Unreliable leaks and flawed intelligence
WikiLeaks has been used by the ruling government on several occasions to blame or tarnish Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim. First came the “leak” about Singapore’s diplomatic officials linking Anwar to Sodomy II against Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Now we have accusations that Anwar is the man behind the Lahad Datu intrusion, and all because he had close ties with Nur Misuari, the troubled former governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.
Let’s look at the reliability of the diplomatic leaks by WikiLeaks and the accuracy of these sensational stories.
Last year, Anwar, in a “live” dialogue-cum-interview with WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange, answered Assange on critical issues. They did not touch on the “leaked” diplomatic documents.
Now what about the diplomatic comments revealed by WikiLeaks? Or let’s ask the crucial question: How reliable are the diplomatic cables?
The declaration by Saiful’s father (that Anwar was not guilty of the sodomy) has not only tarnished those who accused Anwar of sodomy, it has also exposed the flagrant dishonesty of the Singaporean “officials” who claimed Sodomy II was real.
The Jakarta Globe (quoting an AFP report) screamed: “Singapore leaders believe Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim had sex with a male aide in a honey trap set by his enemies, according to leaked US cables published by WikiLeaks.”
The Centre for Policy Initiatives (CPI), in its article on the “Singapore leaks”, reported that the US Embassy had recorded the opinions of Singapore officials in Malaysia, adding that their comments were blunt and none was complimentary.
Slap in the face
CPI cited the Sydney Morning Herald report on Dec 12 which quoted WikiLeaks as having stated that it (sodomy) was a “set-up job engineered by Anwar’s enemies, and that Anwar did engage in sodomy”.
But the statement by Saiful’s father (that Anwar was innocent) and his decision to join PKR are a big slap in the Singaporean officials’ face. It also cast doubts on the trustworthiness of WikiLeaks’ cables.
There are two major aspects in the WikiLeaks’ cables on Sodomy II. One is the report about Singaporean officials giving their views to US officials on the sodomy trial, and two, is the source who disclosed the “intelligence” to the Singaporean authorities.
If the intelligence came from Malaysia, it is clear that the Singaporeans were duped into believing that the story was true. This shows how the “diplomatic” circles in this region can easily be deceived about national, regional and international issues. Singapore believed Anwar was involved in sodomy when the facts today proved otherwise.
This not only shows the “leaks” are fake or are not reliable. It also brings into question WikiLeaks’ method of simply relaying wrong information to the public. They all come from untrustworthy sources.
Anwar is now being accused of having links with Nur Misuari, and this is based on a five-year-old leak by WikiLeaks. While it is a fact that Anwar did know Misuari as the governor of the Autonomous Region of Mindanao, the latest government spin on this link smells fishy.
How can anyone trust these US diplomatic leaks?
The bigger question is, why did WikiLeaks not release the “other” leaks from the US diplomatic cables that could probably tell a different story of Sulu, Malaysia and Anwar?
If such cables do not exist, it clearly shows that the US has for decades been collecting fake or planted information for its secret services. What does this tell us about the US, the superpower that depends on this intelligence to carry out its foreign policies in the region?
And what does this tell us of the newspapers and portals that are trying to link Anwar to the rebels in Lahad Datu?
KL-based Amir Ali works for an Indonesian NGO called the Warisan Melayu Riau, which is based in Bengkalis, Riau.
Singapore officials believed Anwar Ibrahim was
involved in Sodomy II but the facts today have proven otherwise, calling
into question the reliability of US intelligence cables.
WikiLeaks has been used by the ruling government on several occasions to blame or tarnish Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim. First came the “leak” about Singapore’s diplomatic officials linking Anwar to Sodomy II against Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Now we have accusations that Anwar is the man behind the Lahad Datu intrusion, and all because he had close ties with Nur Misuari, the troubled former governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.
Let’s look at the reliability of the diplomatic leaks by WikiLeaks and the accuracy of these sensational stories.
Last year, Anwar, in a “live” dialogue-cum-interview with WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange, answered Assange on critical issues. They did not touch on the “leaked” diplomatic documents.
Now what about the diplomatic comments revealed by WikiLeaks? Or let’s ask the crucial question: How reliable are the diplomatic cables?
The declaration by Saiful’s father (that Anwar was not guilty of the sodomy) has not only tarnished those who accused Anwar of sodomy, it has also exposed the flagrant dishonesty of the Singaporean “officials” who claimed Sodomy II was real.
The Jakarta Globe (quoting an AFP report) screamed: “Singapore leaders believe Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim had sex with a male aide in a honey trap set by his enemies, according to leaked US cables published by WikiLeaks.”
The Centre for Policy Initiatives (CPI), in its article on the “Singapore leaks”, reported that the US Embassy had recorded the opinions of Singapore officials in Malaysia, adding that their comments were blunt and none was complimentary.
Slap in the face
CPI cited the Sydney Morning Herald report on Dec 12 which quoted WikiLeaks as having stated that it (sodomy) was a “set-up job engineered by Anwar’s enemies, and that Anwar did engage in sodomy”.
But the statement by Saiful’s father (that Anwar was innocent) and his decision to join PKR are a big slap in the Singaporean officials’ face. It also cast doubts on the trustworthiness of WikiLeaks’ cables.
There are two major aspects in the WikiLeaks’ cables on Sodomy II. One is the report about Singaporean officials giving their views to US officials on the sodomy trial, and two, is the source who disclosed the “intelligence” to the Singaporean authorities.
If the intelligence came from Malaysia, it is clear that the Singaporeans were duped into believing that the story was true. This shows how the “diplomatic” circles in this region can easily be deceived about national, regional and international issues. Singapore believed Anwar was involved in sodomy when the facts today proved otherwise.
This not only shows the “leaks” are fake or are not reliable. It also brings into question WikiLeaks’ method of simply relaying wrong information to the public. They all come from untrustworthy sources.
Anwar is now being accused of having links with Nur Misuari, and this is based on a five-year-old leak by WikiLeaks. While it is a fact that Anwar did know Misuari as the governor of the Autonomous Region of Mindanao, the latest government spin on this link smells fishy.
How can anyone trust these US diplomatic leaks?
The bigger question is, why did WikiLeaks not release the “other” leaks from the US diplomatic cables that could probably tell a different story of Sulu, Malaysia and Anwar?
If such cables do not exist, it clearly shows that the US has for decades been collecting fake or planted information for its secret services. What does this tell us about the US, the superpower that depends on this intelligence to carry out its foreign policies in the region?
And what does this tell us of the newspapers and portals that are trying to link Anwar to the rebels in Lahad Datu?
KL-based Amir Ali works for an Indonesian NGO called the Warisan Melayu Riau, which is based in Bengkalis, Riau.
ADMIN - SUDAH TERANG LAGI BERSULUH............
Pendekar Melayu 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment