Premesh Chandran Dissection Is No P T Barnum Circus


After Steven’s gun on a post-emptive strike ran on empty, it was the other half, Premesh Chandran, to step up to the plate, “Attacks on Malaysiakini, here we go again

The attacks against Malaysiakini signal that the government is getting desperate.

From what I see, you are the one looking like a desperado.

For the past week, the mainstream media – TV3, Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times and The Star – have launched an attack on Malaysiakini and civil society organisations for receiving grants from international foundations in what they claimed is a plot to destabilise the government.

Er what about the alternative media? Silly me. We are all UMNO, strange how it is always UMNO, cybertroopers.

I understand the reason for the attacks. After all, elections are around the corner, and by all accounts, the results could go either way.

By whose, what or which account and where?

His dissection can easily dupe gullible Pakatan Rakyat supporters and his paying followers but unlike Anwar Ibrahim, who is only good at scripted events, Premesh’es prepared script is confounding, for want of an appropriate word.

So, here we go.

1. Same accusation 11 years ago

Premesh does not address, answer or deny Y L Chong’s allegation that he was promised shareholding and whether Chong is a shareholder.

Chong went to the media with the accusation that the deal was a grant“. Whether the “grant” was remittance for the “contract to build a software application for the Centre for Advanced Media Prague (Camp), which is MDLF’s technology division” is left to the reader.

It would sound bizarre wouldn’t it, grant for a contract?

Malaysiakini to “build a software application for the Centre for Advanced Media Prague”? and which is “MDLF’s technology division“?

You figure that one out.

2. Soros man on Malaysiakini board

Malaysiakini received RM1.3 million for 29 percent of equity and MDLF agreed to sign an editorial non-intervention agreement.

That is a real howler.

If Premesh claims Malaysiakini is as independent as he says it is, there is no need for such an agreement. In other words there is a chance or there are occasions that MDLF have intervened.

By the way, what is the recourse to intervention by MDLF? Forfeiture of MDLF shares?

More likely a standard MDLF agreement to and for show MDLF does not have control over content in any medium it invests in.

Soros, a Hungarian with a track record of supporting press freedom, was among the many major donors of MDLF.”

Oh really? see #3. following.

Not only does MDLF have a right to be on Malaysiakini’s board given its stake in the company, it is hardly business sense for us to pass on the opportunity to have such distinguished individuals to serve on our board.”

Come on lah Premesh, with Steven son of a Gan (couldn’t help it) and yourself holding a combined 60% majority stake, Harlan or MDLF could not be on board with no rights unless both of you gave them rights and makes nonsense of an “editorial non-intervention agreement”.

3. But why attack Soros?

Forbes’ “How Soros Makes the World More Dangerous” –

“Does Soros care that his personal foreign policy is putting America at risk? Not likely. When asked whether he felt responsible for his role in the 1997 East Asian currency crash, he famously responded: “As a market participant, I don’t need to be concerned with the consequences of my actions.”

Self explanatory “The Hidden Soros Agenda: Drugs, Money, the Media, and Political Power

4. Malaysiakini gets grants from foreign donors

See 1. above

Premesh, give any one year, in the last 7 years, a detailed income and expense financial statements, as proof, grants meant for non-profit projects has not been utilised in your for-profit organisation.