Has anyone noticed that this latest attack by foreign media on Malaysia is by yet another Rupert Murdoch /Newscorp paper?
Yes, the 'New York Post' is a tabloid newspaper that is Murdoch owned. Just like 'The Wall Street Journal'. And 'The Australian'. And 'The Times' of London. And 'Barrons'. And many others.
All these outlets are viciously attacking Malaysia, mostly with outright lies that aren't even sourced, as is the duty of a supposedly credible and independent western media organisation. We must ask, why is Murdoch leading this global western media attack on Malaysia?
What is his motivation?
|The lies can be found HERE|
Let's take a look at just 10 of the lies in Murdoch's most recent 'New York Post' attack article:
1). "1mdb was set up with leissner’s assistance."
That's an obvious lie.
2). "$681 million tied to the fund mysteriously turned up in the Bank Account of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak."
Another outright lie.
The funds deposited were a donation from the Saudi royal family and had no connection to 1MDB. This has been confirmed by the Malaysian public prosecutor after exhaustively studying all the evidence, and also by the Saudi authorities themselves.
Why is the Murdoch press ignoring this and deliberately lying?
3). "The FBI is reportedly investigating all the fund’s transactions in concert with wider probes of money-laundering allegations spanning five countries."
Yet another lie. The FBI are not investigating all of 1MDB's transactions.
4). "These probes could force Goldman to face the wrath of a congressional inquiry, according to one legal expert."
Who is this legal expert? What do they know about 1MDB and Goldman Sachs? Do they even exist? This is unsourced speculation at its worst.
5). "The sum of three bond sales for 1MDB back in 2012 and 2013, totaling as much as $6.5 billion, reportedly yielded fees, commissions and expenses for goldman of almost $593 million, the equivalent of 9.1 percent of the money raised. The typical cut for an investment bank is about 5 percent."
There were legitimate business reasons why Goldman were allowed a higher than average percentage in these transaction. They took huge risk by putting their whole balance sheet on the line. In business risk is rewarded financially.
6). “It is a known fact that there is a lot of fraud, and under-the-table stuff like that happens if you are a bank and want to get business done in foreign countries like Malaysia,” said one veteran regulator.
Another person who has considered the goldman case said with a wink that there may have been multiple “managers” feeding off goldman’s lucrative malaysian business — in effect, accepting kickbacks."
Who is this ‘one veteran regulator'?
Who is 'another person who has considered the Goldman case'?
Are these people real or made up? If real, what are their qualifications? What is the extent of their knowledge about this issue?
|Keith Rupert Murdoch of Neewscorp|
This is outrageous 'journalism'. It is against accepted journalistic ethics to base an entire article on unsourced, malicious and speculative quotes (which are likely made up). These quotes expose the bigoted Malaysia bashing by the American Murdoch-owned press.
What do Murdoch's New York Post attack-dogs know about doing business in "foreign" countries like Malaysia? It's the "foreign" Murdoch press that's behaving in an under-the-table manner, not Malaysia.
7). "At the center of the controversy is Leissner, who left the country just as Malaysian officials began ratcheting up the heat on the Malyasian Prime Minister."
Leissner was never based in Malaysia so couldnt leave. Another outright lie. P/S. Have you noticed that the New York Post can't even spell Malaysia right?
8). "Government officials want more answers on the source of the $681 million. One claim — that the money was gifted by Saudi arabia for financing the fight against ISIS terrorism — was greeted with some incredulity."
Government officials don't want more answers. More wishful thinking by Murdoch.
After examining all the evidence, including meeting the saudi donor, the appropriate lawful authorities have given the Prime Minister the all clear. Furthermore, the fact that the funds were donated by Saudi Arabia has been confirmed by authorities within Saudi, and even by other western media like the BBC.
9). “Leissner, an 18-year Goldman vet with access to the highest reaches of government in malaysia”
can they provide evidence of Leissner’s ‘access to the highest reaches of government’?
Or that he had the implied undue influence?
Just because leissner may have met one or two senior figures from the government, as thousands of business people do every day, does not mean he had special influence.
Again, this is pure spin.
10). "1MDB came under intense criticism in the past for borrowing as much as $11 billion to finance dodgy acquisitions."
This is yet another baseless slur by Murdoch's hacks. There was nothing "dodgy" about 1mdb's acquisations, and the company’s assets are higher than it's debt, following its acquisations and investment decisions. This has been ignored by the New York Post.
Again, we must ask, why is Murdoch instructing this attack by all his lackeys on Malaysia? What is his motivation?