Hasil Carian

7 August 2015

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

The New York Times

Malaysia’s handling of the discovery of a wing part that apparently came from the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has worsened frictions with its partners in the investigation, rekindled frustrations among the families of people who were aboard the plane and further dented the country’s battered credibility.

Many questioned the timing and motives of the Malaysian prime minister, Najib Razak, who announced in the early hours of Thursday that the wing part had been “conclusively confirmed” to be from the missing plane. He spoke just before a news conference in Paris at which French investigators were much more guarded, saying only that the experts had “very strong presumptions” that the part came from the plane, a Boeing 777.

Later on Thursday the Malaysian transportation minister, Liow Tiong Lai, clouded the picture further when he told reporters in Kuala Lumpur that a Malaysian team had found more aircraft debris on the French island of Réunion, where the wing part was discovered last week. The French authorities in Paris denied that any new aircraft debris had been found.

The discrepancies between the Malaysian declarations and what others involved in the investigation, including experts from Boeing, were prepared to conclude about the evidence have created significant tensions between Malaysian and French officials, according to a person close to the investigation.

Mr. Najib has domestic political worries, not least a scandal swirling around a troubled state investment fund that has put him under intense scrutiny. The Wall Street Journal and The Sarawak Report, a website based in Britain, have reported that documents found by investigators in Malaysia indicate that almost $700 million was transferred to accounts that Mr. Najib is believed to control.

In late July, Mr. Najib dismissed his deputy prime minister, who had publicly called on him to give a full account of the matter, and the country’s attorney general, who was one of the leaders of the investigation into the scandal.

But exasperation with the Malaysian authorities dates to when the plane first disappeared, on a night flight from Kuala Lumpur bound for Beijing in the early hours of March 8, 2014. Ground controllers lost contact with the plane about 40 minutes after takeoff, but the authorities did not issue an alert about the missing plane for hours.

Then, Malaysia spent a full week directing a major search-and-rescue effort focused on the Gulf of Thailand, along the plane’s scheduled flight path, even though the Malaysian military had tracked an unidentified aircraft flying in nearly the opposite direction — westward and out into the Indian Ocean — which investigators later concluded was Flight 370.

Eventually, based on the radar data and automated satellite signals received from the jet, investigators concluded that it had flown on for hours more, and probably ran out of fuel and crashed in the Indian Ocean west or southwest of Australia. Searchers began working from the air, and later scanning the deep ocean floor with sonar devices, but nothing has been found there.

The wing part was the first tangible trace of the plane to turn up.

For many people who had loved ones aboard Flight 370, the identification, or near-identification, of the object only intensified their desire to know how and why the jet had veered off course and flown unnoticed into remote ocean waters.

Chinese citizens made up about two-thirds of the 239 people on the plane, and in Beijing, relatives of the victims viewed Mr. Najib’s announcement with skepticism or outright disbelief.

On Thursday morning, about 20 relatives gathered outside the Malaysia Airlines office in Beijing, demanding to talk to airline representatives and to be flown to Réunion. More than two dozen police officers kept them from entering the office building.

“We don’t accept this; this is not closure,” said Dai Shuqing, who had five relatives on the plane, including her sister. “The Malaysians want to lie to the whole world, but they cannot lie to us. We will persevere and keep digging.”

Others outside the airline’s office held signs with slogans such as “Malaysia hides the truth.” Later in the day, some of the relatives moved the demonstration to Boeing’s offices in the city.

Under international aviation conventions, Malaysia is leading the overall Flight 370 investigation because the aircraft was registered in Malaysia and took off from Kuala Lumpur. The ocean search is being led by Australia, whose ports are nearest the search area. But the wing part found on Réunion is being examined at a laboratory near Toulouse, France, because it washed ashore on French territory. The Paris prosecutor’s office has opened an inquiry into the crash because four French citizens were aboard the flight.

Though Malaysian officials appeared eager to reach conclusions swiftly and put the mystery of Flight 370 behind them, Tony Abbott, the Australian prime minister, said Thursday that the ocean search would continue. “We owe it to the hundreds of millions of people who use our skies,” he said.

Meanwhile, Jean-Paul Virapoullé, the mayor of St.-André, Réunion, near where the wing debris was found, said Thursday that his town would organize a “meticulous search” of the beaches there next week.

“If it can soothe the terrible pain of these hundreds of families, the city of St.-André, with the agreement of the relevant international authorities, is ready to erect a memorial for the people who are missing,” the mayor said in the statement.

The person close to the investigation said that volunteers on Réunion turned in some additional debris to French aviation officials on the island on Thursday, but that a preliminary evaluation indicated that none of the objects were from a plane.

Still, David Griffin, an Australian scientist who has mapped ocean currents in the area, said Thursday that he believed more debris from Flight 370 could wash up on Madagascar, the much larger island nation to the west of Réunion.

“There could be a very large amount of debris floating, or a very small amount,” said Mr. Griffin, who is with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia. “I am slightly surprised that something turned up at Réunion, rather than Madagascar, because Madagascar is so much bigger.”

Wen Wancheng, 63, whose son was on the aircraft, said finding one wing part did not resolve the mystery of Flight 370.

“The sort of closure the families want is to know what exactly happened to the plane, and have the bodies returned,” he said by telephone from Jinan, in eastern China.

That sentiment was shared by other relatives of Flight 370 victims around the world, some of whom said that the discovery of the wing part, known as a flaperon, only intensified the mystery.

“Ultimately in the end for the families to have a sort of closure, we need to know why it ended up in the ocean, what happened,” Sara Weeks, whose brother Paul was a passenger, said in an interview with Australian radio from Christchurch, New Zealand. “It is really important for everyone because if that plane can go missing, another one can.”

For some, the longing for more evidence has only grown stronger.

“It’s a piece of flaperon; it’s not my husband,” said Jacquita Gonzales, the wife of a Flight 370 crew member, Patrick Gomes. Ms. Gonzales was one of a small group of family members who spoke to reporters on Thursday in the Malaysian city of Petaling Jaya.

“Although they found something, it’s not the end,” she added. “They still need to find the whole plane and our spouses as well. We still want them back.”

26 June 2014

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

London Evening Standard

Londoner Hugh Dunleavy has spent the past 107 days working tirelessly to find flight MH370. Here the Malaysia Airlines boss tells Lucy Tobin what really happened during the night that sparked a thousand theories

It was four in the morning and Hugh Dunleavy was heading to Kuala Lumpur airport to fly to a conference in Borneo when his phone flashed with an emergency text. Malaysia Airlines’ commercial boss never made it to that conference. Instead he spent the next 72 hours working non-stop to find out why flight MH370 had gone missing and trying to explain his lack of an answer to hundreds of distraught relatives in a grief limbo.

The now-infamous flight lost contact with air traffic control at 1.34am on March 8, an hour after take-off. But in this, his first major interview since MH370 disappeared, Dunleavy reports it was three hours later by the time air traffic controllers — having tried and failed to get a response from the plane and from radar controllers in Vietnam, Hong Kong and China — sent that emergency text.

Dunleavy is one of London’s brightest expats: he grew up in Ealing, took a PhD in physics at Sheffield University then started his career working in a role “I can’t talk about” for the Ministry of Defence. He was the first to arrive at the airline’s emergency control room that morning; then he became Malaysia Airlines’ public face as the tragedy unfolded.

“My first thought was that the pilot had fallen asleep, or something had gone wrong with the communication system,” he says. “We had five other aircraft in the sky nearby, so our senior pilots started contacting them, asking if they’d seen MH370, getting them to ping it. But we got no response.”

Three months since that plane and its 239 passengers and crew went missing, there’s still no trace. “Something untoward happened to that plane. I think it made a turn to come back, then a sequence of events overtook it, and it was unable to return to base. I believe it’s somewhere in the south Indian Ocean. But when [a plane] hits the ocean it’s like hitting concrete. The wreckage could be spread over a big area. And there are mountains and canyons in that ocean. I think it could take a really long time to find. We’re talking decades.”

Dunleavy replays the early hours of response, wondering what could have been different. “People say, ‘Why didn’t you work quicker?’ But you’re calling pilots, explaining the situation, waiting for them to send out pings, doing the same to the next plane, then the next, and it’s four in the morning, you don’t have 50 people in the office, only a couple. An hour goes by frighteningly quickly — you realise that the missing plane is now another 600 miles somewhere else.”

A vigil for the missing flightThen there was the “frightening speed at which false information was coming in — after only an hour in the control room, rumours were coming in on social media. ‘Your plane has landed in Nanning, China’. ‘It’s in the airport of an island near Borneo’. You’ve got to follow up, calling your local people, getting them out of bed to find up someone who worked at the airports — mostly remote places, not 24-hour operations — to check if the plane was there. We lost an hour just on that Nanning rumour.”

Finding an AWOL plane wasn’t a priority for international air traffic controllers. “We were calling, but they’ve got other planes in the air; they’re saying, ‘Your plane never entered my air space, so technically I don’t have to worry about it at the moment’. They’re not dropping everything to answer us.”

In those first hours, Malaysia Airlines’ executives all thought the plane had diverted — not crashed. “But by 06.30, the plane was supposed to be landing at Beijing. People were waiting for it; we had to do a press release,” says Dunleavy. The media swarmed in Beijing, and 130 Malaysia Airlines executives needed to get there — but none had Chinese visas. “No one wants to talk about that side of things but it took hours, not minutes, to sort it all out — there were negotiations. Eventually we got to Beijing at 10.30pm. Then officials came to our plane to issue visas, which took another two hours.”

By midnight, when Dunleavy approached the Beijing hotel ballroom that hosted sobbing, frustrated relatives, he and his colleagues needed Chinese police protection to take them through the bowels of the hotel to avoid being besieged.

“As far as the families were concerned, the plane had been hijacked by terrorists, the Malaysian government was negotiating with them, and we weren’t telling them. I knew that wasn’t happening — there had been zero communications from MH370.”

For the first 48 hours, Dunleavy and the airline’s team of “care-givers” didn’t sleep, dashing between the hotel’s ballroom and chaotic press conferences. “No one went to bed. But we had no news. Conspiracy theories were coming out — blaming Chinese scientists on board, the mangosteen [4.6 tons of the exotic fruit were on board], all this rubbish. Every news channel had some ‘expert’ — who’d never been to Malaysia, and had no idea about our planes — coming up with stories about what may have happened. Then a family member would latch on to one of those ideas that appealed to them. There would be 50 different people all arguing about 50 different scenarios, and I’m saying — through a translator — ‘I can’t tell you what happened until we find the plane’, over and over.”

About 32 hours after MH370 went missing, Dunleavy entered the ballroom, got everyone’s attention, and said: “I think you all need to be prepared for the worst.”

The 61-year-old describes the scene to me as we sit in the relaxed backdrop of the Langham in the West End, but he still pales as he remembers: “That’s when the screaming started. One person had a heart attack. Others fainted. People started throwing things at me, mostly water bottles. The police were standing there, but they said ‘this is part of our culture, it’s normal’ and that they wouldn’t interfere unless they started throwing chairs and tables.”

At its peak, the ballroom hosted 1,500 people. Dunleavy says much of the relatives’ anger was directed at the Malaysian government. “They blamed them for not tracking the aircraft more solidly.” The first week was spent searching in the south Indian Ocean — before an official source revealed the plane had been spotted on military radar making a U-turn and heading towards an island in the Malacca Strait.

“I only heard about this through the news,” Dunleavy says, for the first time letting anger inflect his voice — a hybrid English-German-Canadian accent thanks to a string of airline career moves. “I’m thinking, really? You couldn’t have told us that directly? Malaysia’s air traffic control and military radar are in the same freakin’ building. The military saw an aircraft turn and did nothing.

“They didn’t know it was MH370, their radar just identifies flying objects, yet a plane had gone down and the information about something in the sky turning around didn’t get released by the authorities until after a week. Why? I don’t know. I really wish I did.

“It made people look incompetent, but the truth is, it’s early in the morning, you’re not at war with anyone, why would you jump to the conclusion that something really bad is now transpiring?”

Dunleavy is adamant Malaysia Airlines did the best it could for the Chinese relatives on board MH370, paying for hotel rooms, food bills, distributing $5,000 to families and organising 520 passports and Malaysian visas plus a plane for the Chinese to fly to Kuala Lumpur, only for the vast majority to decide to stay in Beijing. But the carrier faced global criticism for texting relatives that it was “beyond doubt” their loved ones were killed.

“That wasn’t done in a callous way,” Dunleavy says, “we only got 15 minutes’ notice that the government was going to make that announcement, there were six hundred people in six different hotels, and they had suggested text messages to us at the start. We thought, ‘isn’t it better they get the message before the media relays it?’”

The airline expects the tragedy to cost up to $500?million. Three months on, Malaysia Airlines is getting back to business. It’s Dunleavy’s job to make passengers want to fly on the carrier again — demand slumped after MH370, and bookings from China fell 65 per cent. The airline will this year install pioneering technology (from Inmarsat, the Old Street firm which gained global fame for its satellites’ role in the search for MH370) that means if a plane ever deviates from its flight path, it will send out a signal.

