Wall Street Journal caught with its pants down


No, the ANC and the Pakatuns will never agree that WSJ was wrong. To admit that WSJ was wrong would open the possibility to the WSJ being wrong about the many others things they said as well. So the ANC and the Pakatuns are going to remain very quiet and will pretend that none of this ever happened.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

One assumes that if it were a foreign publication then it would never report anything but the truth. Well, that may not be quite true. For 27 years Liverpool fought to clear the names of the 96 people who died at Hillsborough.

The British press, in particular newspapers owned by a renowned media mogul, said some very nasty things about those who died. (In fact, during the memorial service in Liverpool two days ago, The Sun and Murdock’s name were mentioned and condemned by the Mayor).

They not only said nasty things about the 96 who died. They even slandered the Liverpool fans by saying that some of the Liverpool supporters urinated on the dead bodies and had beaten up police officers. Even the BBC wrongly reported what happened regarding the Liverpool fans breaking in to the stadium, which was not true.

I remember ABC (Australia Broadcasting Corporation) running a special report more than ten years ago where it said that the FAC (Free Anwar Campaign) was being funded by the same Arabs who had financed the terrorists involved in the 911 attacks. I, for a fact, know that that is not true.

FAC and/or I never received Arab funding whether it was from the Saudi Royal Family or from those involved in financing terrorists. (The FBI, in fact, raided the Washington office of the alleged ‘terrorist financiers’ and none of the confiscated documents revealed any links with the FAC or me).

But did ABC retract that story or apologise?

Now Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has been found out. First of all, there are almost 200 countries but WSJ has singled out Malaysia’s central bank to stalk. Why is WSJ not concerned about the other 195 central banks? WSJ is so concerned about who in Bank Negara is retiring and who is getting promoted. It is almost an unhealthy obsession.

WSJ named the person who is supposed to take over as the new Bank Negara governor and said that they got this information from insiders or unnamed sources.

Then this is proven wrong and WSJ insists that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak made a last minute u-turn. WSJ also says that it stands by its story.

Now Istana Negara has come out with an official statement to say that only one name was submitted to His Majesty the Agong for approval and the name was approved. So that means WSJ was wrong. But WSJ insists they are right and that they stand by their story and that the name was changed even if the Agong says it was not.

So there you have it. But will those who support the ANC (Anti-Najib Campaign) or Pakatan Harapan admit that WSJ was wrong? How can WSJ be right when His Majesty the Agong has already issued an official statement to reveal what really happened?

No, the ANC and the Pakatuns will never agree that WSJ was wrong. To admit that WSJ was wrong would open the possibility to the WSJ being wrong about the many others things they said as well. So the ANC and the Pakatuns are going to remain very quiet and will pretend that none of this ever happened.

It is just like those who argued that Anwar Ibrahim is not guilty of the ‘Sodomy 2’ allegation and that there are about a dozen witnesses who can testify that he was somewhere else at the time the crime was alleged to have been committed.

With such a strong alibi Anwar had won his case even before the trial started. But when it was revealed that the CCTV camera showed that Anwar was, in fact, at the scene of the crime at that precise date and time, the witnesses backed out and Anwar abandoned his alibi defence.

But then all those who swore that Anwar was innocent based on his alibi and the many witnesses who could support his alibi did not change their mind. They just kept quiet and said nothing. And in spite of this major setback they still believe that Anwar is innocent and is a victim of a frame-up.

I read a report this morning about Prince having AIDS and that he did not want to seek medical treatment but preferred prayer to cure his ailment. I suppose if a person believes in this then there is nothing one can do to convince that person otherwise.

I just finished a book about a German chap talking about why he is not religious. And he used the six million Jews as the example. He said that he was sure the six million Jews had all prayed to God for help or for Hitler to get a heart attack and drop dead or whatever.

But then God did not answer their prayers and they still got exterminated. So, this German chap said, either God does not exist or, if He does, then he is not a kind, loving, compassionate, or just God but a cruel God. Either way this chap wants nothing to do with God.

But has that stopped people from believing in God and from believing in the power of prayer? People pray every day but their prayers are never answered. The person they pray for still dies. You still face financial hardship and find it difficult to make ends meet. Innocent people still get sent to jail and sometimes get put to death as well.

Women, children and old people still get killed in wars and skirmishes all over the world and this has been going on ever since the concept of God was invented. There is so much misery in this world and the only way to escape misery is to die. We are told that there is a much better place after we die but we still want to stay alive and refuse to die. And our misery increases for every day we stay alive.

But still people believe in God in spite of all that and even when the evidence of God’s love, kindness, compassion and justice cannot be produced. Yes, people believe what they like to believe. And it does not necessarily mean what they believe is logical or rational. So do you think people are going to stop believing WSJ — or even Sarawak Report, The Edge, Malaysiakini, etc. — just because they have been proven to have lied?