US hypocritical use of the Media


December 20, 2016

US hypocritical use of the Media

by Chen Weihua

Image result for sarah sewall state

The US Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Sarah Sewal

Sarah Sewall, the US under-secretary of state for civilian security, democracy and human rights, spoke recently of how freedom of information and freedom of the press form the bedrock for US foreign policy.

She lashed out at China and Russia, saying that a recent report found that the Chinese government and its legions of helpers write nearly a half billion fake posts a year and that the Russian government spends at least $400 million a year on its propaganda machine of bots and trolls and factories of false content to undermine trust in independent media.

She then claimed that the US ramped up support in Europe for civil society and media most vulnerable to Russian pressure by more than 50 percent to more than $85 million.

Ms. Sewall’s allegations against the Chinese and Russian governments are yet to be substantiated, while her admission that the US government spent $85 million on propaganda in Europe raises questions about the US government meddling in its media.

Ms. Sewall quickly left after the six-minute speech she gave at a seminar in honor of the 250th anniversary of Sweden’s Freedom of the Press Act.The event touched on much of the challenges the media face in the US today, especially under President Barack Obama’s administration.

In the 2016 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders, the US ranked 41st out of 180 countries. Its standing in 2015 was 49th. Such a relatively low ranking, behind Slovenia (40), Ghana (26) and Namibia (17), hardly looks like the robust media freedom  that Ms. Sewall touted.

The Reporters Without Borders report blasted the US government’s “war on whistle blowers who leak information about its surveillance activities, spying and foreign operations, especially those linked to counter terrorism” and the lack of a “shield law” in the US to help journalists protect confidential sources.

Sam Sanders of National Public Radio reported that Mr. Obama’s Justice Department has cracked down on reporters in an effort to prevent leaks; it also set a new record for withholding access to government files under the Freedom of Information Act (despite Mr. Obama calling for a “new era of openness” on his first day in office).

A study by the Columbia Journalism Review found that relations between the White House and the news media have never been so controlled in the past 50 years, saying that the “White House is determined to conceal its workings from the press, and by extension, the public.”

New York Times reporter James Risen last year called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation.” Mr. Risen was beseeched by the Obama government to identify his confidential sources for parts of a 2006 book in which he detailed a CIA plan to undermine Iran’s nuclear program.

Image result for Obama talks to the Media

At the seminar, veteran US journalist Marvin Kalb shared his personal experiences covering the Vietnam War and talked about how presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon did not like his reporting that was critical of US foreign policy. Some reporters in his time ended up on the “enemies list,” their phones being tapped and income tax returns scrutinized every year.

He lamented that there are many ways a government, even in a free country, can put pressure on a reporter, but added that many reporters acted more aggressively under such pressure.

Jeffrey Herbst, President and CEO of Newseum, noted the high societal pressure on journalists in the US today. Feedback on reporters’ stories often includes hateful or vitriolic comments. He admitted that some US reporters tend to censor themselves under such a public backlash. It would be good if Ms. Sewall had also reflected on the US government’s war on the media before pointing fingers at other governments.

Source :China Daily Asia

Anwar Ibrahim’s Quest for Freedom denied by Federal Court


December 14, 2016

Anwar Ibrahim’s Quest for Freedom denied by Federal Court

by Hafidz Yatim

http://www.malaysiakini.com

This outcome is not unexpected because our Judiciary is not independent.  Out of the window goes our system of checks and balances when the Executive Branch overpowers our Judiciary and Parliament (the Legislative branch), and the Rule of Law is absent.

As my friend  Stanford University’s Dr. David Cohen said at a seminar at The University of Cambodia Human Rights Forum a few days ago that without the Rule of Law a citizen is denied Justice. “The Rule of Law is the foundation of Human Rights and good governance is an essential element of the Rule of Law.”–Din Merican

The Federal  Court today dismissed PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim’s review of the Sodomy II conviction and sentence. With this, Anwar, formerly Malaysia’s opposition leader, is expected to remain in jail until mid-2018.

Image result for Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin

Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin

The Five-member bench led by Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin ruled there was no bias or procedural unfairnes in the decision of the previous Federal Court panel.

