Felon MH 370

The article, Malaysian Insider, 20th March, attached below, “Anwar defends pilot of missing flight MH370, says he is not an extremist,” during an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. Really? Then who is the felon of MH 370?

To my knowledge, superior and advanced technology sometimes is a nonentity compared to a man’s greater competence 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 Anwar Ibrahim, the Malaysian Parliamentary opposition leader really and fully convinced Pilot Zaharie’s mental inclinations were not that of an extremist or revolutionary and that Pilot Zaharie was not the felon of MH 370? Personally, I don’t think so. Straightforwardly, I say Anwar doubts Zaharie’s integrity and Anwar Ibrahim unintentionally reveals the unintended message, the truth, in this prominent interview with CNN’s Christiane Amnpour that Zaharie is the felon of MH370.

I base it on my analysis of the recorded verbal responses of Anwar Ibrahim to questions. By analyzing it, I strongly say that our ‘Great’ Anwar Ibrahim, opposition leader of Malaysia found it extremely difficult to manage his personal predisposition about Zaharie. Anwar’s verbal behavior tells me more about his suspicions and fears than his beliefs in his interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, when he weekly defended Zaharie Ahmad Shah. Though well prepared, Anwar Ibrahim leaked in all his verbal responses, when he feebly defended Zaharie, saying that Zaharie Ahmad Shah was not an extremist.

When asked whether Zaharie was a family member, Anwar said in too many words rather than adequately. "What my daughter-in-law told me is that he is a family member, not too close, but she calls him 'uncle,' which is quite common here, Anwar said. “But I know him basically as a party activist."  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 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 deception detection training 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 Zaharie is the opposition leader's "son's wife's mother's father's brother's son". My 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, “Zaharie is the nephew of his (Anwar’s) daughter in law’s grandfather.”

Responding to reports in the media that Zaharie had attended Anwar's sodomy appeal hearing on March 7, a day before he piloted MH 370, 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 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 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 with three (3) convincing statements, (convincing statements are irrefutable statements made in an effort to convince the accuser or information gatherer to influence perception rather than to convey information that addresses the facts of the case.) (1) “I gathered later from many of his colleagues and from what is written about him that he was disturbed. (2) Many others were disturbed. (3) I mean, we were shocked and appalled by the speed of the process of the court of appeal.” Anwar was purely influencing perception rather than addressing the facts of the case.
 
Here again, the question was not answered directly but indirectly? Because by answering indirectly, he was able to lessen the impact of Zaharie ’s “particularly strong reaction.”
Anwar further says, I repeat here, “he was 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 Zaharie the Pilot of MH 370 did particularly have a strong reaction to the sentence meted out. Indicating indirectly that Zaharie 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 we all are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, was that, the one who piloted as Captain and leader of the ill-fated MH 370, was none other than Zaharie. Earlier Anwar said likewise about Zaharie, "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 Zaharie felt when he began receiving the dreaded information that had potentially negative consequences, causing his mind to race with hypothetical ramifications of the judgment and sentencing of his distant relative the Parliamentary opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim whom he had highly revered for his beliefs in multiracial coalitions, in his democratic reforms and who now was facing a 5 year jail term which came at an unusual speed of development by of the court of appeal which was to Zaharie's mind highly questionable and dubious.

Anwar further 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 Anwar’s 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” (meaning, you fence up to protect the rice fields, instead the fence eats up the rice fields.)

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 analysis of Anwar’s words, "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 had happened to MH 370.. Was he unintentionally and subconsciously conceding with an unintended message to all of us that Zaharie was the Felon of MH 370 and he had in fact punished the Government of Malaysia for having treated him scruffily?

Jackson Yogarajah.

President Body Language Surveillance Society of Malaysia

(The above is a revised article, In memory of the innocent souls of MH 370 : Was Anwar REALLY and FULLY convinced Captain Zaharie was not an extremist? )

www.bodylanguage.com.my

Anwar defends pilot of missing flight MH370, says he is not an extremist

Published :20 March 2014 11:42 AM

Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim defended Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah (pic), the pilot of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, saying that he is not a terrorist. – Youtube screenshot, March 20, 2014.

As the search for missing flight MH370 draws few answers with more probes into the possible political inclinations of crew members, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has come to the defence of pilot Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, saying that he is not an extremist, but a supporter of democratic reform.

The opposition leader, who met Zaharie on a number of occasions, told CNN's Christiane Amanpour yesterday that: "He supports our multiracial coalition. He supports democratic reform. He is against any form of extremism."

On whether Zaharie was a family member, Anwar said: "What my daughter-in-law told me is that he is a family member, not too close, but she calls him 'uncle,' which is quite common here," Anwar said. "But I know him... basically as a party activist."

The remark came after Amanpour quoted Anwar's press secretary as telling CNN that Zaharie is the opposition leader's "son's wife's mother's father's brother's son".

Responding to reports in the media that 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."

A three-man bench of the Appeals Court unanimously found Anwar guilty of sodomising his former aide in 2008, sentencing him to five years in prison, and ultimately scuttling his plans to win the upcoming Kajang by-election.

When Amanpour asked whether Zaharie could have had a particularly strong reaction to the sentenced 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.

"But I think that's quite normal. I don't think it's something that would trigger a person of his expertise, calibre, to do any unwanted activity. I am absolutely certain of that."

Anwar said most theories about the fate of flight MH370 now point to the plane making a turn back over Peninsular Malaysia after its initial heading northwest towards its final destination, Beijing.

Malaysian officials should have been able to detect the plane if it flew back west, he added.

"When they procured that Radar Marconi system in that Northern corridor, I happened to be the finance minister," he told Amanpour. "They had the capability to detect any flight from the west, or from the east to the west coast, from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean."

Putrajaya has become the target of anguished families of passengers aboard missing flight MH370, particularly those from China, who said that they had few answers about the fate of their loved ones and demanded that Malaysia come clean in providing them with the latest information.

A group of angry family members of Chinese passengers on board the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 yesterday caused a stir when they stormed into the auditorium at the Sama Sama Hotel where the daily press briefings were scheduled to be held.

They had accused Putrajaya of hiding information and misleading the public about the search and rescue operation.

The group also carried a huge banner with Mandarin characters, demanding answers from Putrajaya.

A sobbing Chinese woman, speaking in Mandarin, said: "Please let me know where is my son, where is his whereabouts."

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.

"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." – March 20, 2014.