“We will always remember MH370. We will take care of the people and we’re working on what sort of a memorial we will have. But we are a business. We have to keep flying, we have 20,000 staff, shareholders, and 50,000 passengers each day. We owe it to them to get the airline back and move beyond MH370.”

24 June 2014

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

TMI

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 did not climb to 13,700m then dive below 7,000m before it vanished, international investigators said, contradicting earlier reports based on Malaysia’s military radar data.

The New York Times reported today investigators discovered the jet had not soared and swooped as they believed earlier, but remained in controlled flight for hours after contact was lost, until it ran out of fuel over the southern Indian Ocean.

It said they concluded this after a re-examination of the military radar data and the pings the aircraft exchanged with an Inmarsat satellite over the Equator showed that the radar’s altitude readings? appeared to be incorrect.

An international review found Malaysia’s radar equipment had not been calibrated with enough precision for the readings to be accurate, the NYT said.

While many military radar can detect altitude and give accurate readings of an aircraft’s location, speed and direction, the equipment must be recalibrated regularly and carefully according to local atmospheric conditions, it said.

“The primary radar data pertaining to altitude is regarded as unreliable,” Angus Houston, the head of the Joint Agency Coordination Centre, was quoted as saying.

The radar tracked MH370 as it veered off its scheduled flight path over the Gulf of Thailand and flew west across the peninsula and Strait of Malacca.

The ?plane then passed beyond the radar’s range near the northern tip of the Indonesian island of Sumatra.

The radar readings suggested the plane soared above its certified maximum altitude of 13,700m, then dipped low over the ranges of Malaysia, before climbing back to 7,000m or higher over the Strait of Malacca.

But Houston told the NYT that he doubted whether anyone could prove the plane had soared and swooped the way initial reports suggested.

“There’s nothing reliable about height,” Martin Dolan, the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, was quoted as saying in the report.

The report said dismissal of the radar altitude data prompted a change in the focus of the search, as the plane’s fuel would have lasted longer if it maintained a steadier altitude.

Data from the pings, or the electronic handshakes, led investigators to conclude that the aircraft came down in the ocean west of Australia along what is called the seventh arc, the area of the final handshake with the plane.

“Everyone agrees that is where the aircraft ran out of fuel,” said Dolan in the report.

Officials said the search would now move hundreds of kilometres southwest across the arc, after the Australian government had scoured the northeast end based on the conclusion that the jet had burned a great deal of fuel.

The New York Times said the specifics were still being finalised, but the new search zone was likely to be an area about 640km long and some 97km wide.

This was based on the assumption that the plane was being flown by its? autopilot, which was unable to control the plane when the engine stopped and would have caused the plane to stall and fall into the ocean.

7 June 2014

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Telegraph

Flight MH370 has been missing for nearly three months, but a fresh ‘sighting’ and underwater noise are fuelling conspiracy theories

The failure to find wreckage from the missing Malaysia Airlines plane and the slow release of official information has left the troubled hunt mired in uncertainty and continues to spawn a growing range of sightings and conspiracy theories.

Almost three months since the Boeing 777 and its 239 passengers went missing, the search has found no debris and criminal investigators have found no evidence of terrorism or a motivation behind the apparently deliberate sabotage of the plane.

The search has focused for months on a stretch of the Indian Ocean off the coast of Australia, but the entire operation is relying on satellite data that was never intended to chart the course of the plane.

Meanwhile, distraught families across the world hold hope that their loved ones may have survived and have led a push for the release of all information about the flight.

Authorities in Australia continue to believe the plane is somewhere in the south Indian Ocean and have pledged to press ahead with the underwater operation, releasing a tender calling for companies to conduct the search.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the lack of firm evidence of the plane’s final resting point and the failure to find debris has led to a growing number of conspiracy theories and possible sightings.

In recent days, a British woman claimed to have seen the plane while on a sailing voyage from India to Thailand.

This followed various other sightings shortly after the plane disappeared, including claims the plane flew low over houses in the Maldives or near an oil rig off the coast of Vietnam.

Others have speculated that military authorities must have access to radar data which has not been disclosed; indeed, there has been surprisingly little data made available despite the plane disappearing in a part of Asia that has become increasingly tense in recent years.

Others have gone further, claiming the plane may have landed on an airfield in troubled or overlooked parts of the world, from Afghanistan to the Andaman Islands.

Meanwhile, information continues to trickle out.

In the past two weeks, authorities in Malaysia released the cargo manifest and the satellite data used to plot the apparent course of the plane after it made its unexplained turn south.

A scientist in Australia is investigating a noise detected by underwater equipment which has been traced back to a location somewhere off the tip of India.

Authorities leading the search in Australia have been forced to make the embarrassing admission that they searched the wrong area for months and that there was no debris in a zone in which apparent black box pings were heard.

But they continue to insist that the satellite data is an accurate guide to the plane’s whereabouts, even as they shift to a new uncertain phase in the search. The next phase, to begin in August, will cover more than 23,000 square miles.

It is due to take 12 months – leaving plenty of time for further claims, theories and official data.

6 June 2014

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Malaysia’s opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim talks about his legal battle, opposition politics and Malaysia’s missing airliner.

5 June 2014

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Malaysiakini

Unhappy with the lack of coverage he was given on the MH370 incident, PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has lashed out against local broadcasters on international radio.

He lamented that “not one minute of airtime on radio or television in Malaysia” was given to him, except over his links to MH370 Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah (left).

“The only reference made was that I happened to know the captain and therefore there is this link that he was very passionate about reforms.

“He was very supportive of the democratic transition and he was disgusted in the manner that the Court of Appeal and the judiciary were used to convict me for five years,” he told the BBC World Service in an interview released today.

Anwar was referring to one of many conspiracy theoriessurrounding the MH370 mystery, which purports that Zaharie was disgruntled with the Court of Appeal decision on Anwar’s sodomy charge, and then went on to hijack the aircraft.

PKR had confirmed that Zaharie is a party member, but dismissed the allegation as “wild speculation” without any credible source.

The Boeing 777-200ER aircraft went missing without a trace on March 8 with 237 persons on board, just hours after the court decision.

In the interview, Anwar repeated his complaints that Malaysia is not being transparent in handling the tragedy.

He added that there is a “stark contrast” between the local media coverage of Malaysia’s handling of the crisis that highlighted praises and international accolades, and the international media coverage that is largely critical.

When pointed out that even other countries could not find the plane, Anwar explained that his complaints are directed at the outset of the incident and not the subsequent search efforts.

“That was deep into the mainland of Malaysia, it is our responsibility. I cannot condone the concealing of evidence,” he said.

He pointed out that MH370 had flew across five provinces of the peninsula after its disappearance.

“Until today, the government has not explained (how did this happen). No action has been taken against any incompetent guy dealing with the issue or radar,” he said.

27 May 2014

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

24 May 2014

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Malaysia-Chronicle

Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein, who is also the country’s sole captain of the Transport Ministry, has been reported in his interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corp (ABC), explaining with a view to justify why Malaysia did not scramble a fighter jet to the ill-fated MH370 has said that, “it was not deemed a hostile object and pointless if you are not going to shoot it down.”

The reported interview with ABC was on Monday.

Seriously, it now confirms two critical truths.

Firstly, the Malaysian military did not act decisively on the grounds of safety. If we are to examine the minister’s statement, it attests that ensuring that the nation’s assets and lives are being protected by the military in times of potential disaster is not a standard.

Secondly, the statement by the minister further reveals that Malaysia’s military standard operating procedure (SOP) is, a jet will only be scrambled into action for shooting down intruders.

Given this revealing admission by the defence minister who is also the deputy transport minister, and on hindsight, is it wrong to conclude the following:

One, if only the Malaysian military (air force) had recognised its role in ensuring the nation’s safety, it would have scrambled its jet fighter to get to the ill fated aircraft the moment the civil aviation authorities signalled the SOS call.

Two, if only the air force had gone after the plane over our airspace, then we would have known for sure what eventually happened to MH370.

Three, the entire world then would have been saved the millions of dollars and resources that have been going to waste looking for a ping in the deep, wide, blue ocean; and even looking in all the wrong places initially.

Four, and more importantly, search and rescue teams could have been dispatched to save the lives (if there were any still) from the crashing plane in quick time.

But all these were not to be. And now we know that it was simply because the Malaysian military did not send its jet out into the sky to follow a civilian aircraft in distress.

That brings us to a globally critical question: Why? Why did the Malaysian defence not do what is the most appropriate action at a time when the civil aviation authorities sent out an SOS?

In any other nation that professes to govern by the dictates of decent democracy and best practice governance, the minister accountable for his or her inability to see that the right action is taken at the right time by the right people, would immediately resign in disgrace.

Even in employment, failure to discharge responsibilities that eventually causes undue losses and suffering will lead to immediate dismissal if there is no resignation volunteered.

But what we are seeing here in the way we govern a nation, it is the citizens who are admonished and shut up when faced with a national disaster that has far-reaching consequences in addition to loss of lives, assets and dignity.

The leaders continue with business as usual and seem quite settled with a system that gives them absolute immunity from being affected by failures or even dereliction of duties.

In the end, just like the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder, no one is now responsible for the catastrophic failure of MH370 that has placed Malaysia in an extremely vulnerable position.

One, the airlines, Malaysian Airlines – a national carrier – is being besieged by a massive arrest on its reputation and financial status.

Two, it places the entire military (the Malaysian air force) on a bad pedestal. The reputation and ability of the many seniors and leaders within the force are being tarnished – though it is no fault of their own in all probability.

And three, if the former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s recent attestation that the plane may still be somewhere is anything to go by, it only puts our leader of defence and transport in dire circumstances.

Four, or are there far more hidden secrets that continue to keep the entire world of concerned and affected citizens in a solid wrap of known-unknowns?

It is therefore no surprise that citizens are urging Hishammuddin’s resignation.

23 May 2014

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

TMI

The families of flight MH370 passengers and crew have derided Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein’s weak defence of military inaction during the early hours of the plane’s disappearance, and in a show of anger some have even demanded that he step down as the acting Transport Minister.

Hishammuddin told the Australian Broadcasting Corp in an interview aired on Monday that the Malaysian military had been told to keep an eye on the plane but allowed it to disappear off their radar after considering it to be non-hostile.

His statements have drawn much flak from the families of those on board the ill-fated jetliner, who said he has only fuelled more questions instead of providing answers to the incident.

They also said the statements by Hishammuddin, who is also Defence Minister, smacked of incompetence and that more honest people should be allowed to lead the investigation into the aircraft’s disappearance, instead of covering up the military’s and the government’s flaws.

Indian national Pralhad Shirsath whose wife was a passenger on the plane, questioned how the plane was allowed to pass through Malaysian airspace without any action taken, when the military knew that M370 was missing or in trouble.

“If they have reason to hide information, they should tell us and probably we will try to understand them”. – Pralhad Shirsath, husband of passenger on flight MH370.

He said the minister’s statement only showed that it was part of “a plan” to make the plane disappear with some purpose.

“Mr Transport Minister said, ‘If you’re not going to shoot it down, what’s the point of sending it up?’

“Well, he should understand that sending up military planes does not always mean shooting it down, but rather investigating risk and taking action (when it was already identified as a commercial jet and non-hostile but travelling through Malaysian territory without authorisation) in terms of giving feedback to those to whom the plane belongs (I assume military did not know it was Malaysian flag carrier at that time),” Shirsath told The Malaysian Insider when contacted.

“Or is it OK to fly over Malaysian territory without prior permission or clearance?” he asked.

Shirsath believed that the latest revelation only proved that the Malaysian government was hiding more information from the families and the public.

“If they have reason to hide information, they should tell us and probably we will try to understand them,” he said.

Shirsath also said Malaysia’s image has been dented by the way the government has dealt with the tragedy. He was puzzled as how the people who ruled the country and those in charge of the search and rescue operation managed to remain in power.

“How can Malaysian people tolerate these blunders? These leaders must step down and more honest people should lead the investigation,” he said.

“It is not too late, they should tell us all truth, stop misguiding the media and families and make sure passengers and crew return to their homes safely and we will forgive them,” he added.

A Twitter posting by relative of an MH370 passenger, criticising Hishammuddin over his interview with Australia's Fourcorners programme.

A Twitter posting by relative of an MH370 passenger, criticising Hishammuddin over his interview with Australia’s Fourcorners programme.Sarah Bajc, the partner of passenger Philip Wood, echoed Shirsath’s sentiment, saying it is both absurd and perilous for any civilian or military flight observer to disregard an unidentified airplane.

“I believe the Malaysian people and the investigation into MH370 would be well served by Hishammuddin’s resignation. My guess is that most feel that way but I would not presume to speak for others,” she said.

Meanwhile, Syafinaz Hasnan, the sister of M370 crew Mohd Hazrin, described Hishammuddin’s statements as insensitive.

“I am saddened by the way the government has dealt with the military issue. They are also very confused with their own twisted information. Now everyone knows how incompetent they are and how vulnerable our country can be,” she said.

K.S. Narendran, husband of Chandrika Sharma, one of the five Indian nationals on board MH370, found the minister’s stance and the defence “outrageous”.

He said what occured showed total neglect and incompetence on the part of the various  authorities in handling the incident, and urged Hishammuddin to stop defending the indefensible by covering up military flaws.

He also said the public was not easily taken in, regardless of whether Hishammuddin had appeared sombre or savvy, contrite or confident,
collaborative or combative on television.

“The families and the world deserve to hear the truth and the only way the government can hope to redeem themselves is by refusing to be the agents of those who want to protect their interests, seeking forgiveness for specific lapses and making amends,” said Narendran.

Lokman Mustafa, whose sister was on board the plane, said the lack of action from the military only revealed the mentality which resulted in the Lahad Datu intrusion.

“Either our military men were not inquisitive enough, or just plain lazy, which of course means a dereliction of duty. Or worse, could this be a conspiracy to hide something?” he asked.

“Let’s put it this way, if we hear strange sounds on our roof, do we get out to check what’s causing it?

“We may, or may not… but because our military men are paid to ensure our safety, they have to determine whether its hostile or otherwise. Just because ‘we’re not at war with anybody’ does not mean we should allow any aircraft to trespass into our airspace and quietly glide out to sea, because it might be Lahad Datu intruders again, or MH370. But I guess some people never learn,” he said.

In the interview with ABC, Hishammuddin said the military did not send a plane up to investigate as “it was not deemed a hostile object and pointless if you are not going to shoot it down”.

He said this in defence of the military’s failure to scramble a fighter jet after flight MH370 had disappeared from civilian radar on March 8 when its transponder stopped transmitting around 1.21am during a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

The military radar tracked it after it made a turn-back and turned in a westerly direction across the peninsula.

“If you’re not going to shoot it down, what’s the point of sending it (a fighter) up?” Hishammuddin told ABC.

Delays in pinpointing the Boeing 777-200ER’s location led to days of searching in the South China Sea before analysis from British satellite firm, Inmarsat, pointed to the Indian Ocean as its likely course.

Hishammuddin had also said that had the jet been shot down with 239 passengers and crew on board, “I’d be in a worse position, probably”.

He said he was informed of the military radar detection two hours later and relayed it to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who then ordered a search in the Malacca Strait.

This was the first time that Malaysia has said that civil aviation authorities told the military to keep an eye on the aircraft – a fact which was not mentioned in the five-page preliminary report on the plane’s disappearance released by the Ministry of Transport on May 1.

The much-criticised preliminary report made no mention of the instructions from the civil aviation authorities to the military to monitor the plane.

Instead, the brief report, which was sent to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), revealed a chaotic four hours after communications between Malaysia air traffic controllers, Malaysia Airlines and other regional air traffic controllers, before a hunt was initiated.

The Malaysian authorities have been severely criticised over their handling of the investigations into the missing jetliner with the international media, family members of passengers and crew, with the public accusing them of hiding and delaying information.

A survey commissioned by The Malaysian Insider last month showed that more than half of Malaysians polled believed that the Barisan Nasional (BN) government had been hiding information about flight MH370’s disappearance.

20 May 2014

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

TMI

Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (pic) has claimed that the cargo manifest for Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH370 had been deleted by “people in authority” as part of efforts to conceal information on the plane’s disappearance.

In an interview by Caro Meldrum-Hanna for the Australian Broadcasting Corp’s Four Corners programme yesterday, Anwar said his sources told him that the manifest had been deleted.

“I could not verify that, the only reasonable action I could take was to raise specific questions and demand the cargo manifest,” he said, adding that the matter had even been raised in Parliament but there was no response from the authorities.

“Even if it is deleted or not, the government must come (out and explain) in a transparent manner. You can’t expect the internatiomal community to have this huge search and rescue operation to find the debris. We have to know what is the cargo on the flight.”

Pressed by Meldrum-Hanna if his contact in MAS had actually seen the cargo manifest, Anwar said he wouldn’t know but people volunteer information to him in the strictest confidence as they were afraid of repercussions.

Asked why the government would conceal so much information, Anwar said: “The only plausible reason I could give is that either they want to conceal evidence in order to deflect (something) or (they are) fearful the infomation will cause further embarrassment.

“To my mind, it is not acceptable, you are talking about lives and national security.”

MAS had previously revealed that the cargo on board flight MH370 included 4 tonnes of mangosteen and lithium ion batteries.

Anwar was also asked about the failure of Malaysia’s military to respond when it had picked up flight MH370 on its radar.

“Yeah, I mean it’s a major scandal here, because this is of course amounting to a major threat to national security,” he said.

He said the military had breached the standard operating procedures.

“The Air Force will be alerted and will have to then be flown to that area to either, you know, normally to guide the plane to land or to leave the Malaysian airspace.

“They’re standard operating procedure and this was never done.”

Four Corners also quoted former first admiral of the Malaysian Navy, Imran Abdul Hamid, as saying that the military should have reacted to the plane passing over the peninsula.

“They should be responsible for what they are doing.

“They have to answer to the people of Malaysia for failing to react. So, the Chief of Defence Forces has to answer for it, the Chief of Air Forces has to answer for it.

“If they cannot answer it, I think they should leave the service for other people to serve the country,” he said.

Anwar said clearly there was no defence over the radar issue.

MH370 had flown almost directly over the top of Malaysia’s military radar station located on the island of Penang.

Four Corners said that a team of up to five officers could or should have been on duty at the nearby radar operations centre at Butterworth airbase.

Their job? To man the military radar screens, looking for unidentified aircraft entering Malaysia’s airspace.

In defending the Malaysian military in another interview with Four Corners, acting Transport Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein had said that the military had been told to keep an eye on the plane but had allowed it to disappear off their radar after considering it as non-hostile.

This was the first time that Malaysia had said that civil aviation authorities told the military to keep an eye on the aircraft – a fact which was not mentioned in the five-page preliminary report on the plane’s disappearance released by the Ministry of Transport on May 1.

The much-criticised preliminary report had made no mention of the instructions from the civil aviation authorities to the military to monitor the plane.

Instead, the brief report, which had been sent to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), revealed a chaotic four hours after communications between Malaysia air traffic controllers, the flag carrier and other regional air traffic controllers before a hunt was initiated.

Hishammuddin, who appeared defensive in the interview, said that the military did not send a plane up to investigate the aircraft shown on their radar as “it was not deemed a hostile object and pointless if you are not going to shoot it down”.

He was defending the military’s failure to scramble a fighter jet after flight MH370 had disappeared from civilian radar on March 8 when its transponder stopped transmitting during a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing around 1.21am.

