SR: Nowhere to Run Chapter 1 - Checkmate

Nowhere to Run

Chapter 1 Checkmate

The facts are clear.  One website has fooled the nation with a series of articles based on stolen material magnified as heaven-sent material in an international conspiracy to damn 1MDB, oust the PM and the status quo to put in place the preferred PM and Cabinet.

1.Sarawak Report has been colluding with a group of people and posts are written by different persons.

The repetitive use of plural pronouns is the evidence to support the above assertion:
With reference to  ‘No Difference: We Prove How the Allegations of Tampering are Lies, note how the post is written in plural pronouns including ‘WE’, ‘OUR’, ‘US’

       First Paragraph:              Sarawak Report has closely researched …. OUR coverage
       Second Paragraph:          WE can now prove
       Third Paragraph:             OUR message…you have defamed US
        Fourth Paragraph:          WE can now confirm
        Eighth Para:                    Yet WE can show in precise detail…
        Ninth Para:                      OUR proof has been obtained…
Jump to section of that post with the sub-heading of Why did NST not publish the evidence?
As Sarawak Report pointed out yesterday, WE corroborate OUR claims, so why can’t they?
The above sentence refers to Sarawak Report as a separate entity from the ‘we’ and the ‘our’. For sure, posts in SR attacking 1MDB are written by different people and I will provide evidence to support this assertion.

If indeed it was Claire Rewcastle-Brown writing, she would have written it as:

As I pointed out yesterday, I corroborate MY claims, so why can’t they?

The fact is this post, and many others in Sarawak Report attacking 1MDB, was NOT written in the first person singular pronoun.

This pattern does not corroborate with the declaration given in the AboutUs page saying that Sarawak Report was founded by Claire Rewcastle-Brown. Apart from her name, the only other person mentioned as part of the SR and Radio Free Sarawak is Peter John Jaban.

So who are the ‘we’  speaking in Sarawak Report so brazenly even in the light of documents obtained via law-breaking behaviour?

2.  It is highly probable, on the balance of probabilities, that Sarawak Report is NOT owned or run by Claire Rewcastle-Brown but by a group of people ranging from powerful persons to professionals.

The one item of evidence identified by OUR accusers was a power point presentation made available on OUR site where the so-called ‘metadata’ indicates it was opened and then “saved” by Justo in 2013. (‘No Difference: We Prove How the Allegations of Tampering are Lies’)

Why is it in plural form when the About Us page of Sarawak Report officially declares it is ONE person i.e. Claire Rewcastle-Brown who is behind Sarawak Report?

Isn’t this an open declaration that PEOPLE and not one or two persons are behind Sarawak Report?

3. It is highly possible that one/some of the people involved in the articles about Justo and/or 1MDB are PetroSaudi staff or former Petrosaudi staff.

I refer to the last paragraph of the post ‘No Difference: We Prove How the Allegations of Tampering are Lies’ which is a dead giveaway supporting my proposition. See the following extract:

WE suggest these misrepresentations are added to the list of potentially criminal activities by PetroSaudi, whose false charges on this point currently number amongst the allegations that have landed A FORMER COLLEAGUE, a Swiss national, in a jail in Bangkok.

As far as I know, Claire Rewcastle-Brown never worked for Petrosaudi.

Claire Rewcastle-Brown claims she owns Sarawak Report. 

So if Claire responds to this post and says she and she alone owns and is behind Sarawak Report, then how can she explain referring to Justo as A FORMER COLLEAGUE


The evidence I have introduced in this post have all pointed to the three main arguments I have presented for your consideration which only brings us to one conclusion that there is more than meets the eye in that website.

What percentage of content in Sarawak Report is TRUTH?
How much of the content are lies or bullshit?

Over to you, SARAWAK REPORT!

Stay tuned for more to come in Chapter 2.

Next PostNewer Post Previous PostOlder Post Home


  1. Latuk, why 1MDB need to pay interest of RM2.7bil as claimed by SR for the next 30 years. That oso fake kah Latuk?

    1. Aduhai,

      I did not mention all those issues you raised. Whilst I appreciate your readership and input, I would be much obliged if you stick to the content of the post. Otherwise, the whole issue would be derailed.
      Terima kasih.

  2. Are you saying, datuk, that the documents are dubious, so there is no 42 billion(taxpayer's money) missing, and no 7 million a day interest payment, no Mr Jho Low, and everything we heard about 1MDB are just lies?

    1. Arifin Tajul
      I did not mention all those issues you raised in your comment. Whilst I appreciate your readership, concerns and input, I would be much obliged if you stick to the content of the post. Otherwise, the whole issue would be derailed. As it stands, I have broken my ideas into different chapters so we can focus on different aspects, step my step.
      Terima kasih.

  3. Why asked datuk about 1mdb "missing money". This is about how we do our writing. I am singular while we are plural. I don't said we when there's only me nor would I said me when there are a few of us.
    So the question is who is me and whom are us as claimed by SR. Who have worked in petrosaudi to became Co workers off justo.