Was Anwar REALLY and FULLY convinced Captain Zaharie was not an extremist?
I refer to the article by Malaysian Insider, 20th March, attached below, on “Anwar defends pilot of missing flight MH370, says he is not an extremist.” Here is my verbal behavior analysis of Anwar’s interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.To me, superior and advanced technology sometimes is a nonentity compared to a man’s greater capability in surpassing all of them, machines and methods. In short, mental inclinations, truly can out shine any and all of man’s creation. For what man can make another man can break.
The question that’s comes to my mind now is. Was Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim REALLY and FULLY convinced Captain Zaharie’s mental inclinations were not that of an extremist or revolutionary? Personally, I don’t think so. Truthfully, I say Anwar doubts Zaharie’s integrity.
I base it on the recorded verbal response of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to questions. By analyzing it, I strongly say that our ‘Great’ Anwar Ibrahim found it extremely difficult to manage his personal bias about Zaharie.
His verbal behavior tells me more about his fears than his beliefs in the interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, when he weekly defended Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah. Though well prepared, Anwar Ibrahim leaked in his verbal response, when he feebly defended Zaharie saying that Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah was not an extremist.
My analysis of Anwar’s answer is that he clearly fails to answer the question directly with a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Instead he cautiously chatters, His long winded reply is irrelevant to the question asked. Is Captain Zaharie a family member?
Anwar further says, “But she calls him uncle,” opposing what his daughter in law said that he is a family member. Since he adds that calling him ‘uncle’ is quite common here, to me Anwar Ibrahim is saying that so as to manage our perception of the issue at hand, that he is not that close in relationship and he wants to influence our perception of the issue to be favorable to him rather than to create unnecessary issues that comes with close proximity or by saying clearly and straight to the point, YES, he is a family member like what his daughter in law said.
On Anwar’s statement, “But I know him, basically as a party activist." Here Anwar is defensive about his family’s relationship with Zaharie, for he says, “But I know him” he tries to avoid been dragged into a situation where he may be asked specifically if he was close as a family member, quickly Anwar again manages our perception, when he adds saying, “basically as a party activist.”
The word used here is “basically” which is a flexible verbal indicator, in psychology or deceptive studies we call it an exclusion qualifier. An exclusion qualifier is usually used by people who want to withhold certain information so as not to answer your question truthfully at the same time without releasing further information that may open to other undesirable questions that he may not like to face up to.
This remark came after CNN’s Amanpour quoted Anwar's press secretary as telling CNN earlier that Captain Zaharie is the opposition leader's "son's wife's mother's father's brother's son".
My verbal analysis: When Anwar’s press secretary made the long relationship statement, "son's wife's mother's father's brother's son". Though truthful it was aimed to sound very distant, unusually distant, when it can be said proudly and in short, “The Captain is the nephew of his daughter in law’s grandfather.”
Responding to reports in the media that Captain Zaharie had attended Anwar's sodomy appeal hearing on March 7, a day before he piloted MH370, Anwar said: "He was not in the court. He MAY have been outside, in the premises of the court. But from what I gather, from many of our colleagues, nobody actually saw him in the premises of the court."
My verbal behavior analysis: When Anwar said, “He was not in court. He MAY have been outside in the premise of the court.” But later he says, “But from what I gather, from many of our colleagues, nobody actually saw him in the premises of the court”
Then why does he say at first, that he MAY have been outside in the premises of the court. This statement was clearly an inconsistent statement lacking coherence because he later says nobody actually saw him in the premises of the court.
Is Anwar concealing something here? Here again, the statement, I, is singular but in the same line he says in the plural, when he says from many of OUR colleagues. Truthful, believing people will say, from many of MY colleagues.
When CNN’s Amanpour asked whether Captain Zaharie could have had a particularly strong reaction to the sentence meted out by the court, Anwar said: "I gathered later from many of his colleagues and from what is written about him that he was disturbed.
Many others were disturbed. I mean, we were shocked and appalled by the speed of the process of the court of appeal.”
My verbal behavior analysis: When Amanpour asked whether Zaharie could have had a particularly strong reaction to the sentence meted out by the court, Anwar did not answer the question directly, Yes or No, instead he replied that the Captain was disturbed, only indirectly answering the question. “Could Zaharie have had a particularly strong reaction?”
Why was the question not answered directly but indirectly? It was because by answering indirectly, he was able to lessen the impact of the Captain’s “particularly strong reaction.”
Anwar further says: "I gathered later from many of his colleagues and from what is written about him that he was disturbed. Many others were disturbed. I mean, we were shocked and appalled by the speed of the process of the court of appeal.”
Anwar here was repeating the use of strong words like shocked and appalled, the speed of the process of the court and again Anwar did not answer directly to the question about Zaharie’s personal strong reaction but instead, mentioned about many others who were also disturbed and were shocked and appalled.
Anwar’s answer was irrelevant to CNN’s Amanpour’s question. Clearly, Anwar was indirectly saying that the Captain did particularly have a strong reaction to the sentence meted out. Indicating indirectly that the Captain had indeed reacted strongly.
Further saying, "But I think that's quite normal. I don't think it's something that would trigger a person of his expertise and caliber, to do any unwanted activity. I am absolutely certain of that.”
Here again how can anyone be absolutely certain about anything, when the only thing that was absolutely certain to all of us, was that, the one who piloted the plane as Captain and leader of the ill fated plane, MH 370, was none other than Zaharie.
Earlier Anwar said likewise, "He supports our multiracial coalition. He supports democratic reform. He is against any form of extremism."
But one must understand that our logic about anybody’s credibility, expertise and caliber can be blown out of the water and anybody’s expectations about how unyielding a person of high caliber would be in professing his innocence can be crushed.
In my decades of teaching the subject of deception, I have learnt one very important lesson, that human behavior doesn’t always conform to what seems sensible to us and that what seems sensible to us isn’t necessarily valuable in evaluating how a person thinks or acts, we can’t be absolutely certain of anything.
No one can know the psychological discomfort Captain Zaharie felt when he received the information that had potentially negative consequences, causing his mind to race with hypothetical ramifications of the judgment and sentencing of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and at the unusual speed of the development of the court of appeal.
Anwar told Amanpour that, "I find it shocking that (the government officials) are not able, that they were not able, or they give some very scanty sort of information.”
My analysis here, of his verbal reaction, at this point is, did the Government very early suspect something they are not telling us, like the Malay saying, “Harapkan pagar, pagar makan padi?” (You put the fence to protect the rice fields, instead the fence eats up the rice.)
Anwar Ibrahim further says, "The problem is credibility of the leadership. They are culpable because there is a general perception that they are not opening up, that there is an opaque system at work."
My verbal behavior analysis: Anwar says, "The problem is credibility of the leadership. They are culpable (guilty) because there is a general perception that they are not opening up, that there is an opaque system at work."
Was Anwar at the end of the interview, blaming the government for what has happened. Was he unintentionally and subconsciously conceding with a message that Captain Zaharie had infact punished the Government?
Does Anwar Ibrahim hence really, fully and deeply convinced beyond doubt, that Captain Zaharie was not an extremist?
President Body Language Surveillance Society of Malaysia