NINE QUESTIONS FOR SARAWAK REPORT: CURRENT / FIFTY-TWO YEARS OF MALAYSIA, SIXTY-ONE DAYS OF THE '9 QUESTIONS'

September 16, 2015

CURRENT / FIFTY-TWO YEARS OF MALAYSIA, SIXTY-ONE DAYS OF THE '9 QUESTIONS'

On this day, the 16th of September, 2015

– - –

SELAMAT HARI MALAYSIA

KE-52

MMXV

– - –

– - –

THE

NINE QUESTIONS

FOR

SARAWAK REPORT

HAS SURPASSED THE SIXTY-DAY MILESTONE

The NINE QUESTIONS FOR SARAWAK REPORT Panel members, namely, Mr Cassius Pereira (Administrator), Mr Krisna Mukerjee (Author and Fact-Checker), Mr Nano Serbajang (Fact-Checker), Mr Amos Seah (Author and Fact-Checker) and Mr Zack Rahman (Author and Fact-Checker) would like to collectively thank the over 17,000 Seekers who took their time to at least read the header, which is designed as such with a singular purpose in mind–of which should be obvious for those who discern.

It is also a very apt coincidence that today marks the celebration of the 52nd Anniversary of the formation of Malaysia.

To commemorate these occasions of momentousness, we shall now begin to universalise the original '9 Questions for Sarawak Report', originally prepared by Mr Tufail.

As the NINE QUESTIONS Panel has demonstrated over the course of these two months concerning the modus operandi and persistently wilful overlooking of court judgments and other ethical considerations, the case of Datuk Tufail - specifically, but not restricted to "Suit No 783 of 2012" - is simply another one of the standard operating procedure of Sarawak Report, Clare Rewcastle Brown, Lukas Straumann and company.

Thus, instead of the original names, we shall now universalise the questions to fit into other situations–note that Mr Tufail's American spelling habits shall also be converted into the British standard forms, thank you very much.

With this exercise, it is hoped that we have achieved at least part of our goal, which is to demonstrate a template, which can be applied in different, but similar scenarios.

QUESTION 1

Why does SR/CB’s ‘Judgment’ of <date> differ from <name of legitimate authority> of THE <name of court> OF <country> actual Judgment made on <date of authoritative Judgment>?

QUESTION 1 Why does SR/CB’s ‘Judgment’ of January 27, 2015 differ from Justice Edmund Leow of THE HIGH COURT OF SINGAPORE’s actual Judgment made on June 29, 2015?

QUESTION 2

Is the Honourable <Person in authority> corrupt, according to SR/CB?

If yes, please provide solid prima facie proof.

QUESTION 2 Is the Honorable Judge corrupt, according to SR/CB?
If yes, please provide solid prima facie proof.

QUESTION 2a

If the Honourable <Person in authority> is not corrupt, would it be fair to say that SR/CB's conclusions are faulty, corrupted and are therefore untrustworthy?

QUESTION 2a If the Honorable Judge is not corrupt, would it be fair to say that SR/CB's conclusions are faulty, corrupted and are therefore untrustworthy?

QUESTION 3

How do you then explain that your name, SARAWAK REPORT/CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN is again implicated closely with the word "<name of offence>"?

QUESTION 3 How do you then explain that your name, SARAWAK REPORT/CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN is againimplicated closely with the word "FABRICATED"?

QUESTION 4

<name of offence> was also prominently featured in the successful charges against SR/CB’s <nationality> contact, <name of contact>.

How do you explain this?

QUESTION 4 FORGERY was also prominently featured in the successful charges against SR/CB’s Canadian contact, CULLEN JOHNSON.
How do you explain this?

QUESTION 4a

On <date of offence>, SR/CB had also confirmed that their <name of role> - <name of contact> - was at least a conman, if not a fraudster.

What sort of other unsavory characters currently work at SARAWAK REPORT, RADIO FREE SARAWAK, or with CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN?

QUESTION 4a On July 20, 2015, SR/CB had also confirmed that their former colleague - LESTER MELANYI - was at least a conman, if not a fraudster.
What sort of other unsavory characters currently work at SARAWAK REPORT, RADIO FREE SARAWAK, or with CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN?

"The outcome of the case in <name of location> is <excuses and red herrings>."

- SARAWAK REPORT, <date of response>

"The outcome of the case in Singapore is IMMATERIAL." - SARAWAK REPORT, July 17, 2015

QUESTION 5

Is this defence by SARAWAK REPORT made BECAUSE, the <offending material> used for SR/CB’s website are not material?

QUESTION 5 Is this defence by SARAWAK REPORT made BECAUSE, the fabricated documents used for SR/CB’s website are not material?

OR,

QUESTION 5a

...BECAUSE the Honourable <Person in authority> unequivocal and damning decision the one that is immaterial?

OR,QUESTION 5a ...BECAUSE the Honorable Judge’s unequivocal and damning decision the one that is immaterial?

OR,

QUESTION 6

...BECAUSE SR/CB is exempted from using only authentic and unaltered materials in news reporting?

OR,QUESTION 6 ...BECAUSE SR/CB is exempted from using only authentic and unaltered materials in news reporting?

OR,

QUESTION 7

...BECAUSE <targets of SR/CB/BMF/et al.> had WON the case, contrary to SR/CB’s opposing insinuations?

OR, ALL of the above?

PLEASE STATE REASONS IF INCLINED.

OR,QUESTION 7 ...BECAUSE DATUK TUFAIL had WON the case, contrary to SR/CB’s opposing insinuations?
OR, ALL of the above?
PLEASE STATE REASONS IF INCLINED.

QUESTION 8

If SR/CB has ample prima facie evidence on any wrongdoings by <targets of SR/CB/BMF/et al.> worthy of investigations, why had SR/CB never made successful attempts to forward the information to the responsible authorities?

QUESTION 8 If SR/CB has ample prima facie evidence on any wrongdoings by DATUK TUFAIL worthy of investigations, why had SR/CB never made successful attempts to forward the information to the responsible authorities?