The military radar had tracked it after it made a turn-back and turned in a westerly direction across the peninsula.

“If you’re not going to shoot it down, what’s the point of sending it (a fighter) up?” Hishammuddin was quoted as asking on the Four Corners programme.

Delays in pinpointing the Boeing 777-200’s location led to days of searching in the South China Sea before analysis from British satellite firm, Inmarsat, pointed its likely course as the Indian Ocean.

Hishammuddin had also said that had the jet been shot down with 239 passengers and crew on board, “I’d be in a worse position, probably”.

He said he was informed of the military radar detection two hours later and relayed it to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who then ordered a search in the Malacca Strait.

14 May 2014

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

The Atlantic

Outside satellite experts say investigators could be looking in the wrong ocean.

Investigators searching for the missing Malaysian Airlines flight were ebullient when they detected what sounded like signals from the plane’s black boxes. This was a month ago, and it seemed just a matter of time before the plane was finally discovered.

But now the search of 154 square miles of ocean floor around the signals has concluded with no trace of wreckage found. Pessimism is growing as to whether those signals actually had anything to do with Flight 370. If they didn’t, the search area would return to a size of tens of thousands of square miles.

Even before the black-box search turned up empty, observers had begun to raise doubts about whether searchers were looking in the right place. Authorities have treated the conclusion that the plane crashed in the ocean west of Australia as definitive, owing to a much-vaunted mathematical analysis of satellite signals sent by the plane. But scientists and engineers outside of the investigation have been working to verify that analysis, and many say that it just doesn’t hold up.

A Global Game of Marco Polo

Malaysia Airlines flights are equipped with in-flight communications services provided by the British company Inmarsat. From early on, the lynchpin of the investigation has been signals sent by Flight 370 to one of Inmarsat’s satellites. It’s difficult to overstate the importance of this lonely little batch of “pings.” They’re the sole evidence of what happened to the plane after it slipped out of radar contact. Without them, investigators knew only that the plane had enough fuel to travel anywhere within 3,300 miles of the last radar contact—a seventh of the entire globe.

Inmarsat concluded that the flight ended in the southern Indian Ocean, and its analysis has become the canonical text of the Flight 370 search. It’s the bit of data from which all other judgments flow—from the conclusive announcement by Malaysia’s prime minister that the plane has been lost with no survivors, to the black-box search area, to the high confidence in the acoustic signals, to the dismissal by Australian authorities of a survey company’s new claim to have detected plane wreckage.

Although Inmarsat officials have described the mathematical analysis as “groundbreaking,” it’s actually based on some relatively straightforward geometry. Here’s how it works: Every so often (usually about once an hour), Inmarsat’s satellite sends a message to the plane’s communication system, asking for a simple response to show that it’s still switched on. This response doesn’t specify the plane’s location or the direction it’s heading, but it does have some useful information that narrows down the possibilities.

You can think of the ping math like a game of Marco Polo played over 22,000 miles of outer space. You can’t see the plane. But you shout Marco, and the plane shouts back Polo. Based on how long the plane takes to respond, you know how far away it is. And from the pitch of its voice, you can tell whether it’s moving toward you or away from you—like the sound of a car on the highway—and about how fast.

This information is far from perfect. You know how far the plane was for each ping, but the ping could be coming from any direction. And you how fast the plane is moving toward or away from you. It could also be moving right or left, up or down, and the speeds would sound the same. The task of the Inmarsat engineers has been to take these pieces and put them together, working backwards to reconstruct possible flight paths that would fit the data.

What’s the Frequency?

There are two relevant pieces of information for each ping: the time it took to travel from plane to satellite, and the radio frequency at which it was received. It’s important to keep in mind that the transit times of the pings correspond todistances between satellite and plane, while frequencies correspond to relative speeds between satellite and plane. And this part’s critical: Relative speed isn’t the plane’s actual airspeed, just how fast it’s moving toward or away from the satellite.

Authorities haven’t released much information about the distances—just the now-famous “two arcs” graphic, derived in part from the distance of the very last ping. But they’ve released much more information about the ping frequencies. In fact, they released a graph that shows all of them:


Inmarsat

This graph is the most important piece of evidence in the Inmarsat analysis. What it appears to show is the frequency shifts or “offsets”—the difference between the normal “pitch” of the plane’s voice (its radio frequency) and the one you actually hear.

The graph also shows the shifts that would be expected for two hypothetical flight paths, one northbound and one southbound, with the measured values closely matching the southbound path. This is why officials have been so steadfastly confident that the plane went south. It seems to be an open-and-shut verdict of mathematics.

So it should be straightforward to make sure that the math is right. That’s just what a group of analysts outside the investigation has been attempting to verify. The major players have been Michael Exner, founder of the American Mobile Satellite Corporation; Duncan Steel, a physicist and visiting scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center; and satellite technology consultant Tim Farrar. They’ve used flight and navigation software like STK, which allows you to chart and make precise calculations about flight scenarios like this one. On their blogs and in an ongoing email chain, they’ve been trying to piece together the clues about Flight 370 and make sense of Inmarsat’s analysis. What follows is an attempt to explain and assess their conclusions.

What We Know

Although the satellite data provides the most important clues about the plane’s overall flight path, they’re not the only clues available. Authorities have some basic but crucial additional information about the flight that can help to make sense of the satellite math:

1. The satellite’s precise coordinates

The satellite in contact with Flight 370 was Inmarsat’s IOR satellite, parked in geostationary orbit above the Indian Ocean. The satellite is meant to be stationary, but its orbit has decayed somewhat, so that it actually rotates slightly around its previously fixed position. Its path is publicly available from the Center for Space Standards & Innovation.

2. The plane’s takeoff time and coordinates

16:41 UTC from the Kuala Lumpur airport.

3. The plane’s general motion toward or away from the satellite

From radar tracking, we know the plane traveled northeast, away from the satellite, over the first 40 minutes after takeoff, then westward, toward the satellite, until 94 minutes into the flight, when it was last detected on radar. Inmarsat spokesmen have stated that the ping distances got progressively longer over the last five hours of flight, meaning that the plane was moving away from the satellite during that time.

4. Two flight paths investigators think are consistent with the ping data

In addition to the frequency shift graph, the Inmarsat report includes a map with two “Example Southern Tracks,” one assuming a flight speed of 400 knots, the other a speed of 450 knots. Check it out:


Inmarsat

These bits of knowledge allow us to put some basic constraints on what a graph of the ping frequency shifts should look like. We’ll use more precise numbers later; for now, it’s helpful just to have some qualitative sense of what to expect:

5. Frequency shifts that should all be negative

When the plane is moving away from the satellite, the radio signal gets stretched out, so the frequency decreases. This means that the frequency shifts should be negative over most of the flight. Although there was an approximately one-hour period starting 40 minutes after takeoff when radar showed the plane moving westward, toward the satellite, the graph shows that no pings were sent during that time—so actually, all of the shifts on the graph should be negative.

6. Frequency shifts before takeoff that should be near zero

Plotting the satellite’s path in STK, you can see that it moves through an ellipse centered around the equator. Space scientist Steel has created this graphic of the satellite’s motion, including marks for its position when the plane took off and when it last pinged the satellite:

The satellite’s motion is almost entirely north-south, and the plane’s takeoff location in Kuala Lumpur is almost due east of the satellite. This means that the satellite was only barely moving relative to Kuala Lumpur, so the frequency shift for a plane nearly stationary on the ground at the airport would be nearly zero.

7. Frequency shift graph should match map of southbound flight paths

The way the Marc-Polo math works is that, if you assume the plane traveled at some constant speed, you can produce at most one path north and one path south that fit the ping data. As the example flight paths on Inmarsat’s map show, the faster you assume the plane was moving overall, the more sharply the path must arc away from the satellite.

This constraint also works the other way: Since flight paths for a given airspeed are unique, you can work backwards from these example paths, plotting them in STK to get approximate values for the ping distances and relative speeds Inmarsat used to produce them. The relative speeds can then be converted into frequency shifts, which should roughly match the values on the frequency graph. (This is all assuming that Inmarsat didn’t plot the two example paths at random but based on the ping data.) We’ll put more precise numbers on this below.

The Troubled Graph

But the graph defies these expectations. Taken at face value, the graph shows the plane moving at a significant speed before it even took off, then movingtoward the satellite every time it was pinged. This interpretation is completely at odds with the official conclusion, and flatly contradicted by other evidence.

The first problem seems rather straightforward to resolve: the reason the frequency shifts aren’t negative is probably that Inmarsat just graphed them as positive. Plotting absolute values is a common practice among engineers, like stating the distance to the ocean floor as a positive depth value rather than a negative elevation value.

But the problem of the large frequency shift before takeoff is more vexing. Exactly how fast does the graph show the plane and satellite moving away from each other prior to takeoff?

The first ping on the graph was sent at 16:30 UTC, eleven minutes prior to takeoff. The graphed frequency shift for this ping is about -85 Hz. Public recordsshow that the signal from the plane to the satellite uses a frequency of 1626 to 1660 MHz. STK calculations show the satellite’s relative motion was just 2 miles per hour toward the airport at this time. Factoring in the satellite’s angle above the horizon, the plane would need to have been moving at least 50 miles per hour on the ground to produce this frequency shift—implausibly high eleven minutes prior to takeoff, when flight transcripts show the plane had just pushed back from the gate and not yet begun to taxi.

On the other side of the frequency graph, the plane’s last ping, at 00:11 UTC, shows a measured frequency shift of about -252 Hz, working out to a plane-to-satellite speed of just 103 miles per hour. But the sample southbound paths published by Inmarsat show the plane receding from the satellite at about 272 miles per hour at this time.

In other words, the frequency shifts are much higher than they should be at the beginning of the graph, and much lower than they should be at the end. Looking at the graph, it’s almost as if there’s something contributing to these frequency shift values other than just the motion between the satellite and the plane.

Cracking the ‘Doppler Code’

Exner, an engineer who’s developed satellite and meteorology technologies since the early 1970s, noted that the measured frequency shifts might come not just from each ping’s transmission from plane to satellite, but also from the ping’s subsequent transmission from the satellite to a ground station that connects the satellites into the Inmarsat network. In other words, Exner may have found the hidden source that seems to be throwing off the frequency graph.

Inmarsat’s analysis is highly ambiguous about whether the satellite-to-ground transmission contributed to the measured frequency shift. But if it did, a ground station located significantly south of the satellite would have resulted in frequency shifts that could account for the measured shifts being too large at the beginning of the graph and too small at the end. And sure enough, Inmarsat’s analysis states that the ground station receiving the transmission was located in Australia.

It’s possible to check the theory more precisely. Public records of Inmarsat ground stations show just one in Australia: in Perth. Using STK, you can precisely chart the satellite’s speed relative to this station, and, using thesatellite-to-ground signal frequency (about 3.6 GHz), you can then factor the satellite-to-ground shifts out of the frequency graph. Finally, you can at last calculate the true satellite-to-plane speed values.

The results seem to be nearly perfect. For the first ping, you wind up with a satellite-to-plane speed of about 1 mile per hour—just what you’d expect for a plane stationary or slowly taxiing eleven minutes before takeoff. This finding seems to provide a basic sanity check for interpreting the graph, and led Exner to declare on Twitter, “Doppler code cracked.” He produced a new graph of the frequency shifts, shown below. The gently sloping blue line shows the shifts between the satellite and the ground station in Perth, while the dotted red line shows the newly calculated satellite-to-plane shifts:


Michael Exner

Why Inmarsat’s Analysis Is Probably Wrong

If this interpretation—based on the work of Exner, Steel, Farrar, and myself—is correct, it would allow independent experts to fully review Inmarsat’s analysis, verify its work and check to see if Inmarsat might have missed any important clues that could further narrow down the plane’s whereabouts.

The problem is, although this interpretation matches two basic expectations for the frequency graph, it still doesn’t match Inmarsat’s example flight paths. The new frequency values, calculated by Exner, show the flight’s speed relative to the satellite as only about 144 miles per hour by the last ping, but Inmarsat’s example flight paths show a relative speed of about 272 miles per hour.

It’s possible these outside experts have still erred or missed some crucial detail in their attempts to understand the Inmarsat analysis. But that just means that Inmarsat’s analysis, as it has been presented, remains deeply confusing, or perhaps deeply confused. And there are other reasons to believe that Inmarsat’s analysis is not just unclear but mistaken. (Inmarsat stands by its analysis. More on that in a minute.)

Recall that the Marco-Polo math alone doesn’t allow you to tell which direction pings are coming from. So how could Inmarsat claim to distinguish between a northern and southern path at all? The reason is that the satellite itself wasn’t stationary. Because the satellite was moving north-south, it would have been moving faster toward one path than another—specifically, faster toward a southbound track than a northbound one over the last several hours of the flight. This means that the frequency shifts would also differ between a northbound and southbound path, as the graph shows with its two predicted paths.

