YOURSAY | ‘You can’t even reveal who the real donor is, yet you insist others to reveal their sources.’

If you want to convince, reveal your sources, minister tells WSJ

Tony Soprano: An idiotic and patronising statement from Communications and Multimedia Minister Salleh Said Keruak.

Who was ‘Deep Throat’, the most important source who helped Washington Post exposé President Richard Nixon's corruption in 1974? No one ever found out until 2012, when the source was confirmed as FBI assistant director W Mark Felt. (Think of AD Skinner in The X-Files.)

Now we find ourselves teaching our so-called communications minister the basics of middle-school journalism. Why are sources not named?

1. No sources in any political drama want to lose their jobs or find themselves in prison.

2. No reporter will ever be trusted again if she/he starts naming sources.

And here we have a laughable communications minister telling us news reports cannot be believed if sources are not named.

Aries46: With this kind of argument, how is Salleh to be taken seriously by Malaysians, let alone The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)?

If as he claims WSJ have been “proven wrong so many times”, pray tell us about it. What credibility has Salleh to demand accountability from WSJ if he is himself unable to substantiate his claim that WSJ have been “proven wrong so many times”?

From day one of WSJ’s slew of exposé, beginning with the RM2.6 billion channelled into PM Najib Razak's account till today, all that Salleh could pick on WSJ is its most inconsequential one on the Bank Negara succession.

While WSJ has stood by its report, there is the likelihood that the change on who was to be the new Bank Negara governor – from Irwan Siregir Abdullah to Muhammad Ibrahim - could have been made after the WSJ report. Was this disproved?

But what is significant though is despite the alleged fraud and diversion of billions in 1MDB funds reported, all that Salleh could discredit WSJ was its naming of the successor to Zeti Akhtar Aziz.

Doesn't this in itself justify the credibility of the WSJ exposé?

Nonsense: If I tell someone that he has to pay me RM100 if in the next 10 seconds he turns right because I am very sure that it is what he has in mind - and I will have to pay him RM100 if he turns left - it is entirely logical that even though he had the original intention to turn right, in order to win the bet, he will turn left in order to claim his winning.

Does it make any sense for someone to then accuse me of lying because I have said that he will turn right?

Negarawan: Time and again, Salleh reveals himself to be an excellent example of how a person lacking in intelligence, competency and integrity can be successful in Umno, as long as he stays loyal to the boss.

The onus is not on WSJ to reveal its sources but for you to show objective evidence against the WSJ's allegations. As long as you do not mount any legal challenge, then WSJ's allegations remain credible.

Seven countries, including the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, will not waste their time and resources to investigate 1MDB if there is no strong justification.

Anonymous 1890491455255851: Exactly which Malaysians is he referring to when he says we can't be convinced unless sources revealed?

Most of us who aren't bought or ignorant of the facts do appreciate the information revealed by WSJ and Sarawak Report. Investigations have already unravelled so many aspects of WSJ''s report as being true and he is still going on this track of argument?

The people who aren't convincing us are you, Minister Keruak, and all those who continue to make such weak arguments.

BohChaiSee: Salleh, why are you speaking on behalf of Najib? Is he deaf and dumb? He knows more about the R2.6 billion 'donation' than you or anyone else.

I can think of no one in a better position to rebut the allegations of WSJ than Najib himself. That he is not doing it is pretty obvious to most of us. He just can't.

Old Timer: This minister is a disgrace to Sabah, the Land Below the Wind. First, he tried to block sites like Sarawak Report.

Now, he has the cheek to ask them to reveal the sources of their information, otherwise Malaysians won't be convinced.

But I can assure you the majority of Malaysians are convinced. By the way, please don't speak on our behalf.

Myviews: Reveal your sources? Why? So that you can pounce on and put the informant behind bars?

Mushiro: Indeed, why bother at all if, as Salleh claimed, no Malaysian is convinced.

If WSJ and Sarawak Report are already doing a great job of 'not convincing' Malaysians, then the battle is already won and Salleh and Najib can sleep tight. But can they?

Hmmmmmmmm: The one being accused is the PM but Salleh seems to be the one who is defending him.

It's like a person is being accused of murder but his friend is the one telling the police whether he is guilty or not.

Anonymous 2410591459862040: You cannot even reveal who the real donor is, yet you insist others to reveal their sources. How shameful of you.

Stig: If I could just rephrase the news report - "Communications and Multimedia Minister Salleh Said Keruak said his boss cannot convince Malaysians if he does not reveal the source of his donations."

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.