Posted in Uncategorized

UPDATED: Dana Politik – Rahman Dahlan di TV1 pada 9.05 malam ini

For those who missed the programme on TV just now, below is the recorded version on the Net. – 11.35pm

Aiyoyo, the BN “strategic communications” needs to be improved! This important programme to air shortly has hardly been publicized.

Methinks even Ubah TV got a better publicity machine.

Rahman Dahlan


I have no Faceook or Twitter.

33 thoughts on “UPDATED: Dana Politik – Rahman Dahlan di TV1 pada 9.05 malam ini

  1. In this instant, I have to acknowledge that Najib finally made a good choice in appointing ARD. I may not agree with his stand but at least he spoke clearly and sounded convincing. He seemed to know what he’s talking about and his belief in the PM comes off as sincere.

  2. His tweet from yesterday: ” MACC confirms RM2.6B is from donors. Sadly many on twitter were hoodwinked by WSJ, Swk Report & oppo who said PM stole frm 1MDB & rakyat.”

    I think your endorsement of of this clown was premature, Helen.

    1. You claim that you lot (evangelical Christians) are overflowing with love and kindness.

      Yet your comments here do nothing but spit venom.

      1. I’m just trying to be consistent with the blog’s overall theme. I’m pretty sure you created that theme.

          1. People who claim that RM2.6B was from ‘Donor’ therefore not from 1MDB or RAKYAT, and thereby Najib is innocent, are indeed just pulling a “BAK KUT TEH is not pork” Orwellian doublespeak.

            There’s no better example than this.

    2. Semantics. Opposition play that game well. But when someone from Umno does it, he’s a clown.

      1. The oppo also don’t address issues or answer contentions. They just wave their hand to airily dismiss any criticisms. The favourite words they throw at their opponents’ arguments are “absurd”, “rubbish”, “nonsense”, “gibberish”.

        Then we have WtJ calling ARD “this clown”.

      2. Except he hasn’t played the game well at all. The more he defends the indefensible, the more hate is going to be thrown his way. Just check out the list of comments following his tweet. The smartest thing that he could have done was to not say anything on this issue.

        1. ‘The smartest thing that he could have done was to not say anything on this issue.’

          Ye ke, Cepatnye ko tukar kulit eh? Semalam kau tuduh Melayu macam aku, tunduk kat UMNO masters aku sebab rather senyap pasal benda ni? Siap kata aku tutup mata dan telinga dengan perbuatan UMNO crooks?!

          Sneaky bastards!

          1. This people’s change tunes because the explanation work.

            People’s believes in this explanation because the perception in the Malay community is this Arab people’s is rich and have hundreds billions of money.

            2.6b is only a small change compare to hundreds billions they own. Hehhehheh


    3. Since Mahathir and Muhiyiddin used references from The Malaysian Insider and The Edge, Helen has switched camps to Najib faster than you could say ‘Kopi O satu!’. That was, perhaps, all it took. ;)

      1. Tun became the idol for the DAP and overnight Kit Siang’s most favourite person.

  3. Strategic communications is legitimate only when it communicates with sincerity. Otherwise it is mere strategy without substance.

  4. 1MDB vs RM2.6 bil donation

    From one issue of RM2.6 bil alleged to be ‘donated’ from 1MDB related entities to another issue of RM2.6 bil donation from a donor.

    The lawyer son of Johor MB Akmal Saufi asked the prime question:

    “What proof is there that the funds are donations and not money related to 1MDB or from any parties which has transaction related to 1MDB?”

    Donor A donated to Najib. But from where the source of Donor A’s funds came from? It may come from B. B’s funds may come from C. C’s funds may come from 1MDB. By using multiple layer of ‘intermediaries’, the real source of fund can be hidden. MACC must look beyond Donor A. MACC also needs to investigate if the donation directly given to Najib’s personal account constitutes a bribery within the Akta SPRM.

    Lastly, don’t forget that the 1MDB issue still remains. RM2.6 bil may not come from 1MDB. But controversies like RM42 bil debt, high purchase price of power assets and dealings with PetroSaudi remains unanswered. The Edge was suspended. But till now the government has not expressly pointed out which articles (or any sentence therein) on 1MDB is false.

      1. Thanks. Will read later. By just looking briefly, this is how the government should respond to WSJ and The Edge articles. Point directly to the false/wrong sentence and reply/rebut specifically. After all, the allegation of WSJ/The Edge started in a similar manner. Both pointed to specific transactions.

          1. The ‘bnm’ fella is alright. It is the reader calling himself ‘Kata Sayang’ who’s real creepy. The more LOVE these evangelistas are shoving at us, the freakier it is. Aiieeee.

