EDITORIAL / UNMASKING THE REAL LUKAS STRAUMANN AND THE BRUNO MANSER FONDS: PART II - BOGUS SCIENCE, BOGUS VALUES AND HIDDEN AGENDA

IN the last editorial, we had written on BMF and its notoriously belligerent director, Lukas Straumann and examined how they have been caught whitewashing the misdeeds of Swiss Nazi chemical companies while unfairly and distortedly attacking Sarawak with a degree of vehemence that would have been more appropriate when directed at the Nazis - new and old - much closer to home.

In this instalment, the NINE QUESTIONS Panel examines the faulty and sinisterly dangerous worldwiew that the operators of the Bruno Manser Fonds hold fast to. We also explore the twisted 'science' behind the existence of this shadowy organization, the suspicious fundings of which has been verifiably substantiated and covered by the good people at Corruption Watchers.

The Panel will also scrutinise current issues surrounding the subject of the nomads, and compare the many different groups to shed light on the issue concerning the Penan natives of Sarawak and we will show how the people at Bruno Manser Fonds are misleading and even maliciously using the Penans to advance their self-serving and suspicious cause.

– The NINE QUESTIONS Panel

👇🏽

-PART II-

"Over 90% of Sarawak's rainforests were logged."

– Bruno Manser Fonds

THUS goes the oft-repeated mantra favoured by Bruno Manser Fonds and their close - but equally bogus - affiliate, Sarawak Report. Depending on their mood, they will also use the contradictory line of, "Only 5% of forest cover left", just to lend their agenda an air of alarming urgency that is best focussed on other, more realistically urgent locations around the world*. 

Over time, they have refined this claim to include the word "primary", when they realised that their original claim cannot be substantiated by any acceptable method whatsoever. 

STATIC STATISTICS

The other problem with this whimsical claim is precisely because in the decades since this claim had first been made - since the late 1980s to the early 1990s - their statistics had barely changed from the same old tired general accusation, and thus we can conclude that the original accusation was made from a blatantly biased estimation and thus designed to cause maximum damage despite ground evidence to the contrary.

Thanks to modern technology, we are now better able to discern with little room for doubt that the claims made by BMF and their well-meaning but mislead affiliates (except for Sarawak Report, whom we are adamantly sure is one maliciously unrepentant organisation, with the zeal of a biased and hateful fanatic) are far from accurate.

This zeal is best encapsulated in Bruno Manser's own, albeit gravely false proclamation made in February of 2000 that, "[through] his logging license policies, Taib Mahmud is personally responsible for the destruction of nearly all Sarawak rainforests in one generation."

GOOGLE EARTH TIMELAPSE RELEASED

A few days ago, Google Earth had released their latest innovation, which is a timelapse of satellite photographs composited over the period of 32 years (1984-2016).

Satellite shot of Sarawak in 1984.
Screenshot: Google Earth Timelapse

Satellite shot of Sarawak in 2016.

Screenshot: Google Earth Timelapse

Looking closer to the situation using objective data, the interactive map furnished by Global Forest Watch tells another starkly different story than the tired old "90% gone, 5% left" jingle, that makes neither logical nor mathematical sense.

In this 2016 rendering of the Global Forest Watch interactive map, forest cover loss is clearly less than 40% to 50%. Furthermore, if only 5% was left, or as Mr Manser would prefer to term it as "nearly all" is gone, then wouldn't Sarawak be left with absolutely no forest cover in the 16 years that the ridiculous pronouncement was first made? Evidently, these campaigners are not interested in the truth, but merely using false data to advance their hidden political/commercial agenda.
Screenshot: Global Forest Watch

Just a cursory view would tell the observer that there is still way more than merely 5% forest cover over Sarawak, and certainly, even the primary rainforests are still largely intact.

Given that Mr Manser had made such a boldly apocalyptic pronouncement way back at the turn of the millennium, the sixteen years that had passed would have seen Sarawak with absolutely no forest cover by today, especially presuming that they were correct in saying that all this is due to then-Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud's "indiscriminate policies".

CURRENT / CLARE BROWN FINALLY FILES HER DEFENCE, INCLUDES A COUNTER-CLAIM AND CONFIRMS HER LAWYERS WERE CHANGED

AFTER a lull, Clare Rewcastle Brown finally managed to file her defence in the case of Hadi Awang v. Clare Brown. For added effect, she even included a counter-claim although suspiciously, she is completely mum about it. 

Certainly a strange change in attitude coming from the 'Mother of all Sensational News' herself - to whom commenting sub judice is a daily thing, in fact an oft-deployed battle tactic.

"She would only stand to get costs if Hadi is unable to prove his case. Clare has gone another step to file an action against the PAS leader." 

– SN Nair,  

We are very curious as to the value of the counter-claim that Ms Brown filed, and certainly she should share this information with everyone, if it is so justifiable. 

Interestingly, it seems as if the prospect of simply winning at cost isn't enough for Clare, and she will attempt to fleece as much money as she is able, given the chance - as evidenced in this latest development.

