1. I had the pleasure of reading Salleh Keruak’s train of thought in his blog about how the reputation of foreign publications (such as Sarawak Report and Wall Street Journal) should not be taken based on their face values to assess the veracity of any claims or allegations.
2. He then drew a parallel Western media reports on Iraq on the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to discredit all foreign reports and allegations made against Najib. He said it was “a very clever strategy by those who want to discredit Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak” because they “are regarded as the bastions of truth” although apparently not so.
3. Well Salleh, there are several caveats and issues that warrant careful dissection here. There is certainly a grave flaw in your logic and reasoning for various reasons.
4. First of all, what exactly happened to the local media that criticises Najib and the scandal-riddled 1MDB fund? The Edge for instance was suspended because of a report Najib disliked. Even the Deputy Prime Minister, Muhyiddin Yassin was sacked from the cabinet for speaking out against the PM. Countless other local dissenters were harassed, intimidated and locked up behind bars. Now we ought to ask a simple question, if all the local media was silenced then what’s left for us?
5. Second, despite the fact that western media were probably wrong in their allegations on WMD in Iraq, it doesn’t automatically discredit Sarawak Report and the Wall Street Journal. This stereotypical fallacy common to Salleh’s logic must have arisen from his own prejudice, ignorance and poverty in reasoning.
6. Both foreign publications have put forth their evidence that Najib had received RM 2.6 billion to his personal coffer. Najib never denied this. He later termed this multi-billion Ringgit transaction as “donation” – certainly an insult to the people’s intelligence.
7. Common sense dictates that if reports of such gravity were in fact libellous and malicious, then one must without further ado, take legal action. Najib never did. Why?
8. Third, the Latin’s adage cui bono? (Or “to whose benefit?”) should be asked. In any legal investigation, it is a key forensic question asked to find out who has the motive to commit a crime. In our context, what benefits would the Sarawak Report and WSJ reap from the allegations they made against Najib? They have never done this to any of the Malaysian premiers before, why only Najib? Could anyone deny that these allegations may perhaps bear some grain of truth?
9. Okay, let us take a step back and consider a hypothetical scenario where Najib was in fact clean and never committed any of the allegations made against him. Instead of denying them ad nauseam, wouldn’t it be prudent for him to use legal measures to stop all these shenanigans once and for all? Why didn’t he?
10. If someone accuses you of stealing and keeps telling people about it, wouldn’t you sue him instead of putting a tape on his mouth?