Friday, July 10, 2015

Ah, Badlisyah! [That's malicious, Malaysiakini!]

When I posted Just Three Questions for WSJ yesterday, I knew who the author was but I did not know him personally. I could have done a Malaysiakini and identitied (or, rather, exposed) him but I did not.  
Two reasons why I didn't:
1. I did not get his OK for me to attribute the piece to him
2. He wrote the piece on his FB, which he shared only with "Friends" 
I was not even an FB "friend" of the author. Someone had sent me his piece knowing that it would interest me immensely. But knowing the author was the head of a bank, I doubted very much he would have consented to anyone attributing the article to him. 
So I decided to do the next best thing: post the article but at the same time protect the identity of the author. That's how I came to attributing my posting yesterday to a legally-trained Malaysian currently heading a banking/finance institution [and therefore, unfortunately, must remain anonymous].  
Malaysiakini, however, later exposed Badlisyah Abdul Ghani, CEO of CIMB Islamic, as the author of the article. I doubt if Badlisyah had consented to it, or was even informed by Malaysiakini that it was going to do so. 
What Malaysiakini did was unethical. Malicious even. 
I feel sorry for Badlisyah because he did not ask for any of this. Like many Malaysians, I think he wanted to know if there was any truth behind the WSJ's fantastic documents used to claim that billions had been deposited into bank accounts belonging to the Malaysian Prime Minister. And he shared what he discovered with his FB friends in the hope that it would help shed some light on the issue. 
I can't help but feel responsible for his current predicament. If I had not published his article in the first place, perhaps his analysis - right or wrong - would have remained peacefully obscure until now, safe within the walls of his private Facebook timeline. 
Nazir Razak said there would be an internal inquiry into the matter. I wish Badlisyah all the best.


  1. Anonymous12:42 pm

    Sorry, complete bullshit.

    "I was not even an FB "friend" of the author. Someone had sent me his piece knowing that it would interest me immensely. But knowing the author was the head of a bank, I doubted very much he would have consented to anyone attributing the article to him."

    So that's why he posted it on his Facebook (albeit private with a disclaimer?)

    Sorry, lah, I think it's obvious when something is intended to be leaked. And it was. People aren't stupid any more. Pity that the poor guy's brownie points aren't cashable now. Seems to have been a wasted exercise.

    Anyway Latuk, I believe you have a rather large, luxury-encrusted spherical mass to defend next (and urgently)?

    Good luck bro.

    Those PMO cheques don't write themselves, do they.

    May be a good idea to buka puasa with TSMY as well, eh?

    Damage control.

  2. charleskiwi1:06 pm

    I repeat here what I and many other bloggers have said WSJ have never alleged that Najib had used the funds in anyway. They only said the funds ended up in his accounts and that Najib has never denied that it was fabricated or wrongly reported. Najib so call team of legal eagles can only ask WSJ their position and nothing else. What kind of legal eagles are these, if they are indeed the legal eagles they are supposed to be. They should just call themselves legal eagles of Malaysia and stop there they are only legal expert when it comes to legal matters within Malaysia when they have the protection and support of the ruling government.
    For once their knowledges and skills are needed in the internal arena, what can they show ? NOTHING period. I repeat sue the hell out of WSJ for false reporting but again rest assure nothing will ever happen, just like Rosmah said pray to Allah and hope for the best !

  3. Anonymous1:16 pm

    You are responsible. But people need to understand the risks of social media, and the limits of privacy. This is not a country with a right to say anything and avoid the consequences.

  4. Dear Rocky:

    Dear Rocky:

    If your assessment of this character Badlisyah is correct, then I think he is not only stupid but also demonstrates incredibly poor judgement, his Leeds law degree and other accolades notwithstanding. He is stupid in believing that he could control the distribution of his social media postings only to his cyber "friends." You cannot. Once it is out there, it is permanent. You can no more control it than you could the air around you.

    He also demonstrates poor judgment in underestimating the caliber of such a reputable publication as WSJ. Yes WSJ had made some blunders but it, as well AS FT and the Economist, still comprises the steady reading staple for executives and aspiring CEOs. NST and Utusan they are not.

    What was he thinking when he made and then posted that "analysis" on his Facebook? If it is only for his "friends" he could have simply emailed it privately to them and then let them take the cue from that. Of course he would not have gotten the "credit" had his "analysis" been proven right.

    I wish those folks at Malaysiakini would not have jumped so quickly. Wait until Najib as well as his "bright boys" and ball carriers have sufficiently made an ass of themselves with that posting, treating it as the gospel truth, then only pounced on them. There would then be many more red faces as well as deflated egos.

    The lesson in all these is simple. Be cautious and do not suspend your judgement when evaluating the utterances of those with seemingly impressive credentials or in high positions. That is why they teach critical thinking in the West.

    The worse aspect of this Badlisyah's idiotic posting is that he has besmirched the reputation of other capable Malay executives in the various GLCs. Contrary to the perception of many (and not just non-Malays) there are many such individuals. I have had the privilege of meeting some of them.

    Nizar Razak should fire this character right away. What "internal inquiry" do you need? The blunder speaks for itself.

    Bakri Musa (

  5. Anonymous2:50 pm

    Malaysiakini banyak jahat!

  6. Anonymous3:17 pm

    lesson learned

  7. Anonymous3:41 pm

    Mkini did the right can you be certain that your posting was their source! so dont feel too bad and assume responsibility for his predicament. Badlishah must be wise enough to know what he shouldnt have done.

  8. Malaysia is playing with sentiments with its sensationalizing headlines and choices of words. It is very unethical but nothing much you can do. BN is losing the perception war. It does not help with the mamak gang relentless attacks on PM with foul languages.

    What the hell is wrong with Nazir? The Swift or BIC or whatever code still wrong and pointed to the wrong bank address. After all, Badlisyah just raised some questions and doubts.

  9. IT.Scheiss4:11 pm


    Sorry but I cannot accept that the use of different SWIFT codes by different branches of the SAME in the SAME city bank is evidence enough to dismiss the documents presented by the WSJ as false.

    "Thirdly, why is the SWIFT Code used in the WSJ shared document is different?"

    "The best and most straight forward way to check whether a SWIFT document is authentic is to check the SWIFT Code of the bank used in the document. If it is wrong then the whole thing is a fraud. This can also be done online through the relevant official website."

    "The SWIFT Code of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Branch) located at 375 Park Avenue, NY 4080, NEW York, NY, US that is depicted on the shared SWIFT document is PNBPUS3NANYC. However, the actual SWIFT Code of Code of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (New York International Branch) located at 375 PARK AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10152 is actually PNBPUS3NNYC."


    Firstly, each branch of a bank very often does not have a unique SWIFT code but holds SWIFT codes by function of the respective subsidiaries within a banking group.

    For example, CIMB Bank has nine SWIFT codes in Malaysia, one each for different subsidiaries or divisions within the CIMB group in Malaysia.

    Altogether, there are 135 entities in Malaysia with a SWIFT code each. Most are domestic or foreign banks with some non banks such as Mercedes Benz, Petronas and Samsung.

    Now there certainly are many more than a total of 135 bank branches in Malaysia, so it is clear that the many branches of each entity share the same SWIFT code.

    Therefore, it is not out of order for the 375 Park Avenue branch to use the same SWIFT code as the 11 Pennsylvania Avenue branch of the same Wells Fargo Bank NA (New York International Branch) in New York City.

    Also, Well Fargo Bank NA has 43 SWIFT codes across the United States, mostly one SWIFT code per city, sometimes two or three.

    Anyway, has anyone taken the trouble to ask Well Fargo Bank NA (New York International Branch) about this?

    Surely someone in such a senior position as Badlisyah Abdul Ghani, CEO of CIMB Islamic could have just picked up the phone and called Well Fargo to enquire.

    If he could make the mistake of confusing that SWIFT code PNBPUR3NANY with Alfa-Bank in Moscow and then correct himself after tracing it to Wachovia Bank in New York which has been acquired by Wells Fargo Bank NA and subsequently renamed Wells Fargo Bank NA, I would say that he has done a pretty sloppy job in his investigations even if just to post on his Facebook page.

    Being a senior editor yourself, I am sure you would have given it properly to a reporter who made such a mistake, let alone a bank CEO whom people hold to a higher standard than an underpaid, overworked newspaper reporter faced with the uncertainty of being given a VSS.

    Also, I have searched Google Maps on 11 Pennsylvania Plaza and 375 Park Avenue and have determined that they are respectively located in two very different parts of New York City.

    11 Pennsylvania Plaza is in the west side of New York close to the Pennsylvania Central railway station and 375 Park Avenue is located in the Seagram building in the east side of New York.

    Also, the west side of New York is the wealthier and more premium side which includes Broadway, Times Square, etc, whilst the east side of New York is the poorer area.

    So all this excludes the possibility that they are the same bank branch with entrances on two different roads.

  10. Anonymous4:48 pm

    What lah, latuk. He wanted the world to know how clever he was in spotting a fake, so he posted "to public" and not only "to friends". Better if you stop apologising for him. He wanted glamour like many Malays in that position, but all he got was sh!t. And so did you.


  11. Anonymous6:21 pm

    Bayangkan Bro...Mat Maslan kata Najib bukan bodoh? tapi kenyataannya apa yg berlaku pd 1MDB membuktikan Najib bodoh dalam urusniaga. CEO CIMB Islamic pulak bodoh sebab tak reti hal teknikal perbankan. Namun orang yg paling bodoh adalah orang yg mempertahankan kebodohan orang lain spt Mat Maslan dan beberapa menteri lain. Apakah mereka yg 'Melayu Islam' ini sudah tiada maruah diri? Tolonglah jangan pertahan kebodohan mereka....

  12. Anonymous6:37 am

    It is not entirely about is all about malay/muslim bashing! Gearing up for PRU 14.Can you notice the pattern datuk? Umno.Mara.Uitm.Felda.Malay/muslim politician.All the malay/muslim entity is under systematically under attack!

  13. Anonymous8:56 am

    Ha ha ha. Harapkan pagar - pagar makan padi. Tapii malangnya - yang makan cili tak terasa pedas lagi.

    1. Anonymous8:15 pm

      Pegar lah bukan pagar. Pafar tu gate. Pegar is burung

  14. Anonymous1:40 pm

    I am very glad that you care about ethics. Do you know if the missing money is still in 1MDB or somewhere else? If it is missing, then it is clear who is responsible. Did you ever ask where the PM and/or his wife got the money from that was allegedly put in their bank accounts? That would be ethical.

  15. Anonymous10:03 am

    Indirectly you had played a minimal role in the decision of the CEO of CIMB Islamic Bank to resign! Even if some of you are extremely eager in defending the wrongdoings, vilifying those who question the wrongdoings, trying extremely hard to portray yourselves as being the educated, experienced and knowledgeable beings when it matters the most, you fail. Picking on some 'personal thoughts' of an 'intellectual' and using that to quash the entire issue which was brought forward by the WSJ is nothing but a feeble attempt to 'prove' there is nothing wrong with 1MDB. Hope some of you would take cue from this and ensure more 'well-thought out' line of defense in future. Good luck!