            1. Consider this:

              1. Najib’s 2.6 bil of donation is not breaking any laws.
              2. Msia will have zero corruption case in the future.
              3. Giver will say donation. Recipient will say donation. No wrongdoing at all.
              4. MACC can close shop. No case to investigate.
              5. Msia will be the world’s most ‘clean’ country in the world.

              1. re: “Najib’s 2.6 bil of donation is not breaking any laws.”

                You’re the lawyer. You tell us.

                re: “Msia will have zero corruption case in the future.”

                Yup, if there is a regime change and the Kim family (Kim Kit Siang, Kim Guan Eng and their henchwomen) take over Putrajaya.

                re: “Giver will say donation. Recipient will say donation. No wrongdoing at all.”

                Just like the evangelical churches passing the plate for collection. Registered as RM2 company. Do they declare their profits collection from the parishioners and pay taxes since the pastors are running a business entity?

                re: “MACC can close shop. No case to investigate.”

                Previously and especially at the height of the Teoh Beng Hock case, the Dapsters considered MACC to be the most wicked villains. I hope the latest developments will bear a lesson for the Chinese to learn to give a little respect to our state institutions.

                re: “Msia will be the world’s most ‘clean’ country in the world.”

                Do you believe Hannah Yeoh when she promises to ‘Bersihkan’ Malaysia and is urging the public to take to the streets to give the DAP and its cohorts the mandate?


                1. re: You’re the lawyer. You tell us.

                  I am no lawyer.

                  I am talking on Najib’s 2.6 bil donation. If we allow such precedent, any public officers (actually anyone in Msia) can say that monies received by them are donation. Then we would have corruption in Msia anymore. We are setting a very dangerous precedent here. We cannot allow Najib to get away with the 2.6 bil without explaining the source, donor and spending.

                  1. re: “We cannot allow Najib to get away with the 2.6 bil without explaining the source, donor and spending.”

                    Like I said earlier, DAP should move a motion of no confidence against him in Parliament. After all, DAP is the second biggest party in the House.

                    Isn’t it better to act within the law than do the Hannah thing of inciting anger with its corollary of hate?

                    1. re: motion of no confidence

                      This is one of the recourse for the MPs via Parliament, the legislative arm. Motion of no confidence is political and based on numbers. The motion will be defeated anyway.

                      re: do the Hannah thing of inciting anger

                      Politicians will always capitalise on issues. You have detractors on one side. And you have defenders on the other (MYKMU, Rahman Dahlan, Khairy etc). We can’t stop that.

                      But authorities (i.e. MACC and PDRM) must act within the laws irrespective of the identity of the offenders. I have not read the fine print of the relevant laws yet. But on the surface, it may be illegal due to the following reasons:-

                      1. Najib is an incumbent PM;
                      2. Money went into his personal account, not Umno’s party account;
                      3. Unknown donor;
                      4. Unknown spending and whereabout of the balance;
                      5. Possible tax offences.

                      For no. 5 above, you may read Tun M’s similar experience of Umno’s monies went into his private account:


                      Long story short, Tun M deposited Umno’s money into his private bank account. LHDN investigated his failure to declare that money as income. Tun M was fined. Assuming the same scenario applies for Najib’s 2.6 bil, he would have committed a tax crime back in 2013.

                      I repeat again. If the authorities allow Najib’s 2.6 bil donation as legal, there will be no distinction between donation and corruption/bribery.

                    2. re: “do the Hannah thing of inciting anger” / “Politicians will always capitalise on issues”

                      True that politicians capitalise on issues but Hannah Yeoh is a preacher-politician who preaches the DAP’s “New Politics’ in church.

                      She preaches love but is inciting hate.

                      She calls the BN politicians “low class” but she herself is unable to stay classy.

                    3. re: She calls the BN politicians “low class” but she herself is unable to stay classy.

                      I think you should put HY away for the time being. As Msians, we have a bigger issue now. Najib has declared that MACC cleared him of any wrongdoing vis-a-vis the 2.6 bil donation. Prior to that, 2 senior MACC directors were transferred and some MACC officers were investigated by PDRM.

                      Now politicians are free to accept donation irrespective of the amount and the background of the donor. In fact, there is no more difference between bribery and donation. Both are the same now. We are setting a very dangerous precedent. To quote from Air Asia, Everyone Can Give Bribe Now.

                    4. re: “I think you should put HY away for the time being.”

                      I wish Mama Dapster could be put away like Grandpapa and Papa Dapster had been put away in 1987 under Ops Lalang. Unfortunately tho, she’s too licik with her love-love-love talk to be nailed.

Comments are closed.