YOURSAY ‘The letter is a red herring to show Najib is doing something.’
Lawyers pan Najib's legal letter to WSJ
Odin Tajué: I fully agree with lawyers Eric Paulsen and Azhar Harun. PM Najib Razak’s lawyers' command of English is not quite there. No wonder they have been incapable of understanding the reports published by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ).
Witness the part of their letter reproduced in the eighth paragraph: “We are instructed by our client to seek confirmation as to whether it is your position, as taken in the articles, that our client misappropriated nearly US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) from 1MDB?”
Point 1 - WSJ's position is not taken in the particular articles (reports). The word ‘taken' has been wrongly used. The appropriate ones are ‘implied', ‘suggested', ‘connoted', ‘intimated', and similar ones. Point 2 - The question punctuation-mark is not needed. They did not pose a question.
Witness the ninth paragraph: "We are instructed to procure your position because the articles collectively suggest that you are unsure of the ‘original source of the money and what happened to the money' whilst on the other hand, the general gist of the articles create a clear impression that our client has misappropriated US$700 million belonging to 1MDB.”
The word ‘procure' has been inappropriately used. In everyday speech, we procure something tangible. For example, we need to procure the raw materials to make homemade bombs. In legal language, ‘procure' means to cause or to persuade someone to do something.
Next, a comma is needed after ‘money' and before ‘whilst'. Speaking of which, the word ‘whilst' is considered old-fashioned; ‘while' means the same thing. Also, there is no need to enclose the phrase ‘original source of the money and what happened to the money’ in inverted commas.
In the same paragraph, the phrase ‘general gist' contains the redundant word ‘general'. ‘General' is redundant because ‘gist' means the essence or substance of what is said or written. In legal language, it means the real point of an action.
Existential Turd: WSJ: The sun is out. Not a single cloud in sight. Najib's lawyer: Are you implying that it is sunny today?
Jesse: The letter is a red herring to buy time and PR exercise to say that Najib is doing something. The question is simple - was the money paid into your personal account, and not whether you use it for personal purpose.
The money belongs to the nation. We are entitled to know the truth.
Pemerhati: The statement by PM’s lawyer Wan Azmir Wan Majid that Dow Jones must respond to their letter within 14 days and should Dow Jones fail to respond to the letter within 14 days, the firm would send a letter of demand which it must reply within 14 days, strongly indicates that the main reason for writing the letter is to buy as much time as possible for Najib.
By using this strategy, Najib hopes that for the next 28 days he will be able to create the impression amongst Malaysians, especially those in the rural areas, that he is taking legal action against the WSJ which has allegedly made defamatory and untrue statements against him.
He thus hopes that the people will think that WSJ’s allegation that RM2.6 billion went into his bank account is false.
Not Convinced: Indeed, Najib is worried about what the kampung folk will be talking about come Hari Raya break next week. He wants to create the impression that he had sent WSJ a letter of demand when it is not.
Let’s hope that those going to ‘balik kampung’ will provide their relatives in the rural areas the real story.
Anonymous #12566075: Umno leaders have again become the laughing stock of the world.
Common folks also know that if you think someone has defamed you, demand for an apology. And if you fail to get it, then sue him for defamation.
Why ask WSJ if they meant to defame him or not? If I were WSJ, I would just say you read the report and form your conclusion.
Paul Warren: If this is the standard of competence that our prime minister employs to act on his behalf and to advise him and so forth, then we are indeed in trouble.
I have read and reread WSJ's as well as Sarawak Report’s articles on this as well as their subsequent reports. Nowhere have I seen them stating that Najib had used these monies for personal gain.
Just because Najib, and now his lawyers, say that, that is what they said or that that is what they deny, they are only fooling themselves into believing that that is what Najib is being accused of.
Only Najib and his supporters keep denying it, when there is no need to as no such allegations have been made that he had used the money for personal gain.
I Wonder?: Dear Najib, people are not interested to know how you or your wife Rosmah Mansor spent the money or how you benefitted from it or anything else. That will come later.
For now, the whole nation - and more than half of the world population - want to know if there is such sum of money totaling RM2.6 billion ever gone into your AmBank Private accounts? It is a plain question.
I thought US President Barack Obama openly praised you for your fantastic spoken English which is even better than his. But why all of the sudden, you couldn't understand a question in simple English?
Sirach: WSJ never suggested that Najib misappropriated the money. All it said was that the US$700 million belonging to 1MDB found its way into his personal bank accounts.
So let's cut the spin and come clean about whether the money went into his accounts. If someone takes what does not belong to him, the word for it is stealing.
The person can donate all the loot to charities, orphanages or any good cause, but he remains answerable for the crime of theft.
Negarawan: The legal threat is obviously an attempt to prolong his stay in power, even though he has lost the respect and trust of the rakyat.
Within Malaysia, he can act with impunity because the institutions are well under his control, but outside of Malaysia, he will be ridiculed and humiliated.
Bluemountains: A small boy punched a big boy in the face. Despite his bloodied nose, the big boy was afraid to retaliate. Instead, the big boy asked the small boy if he still really wanted to fight.
This event happened when I was in the primary school in the 50s. What a sad day for the big boy. From that day onwards, the whole school knew he was a coward.
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.
Related reports
Najib’s letter to WSJ aimed at kampung folk
Perhaps no personal gain for Rosmah, too
Zaid: Does Nur Jazlan dare summon PM to PAC?
Report: 1MDB duo had quit over JV irregularities
Yes, KJ, we trust cabinet to do its job - to cover for PM
Do not take advantage of 1MDB issue, warns IGP
Son: Man behind bank founder’s killing in M’sia
Shoot the messenger, create diversion, buy time
