Monday, September 25, 2017

PM Najib and associates implicate Noble Group in Mahathir-Bush cash for access scandal



by Ganesh Sahathevan


Najib claims Dr M paid lobbyist ‘millions’ to arrange meeting with 
George Bush – Malaysia Today


It started with this from PM Najib:

"I want to tell you, when he was prime minister, he wanted to see President (George W) Bush.
"I want to tell you tonight that he paid lobbyists millions of ringgit," Najib told a thousand-strong crowd that greeted him at the Bunga Raya Complex near KLIA tonight.
Najib claimed that Mahathir had approached Hong Kong-based lobbyist Ken Schiffer to set up his meeting with Bush.
"Mahathir used the late Megat Junid as his main planner.
"And how did he pay? Using TNB coal contracts," the prime minister said.



Najib's man Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK) has now added:

What happened was Mahathir asked his very close crony-confidante to incorporate a Malaysian company and place it under the name of certain proxies. This newly incorporated company then negotiated to sell a coal-mine in Indonesia to TNB. An agreement was made between the Malaysian crony-company and PT Dasa Eka Jasatama (DEJ) and TNB was instructed to buy that Indonesian coal-mine for US$68 million.
TNB then paid a 10% deposit or US$6.8 million for the coal-mine, after which they took a loan from Standard Chartered Bank in London for the balance 90%.
It was from the profit of this coal-mine deal that the Americans were paid to arrange the meeting between Mahathir and President Bush.


That he is referring to Noble Group of Hong Kong, among others,is not difficult to determine,given reports of this sort which are easily located:


Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) and Noble Trade Finance (NTF) have completed a five-year US$68mn pre-export financing deal that enables Tenaga Nasional Berhad(TNB) Coal International Ltd of Malaysia to acquire Indonesian coal mine company PT Dasa Eka Jasatama (DEJ). This guarantees TNB access to four concessionary coalmine areas in South Kalimantan.

END 

References 

It Cost TNB US$115 Million For Mahathir To Meet Bush
By MT Webmaster Last updated Sep 23, 2017


Mahathir might tell you he sometimes forgets what he did in the past or he was not aware of what people below him did. But he definitely remembers this Indonesian coal-mine deal because he personally instructed his crony-confidante to set up the company to front the deal. And he personally knows the proxies that were used in this company plus he personally called the TNB Chairman to instruct them to buy the coal-mine for US$68 million and to pay a 10% deposit.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said he did not instruct anyone to pay anything for him to meet President Bush back in 2002. Other reports say Mahathir paid US$1.2 million for that meeting while The Age of Australia says it was $1.6 million Australian. The truth is it cost Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) US$115 million or about RM482 million for Mahathir’s meeting with Bush. But they dressed it up as if it was a business deal to make it appear above board.

What happened was Mahathir asked his very close crony-confidante to incorporate a Malaysian company and place it under the name of certain proxies. This newly incorporated company then negotiated to sell a coal-mine in Indonesia to TNB. An agreement was made between the Malaysian crony-company and PT Dasa Eka Jasatama (DEJ) and TNB was instructed to buy that Indonesian coal-mine for US$68 million.

TNB then paid a 10% deposit or US$6.8 million for the coal-mine, after which they took a loan from Standard Chartered Bank in London for the balance 90%. The loan was obtained from a UK bank to make sure that the details do not leak to members of the Malaysian opposition, as is normally the case – and then people like Rafizi Ramli and Tony Pua will start broadcasting it to all and sundry.

It was from the profit of this coal-mine deal that the Americans were paid to arrange the meeting between Mahathir and President Bush.

TNB lost US$66.24 million on the coal-mine operation and five years later they sold it off for US19.5 million, thus losing another US$48.5 million. That comes to a total of US$114.74 million or RM482 million, all because Mahathir wanted to meet President Bush.

So, Mahathir says he never instructed anyone to pay for him to meet President Bush. But he did instruct his closest crony-confidante to incorporate a company under the names of proxies and he did instruct TNB to buy a coal-mine in Indonesia. And, from the profit they made from selling this Indonesian coal-mine to TNB, they paid the Americans millions to arrange a meeting between Mahathir and President Bush.

