Translate

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Clare Rewcastle Browns spin on Sky TV



Salleh Said Keruak

Last night, Clare Rewcastle Brown of Sarawak Report went on Sky TV news in the UK to talk about her ‘fight’ for Malaysia. She talked at length about how she uncovered evidence of corruption involving the Prime Minister. She did not, however, explain how she had obtained this so-called evidence. In fact, it is alleged that some of the evidence had been tampered or doctored. We know that this ‘evidence’ could not have dropped from the sky so how did she manage to get it? Or did someone give her whatever evidence she claims she obtained because she was actually being used and was a tool of this person to embarrass the Prime Minister.

Those who do not know Malaysia would probably be very impressed with Clare who is trying to give an impression that she is a crusader for truth and justice. Why does Clare not be really truthful and reveal who she is serving and how much that master is paying Sarawak Report because she has confessed that she does receive foreign funding without being transparent enough with the details?

Clare talks as if Najib Tun Razak has already been convicted or indicted of a crime. As a veteran journalist surely Clare knows that one is innocent until and unless proven guilty. Clare, however, talks as if the evidence is conclusive and she knows for a fact that the Prime Minister is guilty just because she says so. Clare is judge, jury and executioner all in one.

Clare is distorting the truth. She talks about the government jailing Anwar Ibrahim on trumped up charges but she did not mention that Anwar refused to take the stand to testify and neither did he summon his dozen or so witnesses to court to support his alibi. In fact, he did not even produce an alibi. And that was why Anwar was convicted and not for the reasons that Clare says.

Clare says that the opposition won more than 50% of the votes, suggesting that it should be the opposition that is in government. I am surprised that Clare is not aware that in the Westminster parliamentary system it is the party that wins the most number of seats that gets to form the government and not the party that wins the most number of votes. Is this not what happened in the UK during the last two elections as well?

No comments: