to solve the problem. As they say, justice can be delayed but it can never be denied. And in time the truth would reveal itself never mind how long it takes. It took Galileo Galilei more than 400 years but finally the Vatican admitted that he was right and the church was wrong.

But it need not take Najib 400 years. On 2nd July 2015, WSJ said that Najib stole RM2.6 billion of 1MDB’s money and that 1MDB was going bankrupt. On 30th March 2016, WSJ changed its story. And 1MDB is still not bankrupt but instead is heading the other way: up.

Of course, Mahathir was the catalyst to this whole thing and was using this issue as his WMD (weapon of mass distraction). He wanted to oust Najib for other reasons, which he cannot mention, but he was using the 1MDB and RM2.6 billion as the excuse to oust Najib.

But 1MDB did not go bankrupt — like Perwaja did and Proton is going to — so that story is now dead in the water. And the RM2.6 billion was not stolen from 1MDB after all (and it was not even RM2.6 billion in the first place). So they need to, again, move the goalposts.

****************************************************

ABC raises questions that need answering

Scott Ng, Free Malaysia Today

The ABC Four Corners report on Malaysia presents a chilling look at the oppressive mood that hangs over the country. The report indirectly exposes how tame Malaysian journalists are compared to their persistent foreign counterparts. It gives us a stark reminder that we do live in something less than a perfect democracy.

Malaysian journalists on the ground know that there’ll be trouble if they confront the Prime Minister with the kind of tough questions that foreign journalists pose.

Some local reporters must have heaved sad and bitter sighs as they watched the ABC report, wondering if they too could ever pursue the kind of journalism practised in mature democracies.

The report’s release has caused confusion in Putrajaya, unused as it is to having to explain itself openly. The Prime Minister’s men crowed as they pointed to ABC’s confirmation that Najib had been truthful all along about the RM2.6 billion coming from Saudi royalty. But even as they did so, they threatened to charge the Four Corners team under the Sedition Act.

Certainly, the team made some extremely sensitive allegations, even hinting that perhaps the PM’s hidden hand was behind the kidnapping and killing of prosecutor Kevin Morais, the daylight assassination of AmBank founder Hussain Najadi and, of course, the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

However, as a contributor to FMT has pointed out, the report hardly raised anything Malaysians didn’t know or suspect already and certainly dents the accusations that the monies in Najib’s personal bank accounts all came from 1MDB. More important, it does not prove that the murders of Altantuya, Kevin and Hussein are linked. Certainly, the slick production and compelling narrative will lead people to drawing the conclusion naturally, but conjecture is not proof. With due respect to the Four Corners team, we had expected a little more than guesswork from First World journalism.

However, the damage done by ABC will undoubtedly have ramifications for Najib. There will be attempts to use the report as a cornerstone from which to attack him.

The questions raised in the report will need answering, and the administration knows this. However, it knows, too, that it will have to do the answering against the backdrop of close international scrutiny, even as it makes sounds about charging the journalists responsible. To charge them would be to let them have their day in court and to invite intense coverage from news organisations worldwide.

The last thing the Najib administration wants to do is poke the hornet’s nest of international scrutiny more vigorously than it already has.

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK