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
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|