It could also mean that Clare is hoping to deter Hadi from proceeding with the case with the threat of an (presumably huge) undisclosed sum as counter-claimed by Ms Brown.

Or both. Until more information trickles out, you get to decide for now.

Another interesting fact that we can glean from this development is the fact that she in fact did change her "horses mid-stream" as alleged by blogger Raggy Jessy a.k.a. The Third Force previously. There is somehow a silent admission on the fact that she changed her lawyers although she was also atypically mum about that whole question. 

So much for transparency.

– The NINE QUESTIONS Panel

👇🏽

– - –

1.

2. SARAWAK REPORT EDITOR FILES DEFENCE AGAINST HADI

– - –

CLARE FILES DEFENCE, COUNTER-CLAIM AGAINST HADI

Sarawak Report ran the article in which it claimed RM90 million was “reckoned” to have entered the accounts of top PAS leaders to woo them into supporting Umno and Barisan Nasional.

REPORTED BY FREE MALAYSIA TODAY

Photo: FMT 

PETALING JAYA, OCTOBER 12, 2017 –

Clare Rewcastle Brown has filed her defence in response to PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang’s defamation suit against the editor of the whistleblower website, Sarawak Report. 

She also revealed that a counter-claim had been filed against Hadi. 

“The defence and counterclaim were filed in the UK High Court this afternoon,” she told FMT in an e-mail. 

Clare, who did not provide details, said the filing includes a summary of the lengthy full document.

Last week, in updating FMT on the suit, Clare said she would file her defence very soon. 

Meanwhile, lawyer SN Nair said Clare would stand to obtain costs and damages if the court dismissed Hadi’s suit and allowed the counterclaim (fresh suit). 

“She would only stand to get costs if Hadi is unable to prove his case.  

“Clare has gone another step to file an action against the PAS leader,” he said. 

On August 2, the court rejected Clare’s application to demand that Hadi deposit a higher security to meet the expected costs before the start of his suit. 

The court also ordered her to file her defence by August 30. 

However, Clare was given more time after she appointed a new lawyer.
The Islamist party leader was only ordered to place RM80,000 as security, in the event he lost the case against Clare. 

The suit, filed at the London High Court in April, was related to an article she wrote in August 2016. 

Sarawak Report ran the article in which it claimed RM90 million was “reckoned” to have entered the accounts of top PAS leaders to woo them into supporting Umno and Barisan Nasional.

('Clare Files Defence, Counter-Claim Against Hadi.' – Free Malaysia Today, October 12, 2017)

– - –

1. CLARE FILES DEFENCE, COUNTER-CLAIM AGAINST HADI

2.

– - –

SARAWAK REPORT EDITOR FILES DEFENCE AGAINST HADI

The court did not accept her argument that she would not be able to bring a legal suit against Hadi in Malaysia, where the “judiciary, government and the prime minister are corrupted and are complicit with him”.

REPORTED BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIGHT

PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang is suing Clare Rewcastle Brown, who is questioning the source of funding for the suit, yet refuses to say whether she will return the money she collected in donations and other sources in the case that she loses.
Photo: The Malaysian Insight 

OCTOBER 12, 2017 – 

SARAWAK Report editor Clare Rewcastle-Brown has filed her defence in the United Kingdom High Court against PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang’s defamation suit, reports Free Malaysia Today. 

Rewcastle-Brown told the portal that the defence and a counter-claim were filed against Hadi yesterday. 

She, however, did not divulge details of the suit only saying the filing includes a summary of the lengthy full document. 

Hadi sued the London-based journalist over an article which appeared on the whistle-blower site last August alleging that he received RM90 million in bribes from Prime Minister Najib Razak in return for support. 

Lawyer S.N. Nair said Rewcastle-Brown would stand to receive costs and damages if the court dismissed Hadi’s suit and allowed the counter-claim (fresh suit). 

“She would only stand to get costs if Hadi is unable to prove his case. 

“Clare has gone another step to file an action against the PAS leader,” he was quoted as saying. 

The Malaysian Insight reported that Rewcastle-Brown had asked who was funding Hadi’s suit as such cases are expensive in the UK. 

She said Hadi’s lawyer in the UK has so far refused to reveal details of who was funding the suit. 

“Nor have they explained why their client is suing in London and not in KL (Kuala Lumpur), where more than a handful of people have at least heard of Hadi Awang.” 

She said in August Hadi should reveal if he or his party is footing the bill, which was estimated at £100,000 (RM600,000).  

She also attempted to make the court force Hadi to pay a deposit as security, should he lose the defamation suit. 

The court decided that Rewcastle-Brown should pay Hadi £15,000 (RM83,700), or two-thirds of the cost of her application, with the quantum of the balance to be assessed by the court in due course. 

The court did not accept her argument that she would not be able to bring a legal suit against Hadi in Malaysia, where the “judiciary, government and the prime minister are corrupted and are complicit with him”. 

Hadi offered to pay a RM80,000 deposit, which the court accepted.

('Sarawak Report Editor Files Defence Against Hadi.' – The Malaysian Insight, October 12, 2017)

👋🏽

– - –

The NINE QUESTIONS Blog will return with more facts.

– - –