3 Times WSJ Have Been Sued By Singapore Government, But Malaysian Still Believed #WSJ

I went to the forum as I said I would and to give them some credit, it started rather punctually. First thing I noticed was there is no reporter present which basically tells me they are there to spew shit. Being alone in enemy territory, I picked a seat at the back near the exit door and started planning my escape route just in case I need to, hehe.

The forum itself was pretty much SOP with them blaming the government for everything from the earth being round to stolen tissue papers in their grandmothers' toilets interspersed with "undisputed facts" about 1MDB gleaned from their holy scripture, the very infamous Sarawak Report and as expected Zombie Nation applauded every accusation.

Daniel Goh vs Tony Pua

Then after more than a hour of utter bore, the moment I was waiting for arrived, Q & A. Zombies don't ask question when Chief Zombie speaks, so I pretty much had the entire floor to myself.

Daniel Goh (DG): I have about 1000 questions but I think I will just stick to one coz if I ask the other 999, I think both of us can't go home in time for Christmas, never mind Hari Raya. You accuse, sorry claim that DS Najib stole US$ 700 million of Rakyat's money on the basis of a flowchart without any supporting documentary proof whatsoever. Would you agree with me that if I redraw the flowchart and change the account name to Tony Pua, the chart would look just as good? Can I then claim that it is you and not DS Najib would pocketed the money? By the way, have you checked with any bank if they include titles such as Mr. Miss, Datuk, Tun, Tan Sri, Tokong in their account names

Tony Pua (TP): This is WSJ. They will never risk their reputation to report something that is not true. They said they will provide proof later so we must accept that they have the proof, you think they are Utusan Malaysia. WSJ never lie...(applause)

DG: Really? From what I know, they have been sued successfully by the Singapore government many times

TP : Not many times lah. (applause)

DG: Ya ok, 3 times. So they did lie. If they can lie 3 times, what makes you think they cannot lie a 4th time?

TP: I think this is matter of difference of opinion. We will just agree to disagree..

DG: What do you mean agree to disagree? This is DAP's standard answer to anything they cannot answer, why should I agree? You are making an accusation of theft against my prime minister based on an opinion where you think there is room to disagree and not on facts, am I right? (small applause)

DG's parting shot: Mr. Pua, I think you have committed a violation of the most basic human rights provisions i.e. innocent until proven guilty.

I turned around and walked out and I think around 1/3 of the participant followed just as their milo tins are being passed around. At the very least, I would like to think I made some small dents to their pockets, hehe.

P/S On the way down, in the lift, I heard murmurs of, "WSJ can lie one meh, bo li yu.......

Share from Facebook - Daniel Goh