Updated, 9 June:
 |
| Swiss not Sin |
Well, I'm sure some of us can't tell the difference between Singapore and Switzerland, too. :-) In view of this awkward moment, the WSJ would now wish the source that helped it with the earlier, erroneous article on 1MDB be referred as "a person actually-not-too-familiar with the matter".
Not everyone is amused, though.
A note from a reader:
Now they say the source earlier was wrongIf so the whole trail that depicted in their report and Sarawak Report is on a premise that a "Person familiar with the matter" got it right .Pulitzer price winners or nominees cross check and verify their stories before carrying it . How low is WSJ going down ? So much so they are equivalent to SR now !Why are they making such basic errorsSingapore and Switzerland are two huge differenceWhat more lies lie ahead to be uncovered and exposed ?Maybe another Pulitzer price story in the making ? Who will write it - Washington Post?
 |
| "Lies yet again", Sariffuddin slams WSJ |
Read also: A Wall of Lies, says Najib's press sec of WSJ's latest report
Original piece
KL, 8 June 2016: It is indeed rare for the Monetary Authority of Singapore to respond to anything. But it did in the case of a report by the WSJ on 1MDB. Why? I posted this article on Facebook here and, my oh my, those WSJ apologists (or 1MDB detractors, or both) came right at me!But I'm just the messenger.The point of the article remains that the WSJ's report was erroneous. An the error must have been severe enough or the MAS wouldn't have come out to issue that rare one-paragraph statement it did today.
 |
| Read the whole article H E R E |
Looks like the got the Bullitzer prize
ReplyDeleteWSJ did make corrections...
ReplyDeleteBSI Swiss...not BSI Singapore
guess there will be some pin-drop silence after the corrections..
Salam Datuk,
ReplyDeletePertaining to your posting and its subsequent updates, you may have successfully highlighted the error committed by WSJ or SR in their reporting. I congratulate you for servicing your civic duty.
Nonetheless, I as an ordinary citizen who is repeatedly being told (or rather instructed) to uphold the Prinsip Rukunegara especially the "Keluhuran Perlembagaan" and "Kedaulatan Undang-Undang" still maintain that our honorable PM has transgressed the law particularly the MACC Act 2009. The only way for him to clear his name is through due process of law i.e. the court.
Relating to 1MDB, I am in the opinion that the company is a total failure and an embarrassment to the country. Never in our history that attention is given to our country by outside authorities because of this company. If I may, 1MDB is the darkest episode our country have to endure even darker than May 13th. It effects the livelihood of all Malaysians regardless of race.
Thank you.
regards,
Shahrizal Kamal
WSJ have made many accusations which corroborate with investigation papers in Singapore/Swiss. Well, MANY of their accusations have not been denied by the ruling elite.
ReplyDeleteSome of them;
1. Over 1Billion flowed into "his" accounts.
2. His wife went for extravagant shopping at a Chanel store.
3. Expenditure at Jakel worth RM50+Mill.
4. Where the 2.6B funds were spent and returned to for what purpose?
Adrian
When in doubt, go to a reliable source of news. Which, in this instance, is the Singapore Straits Times (www.straitstimes.com).
ReplyDeleteWhat the SST reported this morning in it's print edition - "MAS: No bank in Singapore received US$3b in 1MDB funds".
Quoting from the SST report: "An MAS spokesman said yesterday that"no bank in Singapore received the US$3 billion transfer from Goldman Sachs in relation to the bond issuance for 1MDB"".
The key phrase is "no bank in Singapore". Which means both Singapore local banks (DBS, OCBC and UOB) and foreign banks (including the now shut down Singapore branch of BSI).
Clear so far?
The WSJ acknowledged that it made a mistake in the original report. As the SST report noted: "However, the WSJ yesterday issued a correction, stating that the US$3 billion went to 1MDB's account with BSI in Switzerland rather than the Singapore branch".
No doubt the Swiss financial regulator will be able to confirm or deny this.
The SST also reported that "Goldman Sachs, BSI and Mr Wong (Mr Kevin Wong, Goldman's lawyer and a partner with law firm Linklaters in Singapore) all declined comment".
It's not the first time that mainstream newspapers have acknowledged errors in their reports and issued corrections or retraction. This has happened to the SST, to the Malaysian mainstream newspapers and foreign newspapers. It is a SOP (standard operating procedure) for reputable mainstream newspapers. Which, no doubt, you are familiar with.
What's not in dispute here (again quoting from the SST report):
- "On May 24, MAS moved to shut down BSI Bank's operations here over anti-money laundering rule violations, as its Swiss parent faces criminal proceedings in Europe over money flows from 1MDB".
- "The US authorities are probing Goldman Sachs to see if it violated anti-money laundering laws for failing to flag a suspicious transaction....".
- "The US Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department, as part of a broader probe into 1MDB, are looking into the role of Goldman Sachs....".
So, the saga isn't over. Not by a long shot.
Even media mavens such as yourself have to acknowledge that.
It is also common knowledge that MAS has referred six current and former staff in BSI Bank's Singapore branch to the Singapore authorities for further investigations and that there is an ongoing court case in Singapore involving a former private banker in BSI Bank's Singapore branch who is being prosecuted on a number of charges.
You are surely aware of all of the above, yes?
The investigations in a number of countries are still in progress. What they will reveal is anybody's guess.
So this is the best opportunity for Najib to sue WSJ. Grab it 7 don't wait any longer.
ReplyDeleteEasy, 1MDB can explain everything! But they chose to hide everything...
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteOf course you're completely silent on the way that the PAC report was edited illegally and the fact that BNM's letter was concealed?
Journalistic integrity?
Rockybru is spoken of in hushed tones, globally.
(That, and the spelling and grammar of course.)
What ever it was, MAS had fine BSI bank and there is a court case pending regarding BSI and 1MDB. If there was nothing wrong, why would MAS fined BSI?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAny reason you and the fellow dedakers haven't advised your big boy ("DaBoss") to sue the WSJ?
Oh yes indeed; there are reasons aplenty : )
Tebing Tinggi,
ReplyDeleteYou obviously don't get it.
BSI shutdown is because it FAILED to comply with reporting guidelines and rules of MAS and International law.
1.This is not the fault of any of the clients . When there is a charge against 1mDB , then the issue is different. Now it's the bank that's investigated and action on . Just like HSBC got fined by US authorities .Let's be clear on this
2. US authorities investigating Goldman - again it's the bank not the customer that's being investigated . The client can't teach a bank how to be compliant to Banking Regulations! Again 1 MDB is not being investigated nor is the PM!
3. If there is multi country multi agency investigations why don't all the parties wait until the investigations are complete and charges are filed?
And if there's a "Broader probe" into 1 MDB by US justice dept.and other agencies", isn't that a good thing? And shouldn't we just be patient and wait for all to be completed and see who gets charged?
What's the hurry of pronouncing a party guilty even before investigations are completed?
Unless you don't believe in the US Justice Department and all these other foreign agencies, too!
Zzzz12
Nice bro ,
DeleteOf course the ANC gang will say all those authorities were bought off by DSN .
Meaning they kowtow to DSN ...
Meaning DSN is the most powerful leader in the world ...
Meaning we should be proud to have such a powerful leader ...
Isn't that what Tun M want ...?
Waghih
Zzzz12
ReplyDeleteYou have obviously not read the reports in the Singapore mainstream media about the MAS move to shut down the BSI branch in Singapore.
Or the reports on the ongoing court case involving an ex-BSI Singapore banker.
MAS has referred 6 current and Ex-BSI Singapore staff to the authorities for further investigation. Again, this was reported in the Singapore media.
You also neglected to mention that BSI Singapore branch was shut down because of perceived transgressions, including running afoul of anti-money laundering regulations.
Which are not broad-based, but client-specific.
Which client/clients? That is what the ongoing court case and investigations will seek to establish.
Which is as it should be.
WHEN THEY DIED, THEY ALSO TRY TO LIE...............
ReplyDelete