Monday, July 15, 2019

Transfers of GST revenue to the Consolidated Fund cannot be theft or a breach of trust; GST refunds are not guaranteed

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is pictured at the Kuala Lumpur High Court July 15, 2019. — Picture by Firdaus Latif
Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is pictured at the Kuala Lumpur High Court July 15, 2019. — Picture by Firdaus Latif

While it is true that the administration of any Goods and Services Tax system is complex, in simple terms, the tax is revenue to the government concerned, and traders registered for GST purposes are in effect collection agents for the government. Whether they receive a GST refund is dependent on whether their input taxes( i.e. the GST they pay) exceeds their output taxes (i.e. GST they collect).

This statement on the GST Consolidated fund reported by the Malay Mail does not reflect that simple fact:

Attorney General Tommy Thomas said channelling good and service tax (GST) revenue directly into federal government’s consolidated revenue account was wrong.

In his correspondence to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) last October, Thomas pointed out that this was a breach of fundamental trust law principles and trust accounting requirement as it violates the Section 7 of the Financial Procedure Act 1957 and Section 54 of the GST Act 2014, Malaysiakini reported today.
“The GST regime is based on the fundamental precept that taxpayers will receive a refund for the amount of GST they pay in the course of producing taxable supplies.
“Parliament’s intention is that taxpayers receive this refund. The statutory entitlement to a refund and the creation of the GST Trust Fund are evidence of that intention,” he said.

“By failing to ensure that taxpayers received their refunds, the former government failed to give effect to Parliament’s intention,” Thomas added.
Thomas’ reply was appended to the PAC’s report on the delayed RM19.4 billion in GST refunds released today.
The PAC concluded that no GST fund was lost, but stated that GST Trust Fund was insufficiently funded because it was used for other purposes.

The PAC is right in that the GST Trust Fund is akin to a bank or insurance company where there is an obligation to meet depositors or policyholders demands.However that indeterminate demand does not prevent the bank or insurance company from investing the money held in their accounts. 
The duty to ensure Tiley payments to depositors, policyholders, and in the case of those registered for GST purposes is a matter separate from the right of the recipient of those funds, in this case the Government of Malaysia, to utilise those funds for its legislated purposes.
Clearly, channelling the GST revenue  into the Consolidated Fund is well within the legislated purposes.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Appointment of Tan Siew Ting McKeogh as Executive Officer LPAB adds to governance ,reporting issues at the LPAB, Department of Justice

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB) has decided to appoint a new Executive Officer from outside the usual civil service pool. The appointment of Tan Siew Ting McKeogh (aka Siew McKeogh) as Executive Officer, LPAB, coincides with the story in The Australian, 17 January 2019, about the departure of the long serving Louise Pritchard.

Ms Tan -Mckeogh's previous experience appears to have been in a series of small law firms, and it does not appear that the vacancy created by Ms Pritchard's departure was advertised. Nevertheless, she has now inherited Ms Pritchard's annual reporting duties, and the job of correcting the various exclusions that have been identified on this blog(see story below). The issue of Minshen Zhu and Top Group remains a live one (see story below) , especially given the gyrations in the price of the shares of that company, which are listed on the HK Stock Exchange.

The LPAB has continued to maintain its silence about its dealings with Top Group and Minshen Zhu even after t Top's share price fell and recovered sharply just before and after Top received a notice from the LPAB informing it that its license to grant LLB degrees was to be reviewed. Top disclosed the issuance of the notice dated 8 September 2018 in its 2018 annual report, which was published in late September 2018.

Between 4 September 2018 and 21 September 2018 Top's share price fell from 40 HK Cents to 34 HK Cents,before rebounding to 41 HK Cents on 21 September 2018.

Ms Tan -Mckeogh has also inherited the duty of ensuring that the LPAB's current and past annual reports reflect accurately the matters concerning Top Group, and the College of Law,.

As reported in The Australian of 17 January 2017 this writer was found by the LPAB to be not fit and proper for admission to practise in NSW on the strength of a blog posting which implicated him and the current Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in a million dollar scheme to bribe Australia's ABC into airing a 4 Corners episode which the LPAB believed falsely accused the former PM of Malaysia,Najib Razak, of stealing from the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB. It also found that this writer had  harassed  and threatened  the College of Law and its management in the course of an investigation into the College's business affairs.

The LPAB regulates the conduct of the College's business in that it is responsible for supervising the College 's PLT program, and determining if it should be allowed to offer the PLT course. The LPAB has sole responsibility for granting the College its license to run the PLT program without which the College will cease to operate.

The LPAB is therefore in a similar position to ASIC and the ASX with regards listed companies. If either the ASX and ASIC ever attempted to accuse anyone of threatening and intimidating companies under their supervision for raising matters concerning the business of those companies senior management  of the ASX ,ASIC and the companies involved would be required to provide full and complete disclosure of the matters raised and their conduct, both in public press statements and in their annual reports, duly signed by their chairman and other responsible officers. Indeed, they would also be then required to tender their resignation.

The Chairman of the LPAB, the Chief Justice Of NSW Mr Thomas Bathurst has refused to make any public comment on any of the above matters, despite the report in The Australian on 17 January 2019.
Both he and Ms Ting -McKeogh, as well as Ms Pritchard (who appears to have left the LPAB sometime in November) have reporting duties and it is for them, individually and collectively, to provide an account of all of the above and especially of the matters concerning the College Of Law.
The Chairman wil also be required to explain the departure of Ms Pritchard, and the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Ms Tan-McKeogh.


Thursday, June 27, 2019

NSW Liberal donor Minshen Zhu's Top Group, the LPAB,the AG,and Sharon Austen Ltd

by Ganesh Sahathevan

As reported earlier on this blog:
The LPAB and AG were also queried about the exclusion from the 2015 Annual Report of material that had been disclosed in the 2012 Annual Report where it is stated that LPAB member Dr Gordon Elkington was assigned to TEQSA to assist with the TOP application for the relevant licenses from TEQSA.

The exclusion from the 2015 annual report of the information disclosed in the 2012 annual report gives the impression that the LPAB's assessment of the TOP application in 2015 was a dealing with a party with which it had no prior relationship, when in fact it had.

The LPAB, and the AG Mark Speakman SC, have also failed to disclose,at all times, Dr Elkington's corporate history.which includes the spectacular failure of Sharon Austen Ltd (ASX:SEX), a company in which he was company secretary,and which failed just two years after its IPO and listing. There is much about Dr Elkington that is in the public domain. A search of the Factiva database shows the following:

a)But minority shareholders, former law lecturer cum erotic company ( director Dr Gordon Elkington and Adelaide-based Trevin Love, are sick of waiting.
(CBD,Edited By Kate Askew,10 May 2000,Sydney Morning Herald)

b)The shareholder who opposed Futuris' 4-for-1 scrip offer was Dr Gordon Elkington, whom readers of this column would remember as being part of Rob Catto's happy troupe of small-time greenmailers.
(BOURSE SAUCE,Robert Weatherdon,,30 June 1993,The Australian Financial Review,)

c)Another minority shareholder, Dr Gordon Elkington, who has been involved in a number of "greenmail" plays with Mr Catto, said: "There's a group of people out there - and most of them know each other - and they don't like to be ripped off. However, I get the impression that people interested in these things think it's fair."

One of Mr Catto's companies, Super John, owns 333,000 shares, meaning he will make a profit of about $216,000 if the deal is approved. Dr Elkington said he was only a small shareholder.

Dr Elkington said: "One of the important things to learn from this case is that it isn't hard for majority shareholders to get rid of minorities as long as they are reasonable. People that are tarred with the brush of being trouble-makers are really only just standing up for their rights."

One of the most recent greenmail plays involving Mr Catto and Dr Elkington was Southcorp's 1996 takeover of Coldstream Wines. Their status as minority shareholders has been fought over in the courts with a full bench of the Federal Court last month forcing Southcorp to reinstate them to Coldstream's register.
(BOURSE SAUCE,Robert Weatherdon,,30 June 1993,The Australian Financial Review,))

d) Other recent greenmail situations involving Mr Catto include the Texas Utilities takeover of Allgas and Mayne Nickless's bid to take out minorities in Hospital of Australia Investment Fund in 1993.

During the late '80s and early '90s, he was a fly in the ointment in numerous deals, including Pioneer International's attempt to take Ampol private, Mr Kerry Packer's bid for Muswellbrook Energy, Industrial Equity's bid for Top Australia and Westpac's bid for AGC.
(Win For Small Shareholders,By Morgan Mellish,26 April 1999,Sydney Morning Herald)

The LPAB and its officers seem to have determined that the above would remain hidden from public view.Questions put concerning Dr Elkington  to the Chairman of the LPAB, the Chief Justice NSW Thomas Bathurst ,have been met with the customary non-response( the CJ was has had a long and illustrious career as one of this country's leading commercial QCs,and hence the questions).

Students committing hundreds of thousands of dollars to Top Group for Law degrees have every right to know the history of those involved in providing Top Group its credentials. Top Group is a listed company and its record since listing on the HKEX in May last year would be of concern to any student:

Top Education Group share price movements require explanation from NSW LPAB, TEQSA,and AG Speakman; Top's declining cash flow from operations adds to worries

That the LPAB officer who was assigned the task of evaluating Top Group's application has himself a corporate history that includes a very public failure cannot be irrelevant. 



It has been previously reported on this blog that the NSW Libs received donations of $44,275 from TOP Education Group, a NSW company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange  just before and after TOP was granted the "first & only" licenset issued a private company to award law degrees , in 2015(see story below).

The license was issued by the Legal Profession Admission Board NSW (LPAB), an independent statutory board that is under the purview of the Department of Justice, which overseen by the Attorney General, Mark Speakman SC. The Chief Justice NSW is the chairman of the LPAB.

Despite adverse publicity concerning the Group, its CEO/Principal Minshen Zhu and their treatment of students in 2016, the LPAB did not report in its annual report if the Group had been subject to any sanction:
'Internships' at PwC advertised by Top Education Institute for thousands of dollars

Neither did the LPAB report any sanctions following the highly publicised political donation scandal involving Top Group and in the same year.

On 5 September 2018, Topgroup " received a formal advice from Legal Profession Admission Board of New South Wales (‘‘NSW LPAB’’) that the re- accreditation process of (their) Bachelor of Laws will commence in September 2018 and may take more than six months to complete. 
 The information was disclosed by Top in its 2018 Annual Report released sometime after 5 September 2018,but not by the LPAB.
The LPAB communication with Top seems to have had some impact on Top's share price between 4 September 2018 and 21 September 2018 when Top's share price fell from 40 HK cents to 34 HK cents, and the recovered to 41 HK cents. 

Since then Top's share price has crashed to a low of 25 HK cents, before recovering to around 35 HK cents.

Meanwhile , the LPAB has, without any adverting of the position, appointed a new Executive Officer ,one Tan Siew Ting McKeogh,to replace the long standing Louise Pritchard. The Executive Officer is responsible for the day to day operations of the LPAB, has an extensive range of  delegated authority, as well as reporting responsibilities.  Ms Tan's appointment appears to have become effective sometime in December 2018. She does not have a background in the civil service and her few jobs appear to have been with small suburban
 law firms.

NSW Libs received donations of $44,275 from TOP Education Grosup just before and  after TOP was granted the "first & only" licenset issued a private company to award law degrees: AG Speakman and his LPAB refuse to disclose all details in the LPAB Annual Reports

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Troy Grant MP

Mark Speakman

As First Law Officer of the state, Mark oversees 
the administration of almost 200 Acts of Parliament, 
the most of any minister in the NSW Government. 

The Legal Profession Admission Board is a  statutory body chaired by the Chief Justice of New South Wales.Its annual report is tabled in the NSW Parliament by the Attorney General NSW , currently Mark Speakman SC,for approval.

The LPAB's duties include granting licenses for the award of  Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degrees to interested parties ,which until recently were all public universities. In 2015 the LPAB issued a license to grant LLBs to TOP Education Group Ltd, which proudly proclaims the fact that it is the "first and only" private company to have been granted such a license. 

The AG NSW is also the Liberal Member for Cronulla and he,as well as the LPAB , have been queried about the following issues discovered in the LPAB's 2015 Annual Report which relate to the TOP Group application. 

The  LPAB states in its 2015 Annual Report:

In addition, the LPAB received an application for accreditation of a new law degree to be offered by a non-university provider, TOP Education Institute (LLB).
The LPAB considered the advice of its Accreditation Sub-Committee and Legal Qualifications Committee, and also consulted with other admitting authorities through the Law Admissions Consultative Committee (LACC),  before deciding to accredit the new degree with effect from 1 January 2015.

With regards the above the LPAB and the  AG have  been asked why in considering the TOP application they  appear not to have considered   TOP  Group's CEO and controlling shareholder Minshen Zhu's  business failures which were a matter of public record in 2015 ,and collated in its 2018 Prospectus issued in connection with the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of its stock and listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Zhu's business failures are listed on page 160 and 167 of the IPO Prospectus. They are failures in small businesses which in turn raise questions about his capacity to fund a much larger venture like TOP.

The LPAB and AG were  also queried about the exclusion from the 2015 Annual Report of material that had been disclosed in the 2012 Annual Report where it is stated  that LPAB member Dr Gordon Elkington was assigned to TEQSA to assist with theTOP  application for the relevant licenses from TEQSA. 

The exclusion from the 2015 annual report of the information disclosed in the 2012 annual report gives the impression that the LPAB's assessment of the TOP application in 2015 was a dealing with a party with which it had no prior relationship, when in fact it had.

All of the above would be of  concern to both students and investors given the dramatic collapse in TOP's share price, The AG and the LPAB have confirmed in writing that they are not interested in answering any of the questions above.

It has since been discovered that in the 4 months or so prior to the LPAB granting TOP  the license to issue law degrees,TOP made donations worth AUD 44 275 to the Liberal Party NSW Branch.

While  Mr Speakman is AG and the most senior law officer in the state, he is first and foremost a politician.He would not be AG had he not been elected.

It was to his party that the above donations have been made,and his refusal to answer the questions above does raise the perception that something is not quite right. 

His Department Of Justice has in the past shown that theMinister ,his Department Of Justice,and the LPAB can and do work together in the interest of their Minister and vice versa.This has included a recent non-disclosure of complaints against the LPAB and the College Of Law in the 2018 Annual Report.

Hence it is not unreasonable to expect that together they  provide answers to these issues which are of public interest,and which concern their conduct as public servants.


L'Affaire Adelaide : DOD can justify the DCNS submarine contracts by making full public disclosure of the related offset contracts

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Mr Pyne and the boss of DCNS, Herve Guillou, visit the shipyards in Cherbourg.

Mr Pyne and the boss of DCNS, Herve Guillou, visit the 
shipyards in Cherbourg. Is l'affaire Adelaide a repeat of DCNS's l'affaire Karachi

-Australian taxpayers have not been told why French subs will cost 5 times more

Robert Gottliebsen in The Australian this morning:

Australia’s defence outlook is changing rapidly and new Defence Minister Linda Reynolds faces a daunting task.

She is being bombarded with material from defence officials defending what are increasingly obvious past mistakes or strategies in danger of becoming obsolete.

The submarine contract and the joint strike fighter (JSF) are at the top of the list with yet another defence expert warning over the weekend that technology change is endangering the $90 billion French submarine gamble.

The ABC reports that former government defence adviser Derek Woolner and fellow researcher David Glynne Jones say that Australia’s objective to produce a “regionally superior” submarine is “now under challenge” and by the time the new submarine hits the water around 2034 “it’s going to be obsolete”.

Woolner says our submarine is to be built with a heavy metal main battery, as part of a process already initiated under a contract signed by France’s Naval Group company and MTU Friedrichshafen for diesel generator sets.

Hydraulics expert Aidan Morrison’s detailed research paper last year showed that the while the pump-jet system works well with nuclear submarines, at the slow pace required for diesel electric it fails.

After a long delay, defence countered by claiming that pump-jets could be efficient across the entire speed range. Morrison responded: “It is a bizarre, irrational claim with no basis whatsoever in physics. It is frankly bewildering that such a claim could be made, given how easily its falsehood can be established by even moderate research, or simple logic.”

To pretend that the Australian DCNS contracts are nothing like the other DCNS contracts is to indulge in that naive Australian habit of pretending that this country alone is pure and incorruptible.

The reports below show that even documents in the public domain show that belief to be fantasy.
If the Department Of Defence wants to justify its DCNS-Barracuda decision, it can start by providing full public disclosure of all the related offset contracts, providing details of when, who and how much.


Friday, July 12, 2019

Erdogan' to visit Australia next year-What insights might Gov Beazley ,her Premier & AG provide Erdogan with regards his enemy Gulen?

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Turkey stand against failed military coup attempt
A man holds a placard reading in "Take your hands off Turkish democracy" with the portrait of Fethullah Gulen in Istanbul, Turkey. Source: Getty Images

SBS has reported today that Turkey's President Erdogan will visit Australia next year. In 2016 SBS reported how Erdogan's sworn enemy, Mohamad Fetullah Gulen and his Gulen movement enjoy access to the highest levels of government in NSW.

The 2016 story also reported that Turkey’s then ambassador to Australia Ahmet Vakur G√∂kdenizler had warned federal and state authorities that local Gulenists were part of the international network that had attempted to overthrow the Erdogan government in the 2016 coup,which had the backing of some parts of Turkey's armed forces.

None of this seemed to have deterred the NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian and various members of the judiciary, including the Chief Justice Tom Bathurst and the then President of the Court of Appeal, Margaret Beazley from lending their support to various Gulen organised events.Beazley was appointed Governor of NSW in May this year.

The NSW Supreme Court website includes a speech by Beazley at a Gulen movement event,where she argues that sharia and the common law are not incompatible. Gulen is a proponent of political Islam, and hence the public support of a President of the Court Of Appeal, placed on the Supreme Court website, is quite an achievement.

Erdogan has declared the Gulen movement a terrorist organisation;in Turkey the movement is officially known as the Fetullah Gulen Terrorist Organisation (FETO). When in Australia however he might find that his hosts in NSW might want to re-educate him with regards FETO. They seem to have insights into the activities and motives of the Gulen movement which have escaped Erdogan, his advisers,and others who have researched the movement over the past two decades.

See also

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Australia's College Of Law has established a Professional Legal Training course in Malaysia, at the national level: CLP changes have yet to be revealed in Malaysia

by Ganesh Sahathevan 

From the College of Law Australia's  website listing its academ:ics and management

Neville Carter

Mr Neville Carter

CEO & Principal, The College of Law

BA LLB (Sydney); MBA (Melb); Solicitor of the Supreme Court of NSW
Neville Carter is the CEO & Principal of the College of Law. He is a legal practitioner and academic of approx 40 years standing and established the IPLS program in New Zealand and a similar program for PLT students in Malaysia. Mr Carter has been Principal of the College of Law for over 20 years.  

The IPLS program in New Zealand provides tutoring for that country's  version of Malaysia's Certificate of Legal Practice, which is required for practice in Malaysia.
PLT stands for "Professional Legal Training" the Australian equivalent of the CLP, expect that it is pratise based, and almost impossible to fail.

The  statement above seems to suggest that proposals  to convert the CLP from an academic exam based program into a "practice based" or "practical" course are well advanced. As reported before on this blog, the new CLP can be expected to be far more expensive than the current program, and may well require PTPTN funding.

Monday, July 8, 2019

Anwar Ibrahim's solid grip on MPs statutory declarations meaningless: SDs cannot be used to secure a promise

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Muhyiddin, Zahid lash out at fake SDs supporting Anwar;
 probe ordered

The denial by Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi of  having signed  statutory declarations in support of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim taking over as prime minister beginning July 2 is irrelevant even if it were true.

A uniquely Malaysian innovation, the SD pledging support makes for good theater in the land of the wayang kulit, but otherwise means nothing. A SD is, as its name implies,  a declaration that something is true and for that reason its use is limited to declarations that say,  statements regarding ones name, identity or nationality are true. 
It cannot be used to affirm ones support, affection, undying love or loyalty. These are akin to promises, for which there are contracts or deeds.

So, even if Saudara Dr Anwar Ibrahim obtains SDs of support from all MPs, that fact would mean nothing. He would still have to go back to Parliament, move a vote of no confidence against Mahathir, who would then need to advise the Yang DiPertuan Agong  that Parliament should be dissolved and a general election called.


Sunday, July 7, 2019

Anwar Ibrahim's vote of no confidence against Mahathir: GE 15 must be called, and voters will expect a solid grip on 1MDB prosecutions :Australian interference will not prevent a people's revolt

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (left) and Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) pose for a photo before a meeting in Istanbul on June 20, 2018. -AP
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (left) and Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) pose for a photo before a meeting in Istanbul on June 20, 2018. -APAustralian foreign policy advisers cannot understand that Anwar like his friend Erdogan will only make the ASEAN region more jihadi friendly.Instead,it is assumed that he will promote a more inclusive, tolerant (read LGBTQI++ friendly) Malaysia.

News reports, rumours and details suggest that Sdr  Dr Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is about to make his move against PM Tun Mahathir Mohamad. It does look as if Anwar is about to do to Mahathir what he did to Ghafar Baba in 1993; present to Mahathir a seemingly united front of MPs who prefer him as their beloved leader.

It is believed that Dr Anwar's coalition will comprise both Pakistan Harapan and Barisan National MPs,for it is not felt that he will have the numbers by relying solely on Pakistan MPs. If all goes well, Anwar Ibrahim expects to be Malaysia's eight Prime Minister by the end of this week, if not very, very soon.

Unfortunately, it cannot work that way. Mahathir is PM, so a vote of no confidence against him is in effect a vote of no-confidence against the Government.A government that has lost the confidence of the majority of MPs ie the representatives of the people, must be dissolved and an election called.
To do otherwise is to have a dictatorship.

Seeking the support of Barisan Nasional Opposition MPs makes matters worse; it takes Anwar type logic to not understand that when Government MPs join with Opposition MPs to vote against the sitting Prime Minister in a vote of no confidence, Government MPs are in fact admitting that their Government has failed.Again, the only logical consequence is to call an election.

If an election is called now voters will demand that  Najib Razak and others charged with 1MDB offences be held in a solid grip, and not allowed to escape jail. There is already unhappiness with the current state of the various matters against Najib and others; call another election and voters will demand that whoever is elected show that they can do a better job of investigating and prosecuting 1MDB matters.

In this day and age foreign interference is assumed, and attempts by especially Australia to promote the Anwar-Najib cause will not go down well.


aturday, September 29, 2018

Australia attacks Mahathir, backs Anwar for PM: Australian interference in Malaysian elections discovered by former IGP Rahim Noor in 1994

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (left) and Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) pose for a photo before a meeting in Istanbul on June 20, 2018. -AP

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (left) and Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) pose for a photo before a meeting in Istanbul on June 20, 2018. -AP
(see 1MDB-The Anwar Ibrahim phase (Coming soon, ask UMNO and PAS about it)

The Australian Government agency that produced the document that contains this statement continues to stand by its finding:
43.It is reported on that Mr Sahathevan was investigated for blackmail, extortion, bribery and corruption defamation

The "Thirdforce" story suggests that then opposition leader Tun Mahathir  financed this writer and others in  a scheme to fabricate false allegations against then PM Najib Razak with regards 1MDB.

The suggestion is expressed in    this linked Thirdforce story:
Which is why, you now have fellows like Ganesh Sahathevan telling you that Trump was forced to expand his powers just to resolve the 1MDB issue. Ganesh was paid USD1 million by a member of team Mahathir to float the idea (READ FULL STORY HERE) while Kit Siang prepped the Red Bean Army (RBA) with one-liners that accused Trump of being anti-Islam.

The Australian Government has made no secret of its preference for Najib and Anwar over Mahathir and the above seems to be an attempt to exonerate Najib , discredit Mahathir, and pave the way for "PM in waiting" Anwar Ibrahim's ascendancy to the prime ministership.

Australia has done much over the years to nurture Anwar in whatever way possible (a story for another posting) but that should not surprise. In 1994 former Chief Of Police Malaysia Rahim Noor discovered that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) had  recruited members of the then opposition to undermine the Malaysian government  of the day.See stories below.


News; International News
Proof Of Opposition Spying For ASIS - Malaysian Police
168 words
3 February 1994
The Age
Copyright of John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd
Kuala Lumpur, Wednesday. Malaysian police had uncovered evidence to support claims that opposition politicians spied for the Australian secret service, the top police officer said today.
The Inspector-General of Police, Mr Abdul Rahim Mohamad Noor, said preliminary investigations had uncovered the evidence, the national Bernama news agency reported.
He did not disclose details but said police had set up a committee to investigate.
The `Sunday Telegraph' in Sydney on 16 January quoted former agents of the Australian Secret Intelligence Services (ASIS) as saying they paid senior opposition politicians in Malaysia and Singapore without Canberra's knowledge or consent.
Mr Lim Kit Siang, the leader of the largest opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP), has described the allegations as ``preposterous''.
``ASIS must be very stupid to be recruiting agents from the opposition as I cannot imagine what secret information DAP leaders could lay their hands on which would be of use to the Australian spies,'' he said. _Reuter

Australia unwilling to help in graft probe, says KL
325 words
15 May 1994
Straits Times
(c) 1994 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysia could do very little about Australia's unwillingness to co-operate with a police investigation into allegations that Australian spies bribed politicians here, Law Minister Datuk Syed Hamid Albar said yesterday.
"If they don't want to co-operate or do not want to allow us to take evidence, then it is within their right not to do so," he told reporters after talks with visiting Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Aghazadeh at his office here.
Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Noor was quoted as saying on
Friday that police had been denied permission by the Australian government to interview editors and reporters about the allegations.
Australia's Sunday Telegraph in January quoted former agents of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (Asis) as saying that they paid senior opposition politicians in Malaysia from the time they were junior members of Parliament, without Canberra's knowledge or consent.
The Canberra Times weighed in with a report several weeks later saying that Asis had paid politicians from the ruling National Front coalition government up until four years ago.
"We would suggest that it would be better for countries that have made allegations against a country to allow that country to get to the bottom of the allegations so that the truth will prevail," Datuk Syed Hamid said.
He added that the co-operation of the Australian government would enable the
government to investigate the allegations and, if necessary, to take action against the parties involved.
"The investigation will identify which opposition party is involved and whether there is any criminal act to enable us to take action," the Law Minister said.
Malaysia and Australia have only recently smoothed over a row that began whe n Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating called his counterpart, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, a "recalcitrant" for boycotting a summit of Pacific Rim nations last November. - Bernama, Reuter.
Document STIMES0020050711dq5f03tls