On the issue of the premature and swift response from the Prime Minister’s Office to the Sodomy II verdict on February 10 last year, Justice Zulkefli said while the statement, as argued by the appellant, had given the public the impression that Anwar did not receive a fair and independent hearing, the court took the view it was not within the control of the court to stop the issuance of the statement.

“As a separate branch of the government, the Judiciary and the courts operate independently in their decision-making process, with no interference from other branches of government.There has to exist a clear separation of powers between the judiciary and the other two arms of the government in order to uphold the rule of law,” he said.

Ruling further that there was no merit in the allegation that the statement was issued prematurely, he added this did not fall under the ambit of Rule 137 (that allowed a review).

“There is no evidence to show that there was any communication whatsoever between the PMO and the Federal Court, either prior or subsequent to the decision on the case,” Justice Zulkefli said in the unanimous decision.

The other judges were Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum, along with Federal court judges Hasan Lah, Abu Samah Nordin and Zaharah Ibrahim.

However Justice Malanjum was not on the bench today as he had to attend the funeral of a relative who had passed away.

Shafee’s conduct no bearing on outcome

The Federal Court also dismissed the questioning of the conduct of senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who led the prosecution team in the Sodomy II appeals in the Court of Appeal and Federal Court, by Anwar’s lawyers.

Image result for Shafee Abdullah

Justice Zulkefli said while the appellant contended that Shafee’s speech at a roadshow had tainted the prosecutor’s office in conducting the trial fairly, the court was of the view that the alleged misconduct, if any, had no bearing on the outcome of the decision of the Federal Court.

“We noted there is no evidence furnished or averment of any sort made by the applicant to suggest that this alleged misconduct of the lead prosecutor had influenced the decision of the Federal Court on Feb 10, 2015,” he said. The judge further cited Shafee’s appointment as prosecutor by the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

On the earlier Federal Court’s judgment by Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria, which made mention of previous sodomy incidents that had been ruled as expunged by the High Court, Justice Zulkefli said this issue of misevaluation of evidence, improper direction and non-direction of the trial judge were not within the permitted circumstances that the court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction to review.

“We would like to state on this issue now raised before us that we found that it was not raised before the Federal Court. It is for this reason that we think the Federal Court did not address this point at all and hence no reason was given on the issue of the admission or rejection of the alleged inadmissible evidence,” he said.

On the issue of complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan not bringing the lubricant KY Jelly, the Federal Court said according to the record of proceedings in the High Court, it was dealt with extensively by both the defence and the prosecution.

Justice Zulkefli said the earlier judgment by the Federal Court court held there was no conclusive proof that KY Jelly had spilled on the carpet and it was of the view that the carpet was not a critical piece of evidence to the prosecution’s case. “It is therefore our judgment that this issue of KY Jelly raised by the applicant is a non-issue and it had not caused injustice to the applicant,” he said.

While Anwar’s defence team maintained the integrity of the crime scene was compromised as Saiful had claimed the incident took place on the carpet in Unit 11-5-1, whereas the carpet was found in Unit 11-5-2, the court held that it could not accept the argument as the earlier panel ruled the issue of how the carpet was moved was not critical to the prosecution’s case.

“We do not think that we should look into what that other compelling evidence was as found by the Federal Court,” Justice Zulkefli said.

The court also ruled there was no merit to Anwar’s defence contention that there was a break in the chain of evidence, saying there was no serious injustice in the chain of custody of the exhibits.

“For the above reasons, we find there is no merit in the application and this is not a fit and proper case for the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to make any order for the case to be reviewed,” Justice Zulkefli said.

Great Anniversary, Malaysiakini


December 1, 2016

Great Anniversary, Malaysiakini

Premesh Chandran, Steven Gan, Fathi Aris Omar and the great team of talented and brave journalists, you are very special Malaysians. My wife Dr. Kamsiah Haider and I admire your determination to bring to us in Malaysia and others around the world news and views on a timely basis. Please accept our sincere good wishes for many more years of exemplary journalism.

We  stand with you and, as loyal subscribers, we thank you for keeping us posted on developments about our country. You will remain our web-paper of first choice because you are the best in the business. 

To mark the occasion, your 17th Anniversary, Dr. Kamsiah Haider and I dedicate Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s “Ulysses”  Tennyson to you all, our fellow travelers in search of the truth. Yes, we are not faultless. But we are Malaysians who care for our country and are not afraid to speak the truth to power.  May Alfred  Lord Tennyson inspire you to continue on a journey to do your best for Malaysia, and never to yield.–Dr. Kamsiah Haider and Din Merican

 Seventeen years of Courageous Journalism

by http://www.malaysiakini.com

A long road traversed, dodging potholes, negotiating sharp bends as well as running into roadblocks and litigation hurdles.

Borne out of the intention to break the government’s monopoly on truth, Malaysiakini has helped provide a space for voices that are often unheard and ignored. Not surprisingly, the often-hurled allegation is that the news portal is pro-opposition. The answer is of course an emphatic ‘No!’

Image result for The Malaysiakini Team

The dedicated Malaysiakini Team

Such allegations stem from what is known as the law of the excluded middle, where what is not white must therefore be black – there is no third alternative. In other words, if you are not with us, you must be against us.

Detractors argue that since greater prominence is given to those critical of the government, as opposed to others, Malaysiakini must therefore be taking sides.

The first part of the argument is valid, but this does not lend credence to the notion that the editorial team therefore comprises opposition cheerleaders.

There are two reasons for this.

The first is that those in the opposition are more productive in generating media statements and more active in engaging with the media, compared to their ruling counterparts, where apart from a handful, the rest choose to remain silent or prefer to confide in acquiescing media organisations.

The second, and more important factor, is that the media, as the fourth estate, must help create a level-playing field in the information arena.

Image result for Najib Razak

The undeniable fact in Malaysia is that the ruling BN and its component parties still control the narrative in almost all major newspapers, radio and TV stations.

In addition, despite repeated denials, the actions of certain powerful individuals helming institutions of supreme importance in our country suggest clear bias in favour of the government.

When the chasm of disparity in influence is so wide, it would be a disservice to justice if Malaysiakini provided equal space to all.Indeed, when power is so lopsided, giving equal coverage to both sides only maintains injustice. To overcome this, media organisations must give a greater say to those without a voice, those without power, and those without influence.

We seek to challenge unequal power structures, not to reproduce them. However, if and when the scales are level, Malaysiakini too will provide a balanced space for both sides.That said, Malaysiakini is non-partisan. Our role is to tell truth to power and hold them to account, be they BN or opposition politicians.

But that doesn’t mean we are apolitical. We take strong editorial stance on many issues we hold dear – good governance, anti-corruption, independence of the judiciary, press freedom and the like.

However, this does not mean Malaysiakini provides the opposition with a carte blanche. The news portal recognises that the opposition is no longer a voice in the political wilderness but rather a government-in-waiting – it is already in power in some states – and therefore it too must be held accountable.

And while Malaysiakini supports freedom of expression, it must be stressed that such liberties come with responsibility – for both writers and readers.

Malaysiakini encourages the contestation of ideas, but it is just as important to ensure that this democratic process is carried out in a civil manner, without resorting to personal attacks, racist and sexist remarks or lewd comments.

One of the most common complaints against Malaysiakini is that the news portal spins articles, ostensibly to further a certain agenda.

More often than not, it is the politician who does a 180-degree turn after shooting his or her mouth off – and then blames the media when the heat is turned on.

But does this mean Malaysiakini is faultless?The answer is ‘No’. We do make mistakes. But unlike politicians, we admit and apologise instead of blaming others.

 

In Solidarity with Malaysiakini


November 6, 2016

In Solidarity with Malaysiakini

A few years ago, I had the privilege  as a Fellow of Seacem Center of working with both Premesh Chandran and Steven Gan and the group of outstanding journalists at Malaysiakini. I found them to be a group of thorough, brave, loyal and hardworking Malaysians who were bringing news and views about issues affecting our country.

I learned first hand what they had to go through to bring to us timely and accurate information about what is happening in, and to our country and elsewhere.  Everyday, when I arrived at my work place at Malaysiakini office then in Bangsar Baru, Kuala Lumpur I would pass the wall of their rented premises which was blemished by red paint marks sprayed by pro-UMNO lawbreakers. I would be reminded of the hazards these committed journalists face daily. Since that time, I came to admire and respect their courage for speaking the truth to power and their commitment to the highest standards of journalistic reporting.

Like them, I never shied away from speaking the politically inconvenient truth and like them I will through my blog, twitter and Facebook accounts and other peaceful means hold men and women in positions of power– be they in  politics, public administration,  and business–to account for their decisions and actions. Threats and intimidation would not work with us.

Today, Gan, Chandran and their team are facing existential threats from UMNO-sponsored and Najib-supported Red Shirts led by that despicable. irresponsible,  and racist Jamal Ikan Bakar Yunos.

By threatening the news portal, the Red Shirts are breaking the law. But as things stand today, the hooligans are above the law because they are connected to UMNO, which controls the levers of power in Malaysia. Even our Inspector-General Police has no guts to stand up to the Red Shirts.

Image result for Din Merican and Kamsiah Haider at Bersih

Together my wife Dr. Kamsiah. G. Haider, I stand in solidarity with Premesh Chandran and Steven Gan and the Malaysiakini team. They deserve our support for doing their job splendidly.

I hope you, my loyal readers and friends around the world, will also stand up for Malaysiakini and freedom of the press. We all face existential threats from forces more powerful than us, but let us be reminded by William Shakespeare that “cowards die a thousand times”. –Din Merican

Malaysiakini controlled by its journalists, not outsiders

by Zikri Kamarulzaman

 Malaysiakini is under the full control of its journalists and editors, not its investors or outsiders, said the independent news portal editor-in-chief Steven Gan.

“When it comes to outsiders or even Malaysiakini shareholders influencing our editorial, that is completely impossible,” Gan said at a press conference following the red-shirts rally outside the news portal’s office in Petaling Jaya today.

Gan said even the Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF), which owns 29 percent of Malaysiakini, had no say in the website’s editorial policy.

He explained that the two had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) when the venture capital made the investment 10 years ago, agreeing that the latter would have “no editorial say” in Malaysiakini.

Gan was responding to red-shirts leader Jamal Md Yunos, who said Malaysiakini’s editorial was not independent and that it bowed to the will of American business magnate George Soros.

Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) is one of 50 MDIF investors and funders, which include a number of European banks. Malaysiakini had also received funds from the OSF for two KiniTV news programmes in Sarawak.

Gan said the real influencers in Malaysiakini’s editorial policies are its journalists.

“We have daily meetings, and all Malaysiakini journalists and editors decide on what to report and follow up on,” he said.

Image result for Premesh Chandran

Elaborating on the company’s shareholders, Gan said that he and Malaysiakini CEO Premesh Chandran (above) were the majority shareholders, a total of 59 percent. Besides the 29 percent owned MDIF, 12 percent are owned by Malaysiakini staff.

Meanwhile, he said there was only one politician among the scores of shareholders in Malaysiakini.

Subang MP Sivarasa Rasiah, who is from the opposition PKR, has a very small stake after investing RM5,000 in the company 17 years ago when he was a human rights lawyer. “That was 10 years before he decided to run for Parliament. His share is 0.001 percent. It’s really minor,” Gan said.

Up to 700 red-shirts had turned up for the rally against Malaysiakini this afternoon, which lasted about two and a half hours.

The protest was spurred by leaked documents which allege that Malaysiakini, Bersih and Merdeka Centre were being funded by the OSF.

Jamal had originally wanted to hold a rally in Dataran Merdeka, but moved the location to Malaysiakini’s office after Kuala Lumpur City Hall denied both the red-shirts and Bersih permission to gather at the historic square.

Budgies, boobies and booty


October 8, 2016

Budgies, boobies and booty: Learn to respect cultural sensibilities

I do object to behaviour by fellow Australians that offends if not insults the cultural sensitivities of people in foreign countries of which they are guests… And I shudder at the sight and sound of bunches of oinks arrogantly shouting “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oi, oi, oi” anywhere, either at home or abroad… Especially when the offenders are not only of what should be mature age, but also of privileged family and educational backgrounds, as in the case of what the Australian media are calling either the ‘Budgy Nine’ or ‘Budgie Nine’–Dean Johns

by Dean Johns
http://www.malaysiakini.com

Image result for budgie nine

The Budgie Nine

The mind boggles at what a balls-up the boobies of the UMNO-BN regime are making of so-called ‘justice’ in Malaysia.

Nine Australians who made grand pricks of themselves at the Petronas F1 Grand Prix by stripping down to ‘budgie smugglers’ or in other words swimmers, cossies or Speedos emblazoned with the Malaysian flag escaped conviction for any offence, though in the meantime spent four days in jail.

But apparently the same people who objected to the sight of these skimpily-clad bodies didn’t have the same problem with the way the Petronas bimbos flaunted their boobies and booties.

Personally, of course, I take no offence whatever at the sight of beautiful, bootiful, boobiful or otherwise bountiful bodies of any sex or gender. But I do object to behaviour by fellow Australians that offends if not insults the cultural sensitivities of people in foreign countries of which they are guests.

And I shudder at the sight and sound of bunches of oinks arrogantly shouting “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oi, oi, oi” anywhere, either at home or abroad.

Especially when the offenders are not only of what should be mature age, but also of privileged family and educational backgrounds, as in the case of what the Australian media are calling either the ‘Budgy Nine’ or ‘Budgie Nine’

Image result for budgie nine

This is more any respecting Malaysian can take–It is provocative and uncalled for.

Alternative spellings that bring me to what no media in Australia or elsewhere appear to have noticed: an apparently commercial motivation for this group’s antics.

Swimsuits of the kind they flaunted in Malaysia, and reportedly previously in locations as diverse as Croatia, The Netherlands, Italy and Greece, and which are worn by male competitive swimmers virtually everywhere, have been traditionally known as Speedos.

Only comparatively recently have Speedo-brand and other Speedo-style swimsuits become known in Australian slang as ‘budgie smugglers’, a term defined by the online Urban Dictionary as ‘any item of male bathing costume that encloses the wearer’s genitalia in a manner that resembles the concealment of a budgerigar’.

In other words, ‘budgie smugglers’ is a generic slang term, but ‘Budgy smugglers’, as close scrutiny of the nine flaunters of this garment in Malaysia reveals, is a registered brand.

Marketing method in apparent madness

Thus there could clearly be a good deal of marketing method in these exhibitionists’ apparent madness, and presumably a great deal for some or all of them to gain from the glare of global exposure they are achieving for the Budgy smugglers brand through such stunts as they have pulled in Malaysia and elsewhere.

In short, I strongly suspect that the Budgy Nine are in it not just for laughs but for also for loot. Or, if you like, into semi-baring their booties for booty.

If this is the case, then it’s no wonder they were treated so leniently by the Malaysian court before which they appeared. Because apparently, as far as Malaysian ‘justice’ is concerned, the more privileged the suspect and the more booty involved, the better.

Petty offences by the poor and powerless are mercilessly punished, as in the case of illegal immigrant Abu Huraira Razak, who was recently sentenced to three years in jail, a RM5,000 fine or additional 12 months in jail and deportation after serving his sentence for breaking into a restaurant and stealing RM1.

Yet, to cite just a few of countless examples of cases of the connected getting away with the booty, the principals involved in the RM250-million National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) scandal were found to have no case to answer; as far as I know nobody has been penalised or repaid a penny for involvement in the RM12-billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) fraud; billionaire timber-stealing suspect Abdul Taib ‘The Termite’ Taib apparently remains untouchable; and of course Malaysian Official 1 and his accomplices in the RM42-billion 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) fiasco are at least so far still uncharged and at large.

Furthermore, in an outrageous instance of the pot’s calling the kettle black, the man most largely responsible for enabling if not engineering this bootyful but far from beautiful state of affairs, Mahathir Mohamad, despite his own wealth and that of his allegedly filthy-rich sons, remains free to criticise his successors for continuing his legacy.

In the face of such massive crime and corruption, not to mention politically-connected killings, it seems obscene to me that so many Malaysians can get their knickers in knots about such a minuscule matter as the sight of a bunch of beer-swilling mat sallehs in Budgy smugglers.

But I suppose that at least it serves to divert their attention for a moment from the fact that they’re forever the butts of a far more serious if not outright fatal joke: a ruling regime that sees them as nothing but a source of booty, and complete with institutions as the police, judiciary and media that allegedly utterly fail to perform their sworn duty.

NST Editor quits over truth and 1MDB


June 4, 2016

NST Editor quits over truth and 1MDB

by FMT Reporters

Mustapha Kamil’s explanation highlighted by Kit Siang with challenge to other journalists

Mustapha Kamil’s online posting of why he resigned as group editor of the UMNO-controlled New Straits Times newspaper last month was highlighted by DAP leader Lim Kit Siang today, with an accompanying challenge to other Malaysian journalists.

In the posting, Mustapha (pic above) said he had left after a struggle with his conscience and the journalists’ code to seek the truth.

He said his decision came after the Wall Street Journal was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in April for its reporting on corruption allegations surrounding 1Malaysia Development Bhd – which he descibed indirectly as “an issue that happened right under my nose”.

Mustapha did not refer to the Journal by name, politely describing the financial daily as “an American newspaper, headquartered somewhere in Lower Manhattan in New York”.

His posting was highlighted by Kit Siang at his blog and in a press statement, Lim asked: “Are there no more journalists in the mainstream media in Malaysia to uphold the ‘truth discipline’ or who could search their conscience whether they are doing right by their nation, profession and future generations?”

Lim has been known to lambast Malaysian journalists, particularly editors, working in the politically-controlled press and often demanded that they leave the profession.

Picking up from Mustapha’s note, which has circulated on Facebook, Lim said the 1MDB affair had affected the reputation and standing of institutions such as the Attorney-General’s Chambers, Bank Negara, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the police, Auditor-General’s Office, the Public Accounts Committee and even Parliament itself.

Mustapha’s resignation was reported in May. Although confirming that he was leaving, he would not speak about his reasons. He ended his 26-year career with NST at the end of May.

Lim reproduced Mustapha’s note verbatim. It said:

“On the morning of April 25th I walked into the CEO’s room with my resignation letter in hand. We sat and talked about my wish for a good one hour where naturally, the CEO enquired why I had wanted to do so.

“The CEO is a chartered accountant, a man who took his job very seriously, one who is adept with numbers and besides heading the company, someone whom I also considered a friend…

“There were two things I related to him that morning. First, just as he, a chartered accountant, would not hesitate to qualify a set of flawed accounts, signing each of them not only by his name, but also by the ethics enshrined within the professional body in which he was a member, I too take journalism ethics seriously.

“In my line of work, there is this element called the ‘truth discipline’. It is one that requires a journalist to be correct, right from the spelling of names of persons or places, to all the reports he must file. His responsibility is first to the truth, by which he must then guide society in navigating the path they had chosen.

“Second, I told him that I had weighed the situation for as long as I could but when an American newspaper, headquartered somewhere in Lower Manhattan in New York, wrote a story that got nominated for the coveted Pullitzer Prize, about an issue that happened right under my nose, I began to seriously search my conscience and asked myself why was I in journalism in the first place.

In my line of work, there is this element called the ‘truth discipline’. It is one that requires a journalist to be correct, right from the spelling of names of persons or places, to all the reports he must file. His responsibility is first to the truth, by which he must then guide society in navigating the path they had chosen.

“Second, I told him that I had weighed the situation for as long as I could but when an American newspaper, headquartered somewhere in Lower Manhattan in New York, wrote a story that got nominated for the coveted Pullitzer Prize, about an issue that happened right under my nose, I began to seriously search my conscience and asked myself why was I in journalism in the first place.

“We had a cordial discussion that morning and the CEO fully understood my predicament and the fact that there was little else that I could do. In my 27 years of being a journalist, I never once subscribed to the saying that if you can’t beat them, join them.

“In this line of work, there is no such thing as the path of least resistance. You have to stick to your principles. Around the world, an average of 110 like us, pay the ultimate price each year to get the true stories out. At the very least, I felt that as a journalist, I had to honour the sacrifices they had made in abiding by the discipline.

I hope that answers everything.”

The Wall Street Journal was nominated for international reporting. However the Pulitzer Prize – the highest annual journalism award in the United States – went to Alissa J Rubin of the New York Times for her moving accounts from Afghanistan about Afghan women “forced to endure unspeakable cruelties”.

The Journal wrote about 1MDB in a series of reports between July and August last year. The prime minister, Najib Razak, and his supporters have accused the Journal of making false accusations and of being used by the anti-Najib campaign to force him out of office.

SEE ALSO:

WSJ gets Pulitzer nomination for ‘masterful’ 1MDB reporting

1MDB: WSJ report on billions missing an outright lie