Thursday, December 12, 2019

Foreign interference laws: NSW LPAB tendency to not disclose information required in statutory reports, aggressively defend institutions it is meant to regulate warrants a raid to secure Zhu Minshen and Top Group documents: Foreign interference laws must apply equally and to all, pointless if judicial bodies are exempt

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The NSW Legal Profession Admission Board  enabled the entry of a Communist Party China linked entity, Zhu Minshen's Top Education Group Ltd,into Australia's legal system (see story below).

The approval raises many questions, which the NSW LPAB has refused to answer. Additionally the NSW LPAB has demonstrated a tendency to defend institutions it is meant to regulate, and to do so aggressively; in defending the College Of Law against complaints of poor service the LPAB attempted to discredit this writer's 25 year history of uncovering corporate crimes and in doing so went so far as to re-write the facts of the landmark decision of the Supreme Court NSW in the matter of Carlovers.

All of the above warrants a raid by the relevant authorities to ensure that the relevant documents are not destroyed, and to determine who precisely was responsible for Zhu being so specially favoured. Consequently there must be action to eliminate this entry by the Communist Party China into Australia's legal system.

That the LPAB is chaired by a chief justice and overseen by an attorney general ought to make no difference, indeed it requires that the foreign interference laws be enforced even more strictly.

Sunday, December 8, 2019

Australia's decision to allow a Communist Party China linked school to produce lawyers who can practise in Australian courts is a world first: Scrutiny of senior judicial officers under Australia's foreign interference rules unavoidable, as would be scrutiny by agencies in the US,UK

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Troy Grant MP

NSW Libs received donations of $44,275 from TOP Education Grosup 

In 2015 the Legal Profession Admission Board of the State Of New South Wales, Australia (LPAB NSW), granted for the very first time a license to grant law degrees leading to admission to practise to a private company that was not a university. The company, Top Education Group Ltd, has been shown to have strong links to the Communist Party Of China, and to have interfered in Australian politics. 

The granting of that license was not only a first for Australia, bu t appears also to be the first time anywhere in the world that a Communist Party China or indeed Chinese controlled college has been allowed that privilege by any country anywhere in the world.

The LPAB NSW has maintained a stony silence with regards  that approval, despite the issue of that approval being raised, questioned and criticised by this writer and others.

Meanwhile, Australia has just introduced foreign interference laws that are intended to prevent foreign agents from interfering in local politics. Top Education Group and its major shareholders have had a number of high profile interventions in local politics:

Zhu Minshen has been a big Liberal Party donor. And his Top Education college was (anomalously) licensed to award law degrees. He bussed his Chinese students to Canberra in 2008 for Olympic Torch relay. Tight CCP links.

TOP Education Institute's Bachelor of Laws : Political donations,HK Stock Exchange IPO seem to have left regulators confounded, speechless

Amen Lee is part of Top Education Group's Controlling Shareholder Group: Fresh questions for NSW LPAB,AG Speakman ,and NSW Libs over issuance of Top's LLB license and political donations

Participation in a country's legal system  through its law schools, is tightly controlled and seldom if ever a privilege granted to foreign or foreign controlled entities. The reason should be obvious: members of the legal  profession tend to be over-represented in politics.

The Australian decision to grant a Communist Party Of China linked entity entree into the Australian legal system is obviously one that ought to attract the attention of Australian regulators responsible for enforcing its recently enacted foreign interference laws.

That the persons responsible are among Australia's most senior judicial officers, some of whom may have retired, ought not stand in the way of investigation and prosecution. Given Australia's intelligence sharing arrangements it is  not unlikely that the same judicial officers would have by now attracted the attention f similar agencies in the UK and the USA,


See also

China orders lawyers to pledge allegiance to Communist Party

Sui-Lee Wee


BEIJING (Reuters) - China’s Justice Ministry has ordered lawyers to take a loyalty oath to the Communist Party, in an unusual move that has drawn condemnation from attorneys worried about the government’s attempts to rein them in.

The ministry issued a notice on Wednesday demanding that first-time applicants and lawyers who want to renew their licenses have to take the oath.

The oath was necessary to “firmly establish among the vast circle of lawyers faith in socialism with Chinese characteristics ... and effectively improve the quality of lawyers’ political ideology”, the ministry said in a statement posted on its website.

“I promise to faithfully fulfill the sacred mission of socialism with Chinese characteristics ... loyalty to the motherland, its people, and uphold the leadership of the Communist Party of China,” lawyers must say under the oath.

This is the first time that lawyers have been required to pledge allegiance to the Party in an oath, Mo Shaoping, a prominent human rights lawyer, said.

The Party has always been wary of lawyers, who they suspect could challenge one-party rule through the advocacy of the rule of law.

“I think it’s inappropriate,” Mo told Reuters by telephone. “As a lawyer, you should only pay attention to the law and be faithful to your client.”

The new rule comes as Communist Party chiefs are preparing for a tricky leadership handover later this year, when the party’s long-standing focus on fending off political challenges is likely to intensify.

“If the oath says you must be faithful to the Communist Party and accept the leadership of the Party, that may exclude many other people in the legal profession who belong to other political parties or have other religious beliefs,” Mo said.

“The oath will hurt the development of the Chinese legal system.”


Over the past decade, a loose network of lawyers has sought to use litigation mixed with publicity to challenge laws and policies restricting citizens’ movements and rights to protest.

Pu Zhiqiang, a Beijing lawyer who has often represented people in sensitive political cases, called the oath “baffling”.

“I don’t see the legal basis for adding these procedures. On what basis is the Ministry of Justice doing this?” Pu told Reuters by telephone. “If I don’t take the oath, are you not going to give me a license?”

Pu said the oath “will produce a conflict” among lawyers who want to be independent from enforcing the will of the party.

“In my opinion, the biggest destroyer of the rule of law in China is the Communist Party,” he said.

Although the Party has always imposed tight controls on lawyers, the pressure has intensified in the past year.


No comments:

Post a Comment