Hit Counter provided by orange county divorce attorney
visitors & counting
More Tokong than Tokong
Source: Just Read!
Who and what is Wall Street Journal, and what kind of journalism ethic are they adhering to?
Sorry to say, many world leaders, corporate figures, conglomerates and even governments have come under WSJ bad journalism. To them, selling lies and slanders bring more revenue and popularity than what truth can.
Malaysians are pathetic…easily-led!
Here are some of WSJ big lies about individuals, organisations, government; and even about our mother nature!
The Wall Street Journal Parade of Climate Lies
That Rupert Murdoch governs over a criminal media empire has been made clear enough in the UK courts in recent years. That the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages, the latest victim of Murdoch’s lawless greed, are little more than naked propaganda is perhaps less appreciated. The Journal runs one absurd op-ed after another purporting to unmask climate change science, but only succeeds in unmasking the crudeness and ignorance of Murdoch’s henchmen. Yesterday’s (September 5) op-ed by Matt Ridley is a case in point.
Lost History: Wall Street Journal’s Big Lies!
Media critic Edward S. Herman calls The Wall Street Journal’s inconsistent moral standards “ultra-relativism,” a hypocritical readiness to condemn a bad act when committed by an “enemy” but to defend or deny a comparable act when done by a “friend.” For the record, of course, the Journal’s editor Robert L. Bartley insists that he practices moral consistency. He declares bluntly that “some things are right and others wrong.” But in reality, Bartley’s insistence on his consistency is just one more Journal lie.
WSJ Lies About DOJ Efforts To Check Blatant Voter Suppression
The Wall Street Journal editorial board falsely claimed that the Department of Justice is relying on outdated civil rights law in its current lawsuits against the voter suppression of Texas and North Carolina.
Wall Street Journal Published Blatant Lies About The Gold Market
As a perfect example of this, the Wall Street Journal published an article yesterday titled, “Gold Fades From Investment Picture.” Continue reading
A Wall street Journal had published an article dated 3rd July 2015, implicating our client Datuk Seri Najib. Immediately, our client had instructed us, Messrs Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Mubarak, to scrutinize the said article. The article is tainted with numerous allegations against our client which involved several companies and transactions.
Combing through the said article, we have concluded that the language is intentionally or otherwise has made reference to several facts and companies which are vaguely described. Reference is made to the said article wherein it has been stated that our client had been directly probed into 1MDB, however contents of the article refers to indirect transactions where our client has been implicated with 1MDB-linked companies. A clear contradiction which requires further clarification.
This article by WSJ was issued, published and circulated through WSJ web portal www.wsj.com . Firstly, we have been instructed to identify the parties involved in the authorship, distribution and publishing, for the purpose of naming the appropriate parties in any potential actions which requires deliberation and research as the article does not reflect extensive details for service of any legal letter or court documents.
Secondly, another issue of concern is, jurisdictional issues of which the publication originates from United States of America and accessible worldwide. We have been also instructed that a local presence of WSJ is also available and we are pursuing further clarification and details on this matter.
Since the article involves several parties, we have also been instructed to consider a joint action or an action against, in the event evidence shows a conspiracy against our client. Kindly note that the companies named as conspirators with our client, in the article are; International Petroleum Investment Co, Tanore Finance Corp, SRC International Sdn. Bhd, and Ihsan Perdana Sdn. Bhd.
Several names of companies or organizations had only been referred to as the related companies or companies belonging to certain organizations or companies, and also the sources or destinations or the alleged transactions has not been disclosed. This in itself either intentionally or otherwise has caused further identification of facts been required.
Once we have identified the parties, the jurisdiction, and the involvement of conspirators or are they merely parties which also had been innocently imputed in the article, we can then proceed to address the third issue.
The third issue is to tackle all possible or plausible legal remedies of which our client shall be given advise on an action of defamation, further tortuous actions and remedies including any statutory violations by WSJ and related companies and (if any) conspirers.
This is not a straightforward legal action due to the national and international imputations. We have been instructed to identify facts and lay full facts, before our client, is able to proceed with further instructions.
The purpose of clear explanation is to avoid unnecessary objections by WSJ on the imputations that are made. Once our client has obtained all necessary facts and the position of WSJ is ascertained, we have strict instructions to immediately exhaust legal avenues and remedies.
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF MESSRS HAFARIZAM WAN & AISHA MUBARAK
WAN AZMIR BIN WAN MAJID
Was out since noon and wow, so many private messages via FB asking about my opinion on the joint task-force suspension of six accounts and also what will happen to PM Najib.
One of the 9 pages released by WSJ today – why are critical names blanked out?
Okay, I have been keeping abreast but now I have had the time to further understand the documents and today’s development.
These are my comments:
1. Are you sure those WSJ documents are verified authentic by the relevant authorities? No one has issued any statements to confirm the documents are genuine and validated yet.
They are after all, still paper documents given by unidentified sources.
2. The WSJ documents suggest that all three accounts allegedly under PM Najib’s name were not in control by PM but by Nik Faisal via a power of attorney.
Why would PM allow other people to control his accounts allegedly worth billions? hmmm…
3. Under UMNO party arrangements, the President is allowed to hold party funds in trust under his own name – a practice apparently dating back to Tun M’s time.
It was believed previously that UMNO is rich and owned, via proxy, many companies such as Fleet Group, Renong, UEM, Media Prima,Peremba group, Utusan, KUB etc.
Where has all this money gone to now?
4. The money allegedly transferred from 100% MOF owned SRC International was for CSR activities. Thus if the board has explicitly allowed SRC International to allocate funds for CSR then giving money to Ihsan Perdana would not be out of place.
Many other 100% MOF-owned companies such as Khaznah, Petronas, 1MDB also do CSR.
The amount of CSR done by SRC seems to be exactly 1% (RM40m) of their RM4 billion funds – a reasonable amount.
Although Ihsan Perdana has already denied last week that these funds were transferred to PM or to any individual, even if Ihsan Perdana funds were eventually transferred to those under PM’s name (which is controlled by someone else), it is important to know if these funds were indeed eventually given or spent on actual CSR activities. Continue reading
Source: The Rakyat Post
In an open letter on Tuesday, the Sarawak Report admitted the source of its story was Xavier Andre Justo and tried to suggest that he was not a criminal
HOW far can the plethora of blogs and online postings, which increasingly contribute to what we call the media, really be trusted as credible journalism?
Swiss national Xavier Andre Justo’s recent arrest, for example, accused of blackmailing and extorting his ex-employer, PetroSaudi International, has raised questions about the credibility of allegations made on online blog Sarawak Report and other news portals.
This, in turn, has raised questions as to how rigorously non-mainstream news sources verify their information; and the extent to which they can be relied upon to filter the truth from the lies.
The 49-year-old’s arrest has further brought into focus how the reputation of any company or individual can come under unfair global scrutiny because of a misinformed online onslaught; and how many innocent Malaysians have come to be misled by a political smear campaign built on incomplete and creatively edited documents.
The inquiry of the Royal Thai Police will no doubt give us many answers in time. But one thing is clear now — blogs which rely on unverified information, including so-called “leaks”, are vulnerable to manipulation by those with their own agenda.
Exclusive reports in The New Straits Times this week have revealed some of the background of this remarkable case in which Justo had made demands for cash from his former employer in return for not selling data he had stolen to the highest bidder.
Pictures of a heavily tattooed Justo, appearing under armed guard this week, have been shown around the world as the man behind the failed blackmail and extortion plot.
Some of that data, which global IT experts Protection Group International (PGI) has confirmed was creatively selected and edited prior to publication, has appeared in Sarawak Report, causing a political storm and unfairly damaging the reputations of individuals, companies, government institutions and political figures.