But this is actually where the graph makes the least sense. The graph only shows different predicted values for the north and south tracks beginning at 19:40 UTC (presumably Inmarsat’s model used actual radar before this). By this time, the satellite was traveling south, and its southward speed would increase for the rest of the flight. The frequency shift plots for northern and southern paths, then, should get steadily further apart for the rest of the flight. Instead, the graph shows them growing closer. Eventually, they even pass each other: by the end of the flight, the graph shows the satellite traveling faster toward a northbound flight path than a southbound one, even though the satellite itself was flyingsouth.

One ping alone is damning. At 19:40 UTC, the satellite was almost motionless, having just reached its northernmost point. The graph shows a difference of about 80 Hz between predicted northbound and southbound paths at this time, which would require the satellite to be moving 33 miles per hour faster toward the southbound path than the northbound one. But the satellite’s overall speed was just 0.07 miles per hour at that time.

Inmarsat claims that it found a difference between a southbound and northbound path based on the satellite’s motion. But a graph of the frequency shifts along those paths should look very different from the one Inmarsat has produced.

Losing Faith

Either Inmarsat’s analysis doesn’t totally make sense, or it’s flat-out wrong.

For the last two months, I’ve been trying to get authorities to answer these questions. Malaysia Airlines has not returned multiple requests for comment, nor have officials at the Malaysian Ministry of Transportation. Australia’s Joint Agency Coordination Centre and the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch, which have been heavily involved in the investigation, both declined to comment.

An Inmarsat official told me that to “a high degree of certainty, the proponents of other paths are wrong. The model has been carefully mapped out using all the available data.”

The official cited Inmarsat’s participation in the investigation as preventing it from giving further detail, and did not reply to requests for comments on even basic technical questions about the analysis. Inmarsat has repeatedly claimed that it checked its model against other aircrafts that were flying at the time, and peer-reviewed the model with other industry experts. But Inmarsat won’t say who reviewed it, how closely, or what level of detail they were given.

Until officials provide more information, the claim that Flight 370 went south rests not on the weight of mathematics but on faith in authority. Inmarsat officials and search authorities seem to want it both ways: They release charts, graphics, and statements that give the appearance of being backed by math and science, while refusing to fully explain their methodologies. And over the course of this investigation, those authorities have repeatedly issued confident pronouncements that they’ve later quietly walked back.

The biggest risk to the investigation now is that authorities continue to assume they’ve finally found the area where the plane went down, while failing to explore other possibilities simply because they don’t fit with a mathematical analysis that may not even hold up.

After all, searchers have yet to find any hard evidence—not so much as a shred of debris—to confirm that they’re looking in the right ocean.

9 May 2014

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

The Economist

Having bashed Malaysia over the missing flight, China is now making up

THERE will be no let-up in the efforts to find the missing Malaysian Airlines jet Najib Razak, Malaysia’s prime minister, vowed on May 5th. Despite his promise, however, there is growing acceptance that it will take months even years to find any trace of flight MH370, which disappeared on March 8th. Hopes that any of its passengers might still be alive must also be cast aside. The new search area in the Indian Ocean will alone cover 60,000 square kilometres (23,000 square miles)—and that is on top of the 4,600,000 square kilometres already scoured. Because the focus of the search-and-rescue mission has now moved to the west coast of Australia, Malaysians have some breathing space to reflect on a traumatic two months in the glare of the world’s attention. The country has taken a battering, but the longer-term damage is another matter. The saga has emphasised how much Malaysia matters in the geopolitics of the region: the two Pacific superpowers, America and China, have both come to play big roles in the search for the missing plane, if in very different ways.

In any reckoning, Malaysia’s handling of the loss of MH370 has been a public-relations disaster. The tone was set during the first week by the authorities’ confusion, stonewalling and contradictory messages. One of the gravest flaws has been a deep reluctance to release information, however innocuous. This antagonised the victims’ families. And the problem persists. On May 1st the Malaysian government published a much-heralded report on the disappearance of the plane. This turned out to consist of just five pages, containing little new information. But, as one government adviser admitted: “If we had got this out there in the first week, there wouldn’t have been a nine-week drumbeat of everyone calling us lying bastards.”

Opposition politicians and critics of the government say that the damage to Malaysia’s reputation is a result of the country’s poor governance. Malaysia, the argument goes, is more authoritarian than democratic, with little transparency or accountability in government.

There is some truth to that. But government officials are justified in feeling frustrated that the failures of communication have overshadowed their success in efficiently putting together an extraordinary coalition of countries to look for the plane. On the technical side, many acknowledge that Malaysia has done an adequate job with the relatively limited means at its disposal. It has also gone beyond the call of duty in opening up to its search partners, sharing sensitive details of its military radar system, for example, with the Chinese.

One person who has stood up for Malaysia over MH370 is Barack Obama. During a recent long-scheduled visit to Malaysia, the American president went out of his way to laud the country’s leadership of the search operation. America has contributed a vast amount of equipment, man-hours and money to the search for the missing plane, out of all proportion to the three Americans (out of 227 passengers) lost on the flight. This has brought the two countries closer, at a time when America is searching for new and reinvigorated alliances in the region. Historically, there has been a good deal of anti-Americanism in Muslim-majority Malaysia, but for the time being that seems to have been stilled. Mr Obama got a hero’s welcome from everyone.

That in turn may help account for the zigzag course of China in the MH370 affair. The flight was en route to Beijing, and over half the passengers were Chinese. But rather than support the Malaysian government in the first month or so, China seemed to incite the distraught families into ever fiercer, often histrionic, criticism of Malaysian officialdom, perhaps to deflect attention from the possibility that the plane might have been downed by home-grown terrorists. The Chinese did nothing to dispel some of the alternative, wilder conspiracy theories circulating in Beijing.

In recent weeks, however, the tone has changed. The Chinese ambassador to Malaysia has told the Chinese-language press in Kuala Lumpur that his country accepts that the disappearance of MH370 was not some dark conspiracy and that Chinese-Malaysian relations are unaffected. The wave of criticism in the official Chinese press has largely abated. Perhaps China feels, in the regional battle of wills with America, that it needs good relations with Malaysia and that these were threatened by its attacks. Malaysia is China’s largest trade partner in the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). It also has a large ethnic-Chinese population, and thus could be helpful in its disputes in the South China Sea with other ASEAN countries, such as the Philippines and Vietnam, both firmly backed by America.

Mr Najib makes an official visit to China at the end of this month, marking the 40th anniversary of diplomatic ties between the two countries, initiated by Malaysia’s then prime minister, Abdul Razak, Mr Najib’s late father. With power so finely balanced in the region, China will strive to make the visit go smoothly, including keeping angry families at a face-saving distance.

Switch to our mobile site