The Economist recently published an article which reviews Malaysia's political scenario for the coming General Election.
Like most Western media, The Economist also prefers to criticize the government and support the opposition.
This is definitely not surprising because George Soros has invested more than USD48 million for media organizations around the world.
And that is the lowest estimate, other than having big influence among his networks and connections between media around the world.
Media under his influence will operate to realize regime change missions and next, to rule the world where Malaysian opposition is also suspected to be one of the 'teams'.
Malaysia is one of the target countries which is still yet to be brought down.
Besides that, Soros has his personal vengeance against Tun Mahathir Mohamad who managed to reveal his secret to the world as well as giving him the title 'rogue currency trader', which stays until today.
We are not accusing that The Economist is under the hands of Soros, however, we cannot put aside such perception, especially with the media's stand which seems very -pro-opposition and its prejudice against Malaysian government.
As for the election in Malaysia, The Economist still tries to raise the issue of Altantuya even though it has been proven that the murder was intentionally linked to Datuk Seri Najib for the opposition's political interest.
With claims saying that the murder had the motives of commission from business deal of Scorpene submarine which was not done in transparency by the government.
No one knows why The Economist fail to find the news regarding expose made by the script writer of the murder and corruption issue, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, saying that he had fabricated the story based on the orders which were given to him.
Meanwhile, SUARAM was also proven to have lied about this issue.
And let's not forget that SUARAM has also been proven to have received funds from one of Soros' channels.
When RPK and SUARAM fail, Bala, a former corrupt cop came back to light up the issue once again.
However, he died before he even get to 'fight'.
What is interesting is that, Bala was also mentioned by The Economist in the article.
The Economist also mentioned about the video starred by Taib Mahmud's cousins, to show that the Sarawak Chief Minister is corrupt.
However, this international media fail to mention the story behind the whole act where the Chief Minister's cousin has been keeping a strong vengeance against him as the CM revoked their father's timber concession.
The motive of the video can clearly be seen as Taib Mahmud's cousin is married to an opposition leader which has close ties with Anwar Ibrahim and hopes to lead PKR in Sarawak.
The Economist also did not forget to link the incident in Lahad Datu with the issue of awarding identity cards to foreigners while accusing government-controlled media.
Their statements clearly claim as if the government is just playing a drama and they try to close the issue through media.
If we are not familiar with the political world, obviously we would think that The Economist is owned by Tian Chua or Anwar Ibrahim.
The Economist should know that Malaysians, especially those in Sabah are aware that the only side that is playing a drama in Lahad Datu incident are Anwar, Tian Chua and the whole opposition team, and if would not be wrong for us to say that The Economist also plays a small role in this drama.
If not, obviously The Economist would go through the intel reports from Philippine as well as information from Malaysia which shows that the whole incident leads of Anwar Ibrahim and his goons, for being the mastermind behind the terrorism inflicted against citizens of their own country.
There is no way that media such as The Economist could overlook the fact that there is evidence showing Anwar and Tian Chua's secret meeting with the terrorist group before the incident occurred.
There is no way this credible media do not see the evidence as an important piece to be mentioned in their report ???
Even though The Economist tries to spread bad perception against Malaysian government, the media is aware and they had to report the fact that Malaysia performed well in the economic industry as the country recorded up to 5.6% growth in 2012, managed to eliminate poverty as well as recorded decline in corruption cases by raising 400 of its cases.
Providing financial aid to people are also the proof towards Barisan Nasional's great performance.
Now, we cannot help but to ask, do The Economist understand their own report, which is clearly inconsistent ???
From an angle, the media seem to be so exited describing Najib and BN as corrupt, and even cruel that he would kill for commission, only to waste money, time and energy to stage the Lahad Datu incident which does not benefit anyone.
However, in another angle, The Economist also admits that Najib and BN is an efficient government that it manages to boost the economy and ensure well-being of Malaysians.
Logically, no corrupt government could ensure the well-being of its people.
No cruel government would provide financial and other aid to its people.
Government that are corrupt and cruel will definitely boost poverty and suffering rate to its people.
Only governments that are transparent, caring, competent, wise and sincere in providing its service will be able to realize peace, stability, progress and prosperity, all at the same time.
With economic facts which cannot be denied by The Economist itself, it is clear that BN is not a cruel and corrupt government, instead, it is a efficient and caring government.
That is why, The Economist should learn how to link message which it is trying to convey along with facts so that the report would look consistent instead of biased.
Perhaps it is time for The Economist to consider media integrity, before questioning the integrity of the subject in their article.