The reality is that in a digital age, emails, texts, VOIP, instant messaging, tweets, blogs and a host of other apps can easily feed rumour and speculation which is sometimes created in error and sometimes created through malice or personal gain.
Whether due to a lack of resources, time or interest, the Sarawak Report published a series of damaging stories about 1Malaysia Development Berhad and PetroSaudi based on unverified digital data obtained from a source of dubious integrity — Xavier Andre Justo. Continue reading
Ah yes, of course, progressives believe in DAP. Un-progressives do not believe in DAP.
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Today, the news kecuh regarding the PAS ‘progressives’ buka puasa with their DAP and PKR masters last night. There is talk that the ‘progressives’ in PAS are going to form a new party — maybe they can call it Parti Untuk Kaum Islam (PUKI) — and will team up with DAP and PKR to form a new opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat 2.0.
As I wrote in my earlier article, What do you mean by progressive Malays? (read here), we need to establish the difference between these PAS progressives and the PAS…hmm…what do we call them? Un-progressives?
This is so that we can decide whether to support these progressives or are they just offering us old wine in a new bottle?
Okay, so let us compare the difference between these progressives and their counterparts, the un-progressives.
- Un-progressives pray fives times a day. Progressives pray fives times a day.
- Un-progressives fast during the month of Ramadhan. Progressives fast during the month of Ramadhan.
- Un-progressives go to Mekah to perform their pilgrimage. Progressives go to Mekah to perform their pilgrimage.
- Un-progressives believe the Shariah is God’s law and mandatory upon Muslims. Progressives believe the Shariah is God’s law and mandatory upon Muslims.
- Un-progressives believe adultery and extramarital sex are forbidden. Progressives believe adultery and extramarital sex are forbidden.
- Un-progressives believe homosexual relationships are forbidden. Progressives believe homosexual relationships are forbidden.
- Un-progressives will not eat pork. Progressives will not eat pork.
- Un-progressives will not drink liquor. Progressives will not drink liquor.
- Un-progressives believe in Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Abraham and the 124,000 Prophets, 25 mentioned by name in the Qur’an. Progressives believe in Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Abraham and the 124,000 Prophets, 25 mentioned by name in the Qur’an.
- Un-progressives believe the Qur’an came from God and was not fabricated by man. Progressives believe the Qur’an came from God and was not fabricated by man.
- Un-progressives believe in heaven and hell. Progressives believe in heaven and hell.
- Un-progressives believe heresy and apostasy are forbidden. Progressives believe heresy and apostasy are forbidden.
- Un-progressives believe gambling is forbidden. Progressives believe gambling is forbidden.
- Un-progressives believe cheating and fraud are forbidden. Progressives believe cheating and fraud are forbidden.
- Un-progressives believe theft and robbery are forbidden. Progressives believe theft and robbery are forbidden.
Hmm…so what is the difference between the progressives and the un-progressives?
Ah yes, of course, progressives believe in DAP. Un-progressives do not believe in DAP.
Yes, there is a difference after all.
Source: The Rakyat Post
Former banker and media magnate Datuk Tong Kooi Ong, who owns The Edge Media Group, was issued a warning for allegedly publishing incorrect news, and reminded of licence revocation.
“He (Tong) must take responsibility for publishing incorrect news, which should have been verified beforehand,” Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said.
The strongly worded warning came about when the Home Minister was asked to comment on Malaysia’s follow up action to the arrest of Swiss suspected extortionist Xavier Justo in Thailand on Monday.
“We (the Home Ministry) have been informed that the suspect was the individual responsible for channelling incorrect information to political blog Sarawak Report, which resulted in many baseless accusations against 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
“The reports published by Sarawak Report triggered a chain of false news which were then picked up by business newspaper The Edge and other media organisations,” he told reporters before breaking fast at the Home Ministry’s headquarters today.
He said any false news, he reminded, can result in the licence of the media organisation responsible being revoked by the Home Ministry under the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA 1984). Continue reading