Misleading media coverage of Muhyiddin case

Okay. This is just deceptive. The way the headline reads, it makes it look like Mahdin is accused of stealing 230 something million ringgits. That's not what he's accused of at all. But when you put a headline that he's in in a corruption he's charged with corruption in a case involving 230 something million ringgits, everyone is gonna assume that he that he pocketed that money, that that's what he's being alleged to have done.

That's not what he's alleged to have done. I saw in another article that said that Muhedin was accused of skimming from the public funds. That's not what he's accused of. And in that same article, they said it's a graft case. Okay.

Well, that's not what graft is. Graft is when a public official takes compensation, I e a bribe, for services that don't deserve a compensation that are not supposed to be paid for. So you take a payment to do your job. That's what graft is. So you can't say that he's accused of skimming in a graft case.

That doesn't make any sense. Those are two different types of crimes. And in this, headline, where they say he's involved in a in a corruption case that involves 200 something million, ringgits, everyone is going to assume that he's guilty of stealing public money, but that's not what the allegations are. That's not what the accusation is. The accusation is that there were people who took bribes to funnel the the the funds to certain companies that had paid bribes.

And now the other case, as I've mentioned before, Muhlidin is accused of seeing to it that a tax exemption status would be reinstated for a friend of his whose tax exemption status for his charity, one of the largest Islamic charities in Malaysia, lost its its tax exemption status under the Pakistan Harappan government and that the the, head of that organization appealed for their tax exemption status to be reinstated. And under Muhedin, it was reinstated. And because that same individual who who runs that organization made donations to Barsatu, they are conflating that with bribery. Not that the man maybe has been making donations to Barsatu because he believes in Barsatu. It's very normal for someone to make political donations.

That's how any of these political parties are able to operate because they get donations and contributions. So it's entirely conceivable that this man is simply supporting Basatu, and he also happened to get his tax exemption status reinstated. The two things are not necessarily connected, and you have to really prove that those two things are connected. But either way, there is no allegation of theft in the cases and the charges against Muhyiddin. But when you put a headline like that, many people don't even read the article.

They'll just see the headline. And if they see the headline, their their assumption will be, well, he stole he he he stole money. But that's not the allegation against him at all. And when you see deliberately misleading coverage like this, deliberately misleading headlines like this, it increases the impression that this is politically motivated, that this is a politically motivated case, a politically motivated prosecution. And one of the other reasons why that impression is increased is when the newspaper that is, deliberately misleading in its coverage of the case happens to be a newspaper that is at least partially funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, which is a front organization of the CIA.

And the National Endowment for Democracy also funds Pakistan Harapan. When the when the coverage is like this and the people who are behind the coverage, backing the coverage, funding the coverage are the same people who are funding the party that's in power. And when the coverage is deliberately misleading, that makes it look even more like this is a political maneuver.