This Indonesian coal-mine fiasco is no secret and everyone in TNB knows about it but no one will talk about it openly except through whispers in the corridors. The TNB Board of Directors was not happy about the deal but they were overruled by someone ‘high up’ from the Prime Minister’s Office back in 2001.

Initially some within TNB’s management spoke out about venturing into a business that they know very little about. Then there was the issue of price (whether the coal-mine was overpriced) plus viability (whether there is enough coal to sustain the operation). The viability and returns on investment (ROI) needed to be studied before TNB forks out close to a quarter billion ringgit.
TNB decided to sell off the Indonesian coal-mine after losing US$66.24 million over five years and then lost another US$48.5 million when they sold it

The TNB Board, however, was told that the matter was not open for discussion because the decision to buy that Indonesian coal-mine was made at the highest level and it was more or less a fait accompli. The job of TNB’s Board was merely to approve the whole transaction with no objections or questions asked.

That decision was eventually going to cost TNB almost half a billion ringgit in losses and all Malaysia received in return was a meeting between Mahathir and President Bush. Yes, almost RM500 million for a short meeting in the White House does not sound like a good return on investment, does it?

Mahathir might tell you he sometimes forgets what he did in the past or he was not aware of what people below him did. But he definitely remembers this Indonesian coal-mine deal because he personally instructed his crony-confidante to set up the company to front the deal. And he personally knows the proxies that were used in this company plus he personally called the TNB Chairman to instruct them to buy the coal-mine for US$68 million and to pay a 10% deposit.

Noble and StanChart complete Indonesian coal deal

ASIA / 08-10-03 / BY 








Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) and Noble Trade Finance (NTF) have completed a five-year US$68mn pre-export financing deal that enables Tenaga Nasional Berhad(TNB) Coal International Ltd of Malaysia to acquire Indonesian coal mine company PT Dasa Eka Jasatama (DEJ). This guarantees TNB access to four concessionary coalmine areas in South Kalimantan.


TNB Coal International Limited (TNBC) is a company incorporated in Mauritius, 70% owned by TNB. It is a special purpose vehicle set up by TNB to acquire coalmine companies. As an exchange, TNBC will obtain exclusive mining and marketing rights to produce and sell coal.



The margin is six-month Libor + 2.25%. Underwriting commitments are: Standard Chartered Bank with US$23mn; Noble Trade Finance US$20mn; Bumiputra-Commerce Bank Ltd with US$15mn; RHB Bank with US$10mn.



To meet the syndication schedule, NTF decided to transfer the target market to Malaysia, in particular to Malaysian banks that had offshore branches in Labuan. Noble believed Malaysian banks already have rich market knowledge towards TNB, therefore they can save a lot of time from their due diligence work. This strategy proved correct. The primary market was successfully closed by four banks (two are Malaysian major banks). Each of participating banks shared a balanced portfolio of the total syndication amount. There are banks in Singapore and Hong Kong still interested in the deal. They have agreed to join the secondary market. Already two of them have committed to the secondary market. Once the loan drawdown is complete financial exposure will be transferred to the participating banks.



TNB is the largest electricity utility company in Malaysia with M$57.1bn in assets. By the end of 2002 it served about 5.8mn customers throughout the Peninsula, Sabah and Labuan. Tenaga is 70% owned by the Malaysian government, which ensures its electric generation strategies are consistent with national policy. It is considered quasi-sovereign as board members of TNB including representatives from the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Energy, Telecommunications and Multimedia.



TNB has a monopolistic position in electricity transmission and distribution in Peninsular Malaysia as it accounted for around 66% of Malaysia’s electric generating capacity. Around 60% of its fuel mix for electricity generation is derived from natural gas. The rest of the main fuel mix is represented by 14% of Hydro, 6% of oil and 16% of coal. TNB’s major supplier of natural gas is Petronas, the Malaysian national oil company that continues to supply TNB with natural gas at a subsidised rate. However on numerous occasions, the Malaysian government has refused Petronas application for waiving the gas supply subsidy. As TNB has failed since 1997 to raise electricity tariffs, it could immediately justify an increase in prices if the subsidy is cancelled. An increase in electricity prices could destabilise growth in the economy, especially in the manufacturing sector as it represents 25% of GDP. Highly aware of this scenario, the Malaysian government fully supports TNB to reduce its dependency upon Petronas and search for alternative fuel sources.



Earlier this year, the Malaysian and Indonesian governments concluded an agreement to allow TNB to purchase Indonesian coal. TNB set up a vehicle company TNBC to acquire extensive marketing rights to produce and sell the coal via acquiring Indonesian company mining company PT Dasa Eka Jasatama (DEJ). The coal will be supplied to TNB’s electricity generation system thereby releasing pressure on tariff increases caused by the rise in the price of oil and natural gas.



NEI of Noble Group started to work with DEJ since 1997 by seeing the potential of its coalmine concessionary contracts. Noble Group’s strategy is to go downstream to hold extensive marketing rights of coalmines but not own the coalmine operations. To comply with Noble’s corporate strategy, NTF lends money to DEJ so that NEI can get the coal from DEJ’s mines. DEJ respects NTF’s specialty in structuring and financing coalmines.



When DEJ had been approached by TNB, DEJ did not want to cancel the supply contract with NEI. Therefore it included NEI as one of the off takers in the deal, furthermore DEJ recommended to mandate NTF to structure and arrange the deal with a group of primary banks. Based on the prior experience working with DEJ, the deal had been structured as an export backed term loan facility. NTF invited Standard Chartered Bank as a co-arranger. SCB is one of the world’s leading emerging markets bank with 150 years history; it is also Noble Groups main bank.



NTF, NEI and the structured finance team of SCB composed the information memorandum together. The deal was given to the syndication desk of SCB to sell. The initial strategy of SCB was to sell it in the Singapore market but it did not show quick results. Due to the complexity of the structure and professional requirements of the deal, the banks needed to spend a lot of time to understand the deal before completing their due diligence report.

Friday, September 22, 2017

Zulfikar Shariff's detention under Singapore's Internal Secuirty Act makes Geroge Brandis vulnerable to blackmail, "moral suasion", and a range of other coercive methods

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Attorney-General George Brandis.





The detention of Zulfikar Shariff of Melbourne, by the Singapore Government under its Internal Security Act provisions, is likely to have provided the Singaporeans and their partners information on a number of Australian politicians, in particular the Attorney General George Brandis.


The Singaporeans would by now have obtained enough out of Zulfikar to determine how, and why he was allowed to freely and openly operate out of Melbourne, Victoria ,from where " he planned to hold training programmes to persuade young Singaporeans to join his extremist agenda of replacing Singapore's secular, democratic system with an Islamic state, by violence if necessary."


Zulfikar made no secret of his plans, often posting on Facebook messages such as these:





Zulfikar's postings contributed to the radicalisation of at least two other Singaporeans.
It was not as Zulfikar was an unknown.He did arrive in Australia in 2002 under a cloud, accused by none other than Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong of promoting Al Qaeda and its objectives in Singapore. Once here, as is now well known, he assumed a very high profile within the Muslim community,acting as the second in charge to Dr Abdul Rahim Ghouse, business associate of the Al-Qaeda financier Sheik Yassin Al-Kadi.
Brandis continues to maintain his silence, in Australia , about his dealings with Rahim Ghouse and Anwar Ibrahim, the former deputy prime minister of Malaysia.It is more likely than not that under questioning,Zulfikar has already provided the Singaporeans answers to those questions. That makes our Attorney General and potential High Commissioner to the UK vulnerable to blackmail, "moral suasion", and a range of  other coercive methods .
END 




Saturday, August 19, 2017


by Ganesh Sahathevan

The fact that Anwar Ibrahim, a hero to some, is also in the picture should not provide any solace, given that Anwar's International Institute Of Islamic Thought was being at and around the time the photograph was taken being investigated in the United States for financing terrorism.



George Brandis QC, AG, needs to stand aside while the matter of his personal finances and funding obtained for political purposes is properly investigated.




Image may contain: 5 people, people smiling, people standing

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

1MDB and De Niro: Hurricane Irma draws attention to the James Packer-Robert De Niro Barbuda resort venture which may be a beneficiary of 1MDB funds

by Ganesh Sahathevan 





Actor Robert De Niro was recently at the United Nations seeking aid for the rebuilding of the island of Barbuda,where he has recently acquired an interest in an USD 250 million resort development project.His partner in the venture is Australian billionaire James Packer.

That acquisition  follows  De Niro's role in Red Granite's production, Bag Man:

Red Granite is at the centre of the 1MDB theft,and this De Niro investment must surely be among the assets of interest to  investigators from at least five jurisdictions who are pursuing the matter.
END 


Reference 





AUG 5, 2016 @ 10:39 AM

Robert De Niro And Billionaire James Packer 

Will Transform Barbuda With Luxury Resort

 Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Villas with private docks inspired concept (Shutterstock)
Overwater Villa concept (Shutterstock)(Updated 9-9-2017) Following the devastating destruction of Barbuda from Hurricane Irma, this project is obviously on hold. Hopefully James Packer and Robert De Niro will step in to assist in rebuilding this beautiful island.
The island of Barbuda, located in the Eastern Caribbean, is situated north of Antigua and well known as one of those quiet, tranquil islands that has enjoyed underdevelopment, with the feeling of being deserted most of the time. Things are about to dramatically change as the government has recently approved a massive new development headed by actor Robert De Niro and billionaire James Packer.
The two have had quite a few successful ventures in the past when James Packer’s Crown Resorts paid over $100 million for 20 percent of Nobu, the acclaimed Japanese restaurant chain owned by De Niro, along with celebrity chef Nobu Matsuhisa and film producer Meir Teper.
(L-R) Robert De Niro, Grace Hightower and James Packer  (Photo by Monica Schipper/Getty Images)
Now, after a contentious battle with some of the residents of Barbuda, the duo plan to completely transform the stunning island and revitalize its stunted economic growth. The approved agreement between Prime Minister Gaston Browne and Ambassador Gilbert Boustany outlines a bevy of new developments planned for the island.
In a new statement by Ambassador Gilbert Boustany "Once they start construction of the hotel (phase 1 is 77 rooms, Spa, 4 restaurants), then they would have access to an additional 140 acres, within but no later than 36 months." He continued "They will have a beautification project for Barbuda, where they are in process now of creating a donkey sanitary, and refurbishment of the Government house to be used as a museum.  Paradise Found also offered to have a Sustainable Development Plan done for Barbuda at their cost."
The former K Club Resort located on a stretch of stunning white sand at Coco Point fell into abandon years ago, and the surrounding areas are filled with desolate and abandoned properties. The duo will have Paradise Resorts manage the properties and will name it Paradise Found. They purchased 251 acres of the former K Club and will spend over $250 million developing the area.

Follow me on Twitter , Instagram and Facebook
Copyright 2017 by Jim Dobson / Forbes. Material may not be published, rewritten or redistributed without link to original content.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

What were Gonski & Turnbull thinking : UNSW's Chinese Government JV may be in breach of the Defence Trade Control Act 2012

by Ganesh Sahathevan



Australian academics who teach mathematics may need to run new ideas by the Department of Defence before sharing them or risk imprisonment.
However in March (2016) the act was updated to include "intangible supply", which is intended to prohibit the transfer of knowledge from Australia that could be used to produce weapons.
From November 2016 Australian academics could face a potential 10-year prison term for sending information overseas if their ideas fall within the Defence Strategic Goods List (DSGL). Put another way, they could be jailed for delivering online course material to foreign students or providing international peers with access to a server hosting that material.

Compare the above the UNSW 's JV with the Chinese Government ,and see how it is not likely to be in compliance with the DGSL:



Since 1988 the Torch program has brought businesses together with universities and researchers inside China to create high-tech startups. The Chinese government says it has accounted for 11% of the country’s GDP. This $100m deal included an initial $30m from eight Chinese companies to support Australian research.

Since then 29 Chinese partners and one Indian one – Adani Solar, a subsidiary of the resources giant – have signed on to the UNSW Torch project. They include at least seven firms working in industries with dual use military potential such as aerospace, GPS navigation, underwater cameras and nanotechnology. The research is not funded directly by the Chinese government but by the companies themselves.


One of the companies participating in the scheme is Huawei Technologies, the Chinese firm banned from participating in Australia’s national broadband network in 2013 on security grounds, based on the advice of Asio – the Australian national security agency. Earlier this year, it was reported that Nick Warner, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service’s director general warned the Solomon Islands against using Huawei to connect its under-sea cable.


Note that the above brings together three of our best minds; 
a) UNSW Chancellor David Gonski
b)PM Malcolm Turnbull
c) The Unusually Intelligent Marise Payne, Minister for Defence.

END 





'Faustian bargain': defence fears over Australian university's $100m China partnership


University of New South Wales says it has conducted due diligence and concerns about research being used for military purposes are drawing ‘a very long bow’

 
Chinese premier Li Keqiang (centre right) attends a signing ceremony with Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on 14 April 2016. Photograph: Parker Song/AFP/Getty Images





Anders Furze and Louisa Lim

Tuesday 19 September 2017 16.22 AEST


A world-first collaboration between the University of New South Wales and the Chinese government, celebrated as a $100m innovation partnership, opens a Pandora’s box of strategic and commercial risks for Australia, according to leading analysts.

These include the potential loss of sensitive technology with military capability, an unhealthy reliance on Chinese capital and vulnerability to Beijing’s influence in Australia’s stretched research and technology sector.


The UNSW Torch Innovation precinct, the first outside China, was unveiled last year with Malcolm Turnbull present at the signing ceremony in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People, alongside the Chinese premier, Li Keqiang.


Since 1988 the Torch program has brought businesses together with universities and researchers inside China to create high-tech startups. The Chinese government says it has accounted for 11% of the country’s GDP. This $100m deal included an initial $30m from eight Chinese companies to support Australian research.

Since then 29 Chinese partners and one Indian one – Adani Solar, a subsidiary of the resources giant – have signed on to the UNSW Torch project. They include at least seven firms working in industries with dual use military potential such as aerospace, GPS navigation, underwater cameras and nanotechnology. The research is not funded directly by the Chinese government but by the companies themselves.


One of the companies participating in the scheme is Huawei Technologies, the Chinese firm banned from participating in Australia’s national broadband network in 2013 on security grounds, based on the advice of Asio – the Australian national security agency. Earlier this year, it was reported that Nick Warner, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service’s director general warned the Solomon Islands against using Huawei to connect its under-sea cable.

On its Torch website designed to draw in potential investors, the university highlights research with explicitly military applications such as unmanned military vehicles.


Richard Suttmeier, an American expert on China’s science policy and emeritus professor at the University of Oregon, raised US concerns that Beijing’s aggressive decades-long technology acquisition drive was allowing China to quietly supersede other countries in certain fields.


Universities … have been frankly a bit wilfully blind to the implications of getting too financially dependent on ChinaPeter Jennings

On the UNSW cooperation he said: “One can’t help wondering about a Faustian bargain quality to the program. Increasingly China is able to dangle very, very attractive incentives for cooperation. International partners can reap benefits in the short run but may lose out in the longer run if they lack farsighted strategies.”

Clive Hamilton, professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University, said: “I think the Torch program will make UNSW in effect a client university of the People’s Republic of China in its science and technology areas, and more broadly because PRC and its agencies will have a huge amount of sway over university decision-making.”

Rory Medcalf, the head of the Australian National University’s national security college, has expressed concern that research with potential for military use could bypass existing controls.
FacebookTwitterPinterest UNSW and HCCL joint laboratory on the university’s Sydney campus. ‘We are doing something to convert fundamental research to practical application,’ says UNSW engineer Dr Sean Li. ‘This is a big change.’ Photograph: Matthew Abbott for the Guardian

“The fundamental question to ask is if there is [a] prospect of technology discoveries being shared that could potentially give China a military advantage in the region over, for example, US and its allies, and therefore potentially Australia.
Advertisement


“This is not necessarily about issues of war or conflict, which nobody wants. But it’s about issues like surveillance, detection, submarine activity; areas where our militaries are, to be honest, competing with one another day to day.”

Brian Boyle, UNSW’s deputy vice-chancellor (enterprise), championed the Torch project as “delivering a return on investment for Australia through our outstanding and competitive research base”.

He said all potential partners had been scrutinised by an external company, ensuring collaborators “meet the level of requirements we would expect, in terms of company performance and behaviour”.

Questioned on Huawei’s participation, he said that the university had undertaken the appropriate due diligence and adhered to defence export controls.

“We believe they are a good company to be working with,” Boyle said, adding the two were collaborating on touchscreen technology.

He described concerns about any possible use of this technology for military purposes as a “very long bow to draw”.

The UNSW website hosts Torch-branded “research capability statements” that showcase the university’s research strengths to potential Chinese investors. At least three trumpet specific military applications, including “impact and blast-resistant construction materials” developed at the Australian Defence Force Academy.

'You should consider our feelings': for Chinese students the state is an extension of family
Merriden Varrall

Read more

Another project concerning high-speed, high-precision self-driving vehicles listed a potential application as being “unmanned military vehicles”.

Asked why UNSW was touting military research to potential Chinese investors, Boyle said they were for “general purpose use”. When asked why they were on the Torch website, he replied, “That’s our key customer base at the moment.”

“We follow the rules,” he added.

UNSW has been explicit in its motivations for seeking alternatives to Australian government funding. “We didn’t want to keep going back, cap in hand, to Canberra asking for more,” Ian Jacobs, its vice chancellor, wrote in an in an article for the Australian newspaper last year. “Instead, we went to China.”
Advertisement


In a separate opinion piece, for the Australian Financial Review, Jacobs wrote: “To join China’s innovation train, we need to move quickly and take on a degree of risk.”

Boyle said: “We believe that in taking these financial and technological risks we are performing the best service to Australian society.”

The university has also been upfront about the central role played by China’s Ministry of Science and Technology in the Torch enterprise. Chinese officials have handpicked the first group of companies participating in the scheme. The university offers Chinese companies looking to invest in the precinct rent-free office space and tuition scholarships for employees to undertake PhDs.

The flagship project under Torch is a $20m collaboration between UNSW engineer Dr Sean Li and Hangzhou Cables, which helped fund a $10m laboratory on the university’s Randwick campus, as well as a second collaborative lab in Hangzhou alongside the company’s production facilities where prototypes of the new graphene electricity transmission cables can be produced faster than in Australia. It took just three months to open the lab after the negotiations were finalised.

For Li, who joined UNSW 13 years ago, this collaboration marks a huge positive shift in university culture. “Now we are doing something to convert fundamental research to practical application,” he said, describing how he has filed nine patents in the past two years.

“This is a big change for myself, and for the university. That’s why the Torch precinct is a very, very rapid development.”


Sydney University tutor resigns after allegedly calling Chinese students 'pigs' online

Read more

The partners have set up a joint venture, with UNSW taking a 20% stake to Hangzhou Cable’s 80%, and royalties shared equally between the two sides. Li confirmed that the new technology had been subject to checks under defence trade control legislation.

The 150 Torch precincts inside China play a key role in Beijing’s full-throttle mission to become a technology power. Its ambition – articulated under the banner “Made In China 2025” – is to have 70% of the country’s manufacturing supply chain fed by Chinese companies by 2025. China’s broader science policy, described as “technonationalism”, feeds its voracious appetite for cutting-edge technologies.

Promoting its Torch collaboration, the university declares its potential to play a powerful role in China’s development. “The rise of a great power needs more. It needs UNSW,” is the sign-off line in the university’s official Torch promotional video.
Advertisement


Jacobs has also explicitly linked Torch with the “Made in China 2025” policy, and China’s desire to become a world technology and science powerhouse by 2049. “To get there will require not only an immense national effort by China but also strong and enduring international collaborations,” he told a gala event last year. “That’s where we come in.”

One vocal supporter is Dr John Saunders of the Linden Group, infrastructure specialists with close Chinese ties, who believes such schemes should receive more support. “I think the UNSW needs to broaden this. I think it needs much bigger commitment from federal government, and I certainly think it can be – not replicated – but can become a model elsewhere in Australia.”

Turnbull declined to comment on the Torch concerns, instead referring to a statement from the Department of Education and Training: “The Australian government is supportive of innovative ideas, which grow Australian society and develop our reputation as a partner of choice internationally.”

UNSW is not the only Australian institution wooing Chinese Torch officials. In May, a 20-strong Torch delegation from China visited Griffith University’s Gold Coast campus as part of an exploratory tour of south-east Queensland. That came two months after Queensland minister Kate Jones met Torch representatives in China to discuss promoting the Gold Coast “health and knowledge precinct” as a future Torch project.


The stories you need to read, in one handy email

Read more

Nor is it the only university wooing Chinese money. The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) has launched a centre for advanced science and technology research, funded by the state-owned China Electronics Group Corporation (CETC), a deal worth $20m over five years. Meanwhile, the University of Melbourne and RMIT are opening an incubation space providing Chinese funding of $80m in partnership with the City of Melbourne and the Australian China Association of Scientists and Entrepreneurs.

Critics of the collaboration fear that, in the rush to cash in on Chinese funding, some institutions may have failed to recognise the potential risks.

“On one hand, the universities have been forced into a position where they’re just out busking for money,” says Stephen Fitzgerald, the first Australian ambassador to China in the early 1970s. “On the other hand we have a government that seems to be incapable of taking a serious, considered, long-term, strategic view of our relations with China.”

Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said. “Universities have never met a dollar they didn’t like … [They] have been frankly a bit wilfully blind to the implications of getting too financially dependent on China.”
FacebookTwitterPinterest UNSW’s mission is to have a global impact, says Brian Boyle, deputy vice-chancellor (enterprise). Photograph: Matthew Abbott for the Guardian

The UNSW Torch promotional video trumpets the university’s role in supporting the rise of a “great power”. Boyle said UNSW’s mission was to have global impact. “If by having a global impact one supports the development of another country as well as the development of Australia, I think that’s well within Australia’s defence mandate to do that.”

A central concern of many experts is the potential military application of technologies being developed in partnership with foreign companies. They caution that emerging technologies are often so complicated that scientists can’t forecast how their work will be used, including whether it might have so-called “dual use” civilian/military applications. The monitoring of the development and use of cutting-edge technologies is a particularly thorny issue, given the level of specialisation required to understand the implications of such research, and the complexities of attempting to control constantly evolving technologies.



We won’t know the full extent of the dual use or the full extent of the risk until after the technologies have been sharedRory Medcalf

“These are highlighting some of the real challenges of the 21st century, when what is military research and what is civilian research don’t really have meaningful distinctions,” says Dr Margaret Kosal, from the Sam Nunn school of international affairs at Georgia Institute of Technology, who conducts research on potential proliferation threats of nanotechnology.

Medcalf said: “The problem is with some of these technologies, potential for dual use may be there but we won’t know the full extent of the dual use or the full extent of the risk until after the technologies have been shared. In other words, having an export control and licensing arrangement, as we’ve done in the 20th century, for military and dual use technologies, will be too late.”

The mood in Washington has recently shifted towards fear that China’s unabashed focus on innovation, combined with its traditional disregard for intellectual property protection, will inexorably lead to Beijing superseding the US as the world’s leading technology power.
Advertisement


Suttmeier, who briefed President Barack Obama’s council of advisers on science and technology, said: “I think the US has woken up to the sophistication of Chinese technology development strategies, and to the overall thrust of Chinese industrial policies which lie behind a lot of these questions.”

Attempts to contact the Chinese embassy in Canberra and the Ministry of Science and Technology in Beijing for comment did not yield a response.

Plans for phase two of the Torch precinct include the redevelopment of 100,000 square metres at UNSW’s Randwick campus, a project which Yuan Wang, the Torch project manager, said would require capital investment in the order of $1bn. She said potential future areas of joint research could include artificial intelligence and telecommunications.

“I would like to see us helping to work with China on some of its major issues that we also share,” Boyle said. “That is an ageing population, it’s also in terms of energy.” He touted the benefits of future expansion as benefiting “both Australian, Chinese and indeed global industries,” as well as boosting jobs in NSW.

• This article also appears at the Citizen. Anders Furze is a journalist at the Citizen, based at the University of Melbourne. Louisa Lim is a senior lecturer at the centre for advancing journalism at the University of Melbourne, and a former NPR and BBC correspondent based in Beijing. Lim is also the author of The People’s Republic of Amnesia: Tiananmen Revisited

Since you’re here …

Saturday, September 16, 2017

The day Chinese in Malaysia are" targeted",is the day the PLA will land in Subang,KLIA, Kuantan Port,Port Klang............

by Ganesh Sahathevan



Yun-20 military transport aircraft. [File photo]

Malaysiakini quoting PM Najib reported:

"If there is no peace in our country, what will happen? The Chinese will be the first to be targeted if there is no peace in this country.

These are dangerous words, given that t
he Peoples Liberation Army and the PRC government have made their position on such matters  clear:

The (PLA)  should also act as a deterrent against those who attempt to harm Chinese people. We will not allow any repeat of such tragedies as the May 1998 riots in Indonesia, in which some 1,200 ethnic Chinese were killed.

And of course, there is also much invested in Malaysia for China to defend:


Image result for chinese interest malaysia



It is useful to keep in mind that China's has already,in the recent past,shown that it will intervene in Malaysia as it sees fit:

China justifies intervention in Malaysia's internal affairs : Threat of racial riots in Malaysia's Chinatown considered a threat to China's national interest



If what Najib threatens becomes evident, PLA and PRC intervention in Malaysia is probably a given.
END 

Chinese the first to be targeted if there is no peace, PM fears

  •      Published 16 Sep 2017, 4:45 pm     Updated 16 Sep 2017, 6:41 pm


The Chinese community would be targeted should Malaysia ever descend into chaos, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak said.

This Najib said, is why the government is committed to keeping the country peaceful.

"If there is no peace in our country, what will happen? The Chinese will be the first to be targeted if there is no peace in this country.

"That is why we are a moderate government, we are committed to the peace and harmony, mutual respect to this country.

"We fight the Islamic State (terrorist group), we make sure they don't harm Malaysians including the Chinese in Malaysia," he said in his speech at the “Malaysian Chinese Patriotic Rally” held at the Putra World Trade Centre today.


References


PLA must protect China's overseas interests

By Yue Gang
0 Comment(s)Print E-mailChina.org.cn, April 24, 2013
Adjust font size: 
China's latest national defense White Paper spelled out the duty of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to protect the country's overseas interests, as security issues involving marine energy and resources, strategic sea lines of communication, and Chinese nationals overseas are becoming increasingly prominent.
Yun-20 military transport aircraft. [File photo]


First, the PLA should protect Chinese people overseas. It should participate in international peacekeeping operations to provide a safe environment for overseas Chinese workers. When there is a war, riot or political disturbance, the army should be able to evacuate Chinese people swiftly. The PLA is also responsible for rescuing Chinese hostages in the event of such crises, and this is especially pertinent at a time when pirates, terrorists and armed kidnappers are operating on a greater scale in many parts of the world. The army should also act as a deterrent against those who attempt to harm Chinese people. We will not allow any repeat of such tragedies as the May 1998 riots in Indonesia, in which some 1,200 ethnic Chinese were killed.
Second, the PLA should protect national and personal wealth overseas. So far, China's total investment abroad has reached US$50 billion and by 2020, the figure will surpass US$1 trillion. In addition, the total value of all overseas real estate owned by Chinese people stands at around US$3 trillion. The economic interests China has in other countries are crucial to the sustainable development of Chinese economy.
Third, the PLA should ensure the security of marine energy and resources. The oceans are abundant with energy and resources. China currently has 1,628 deep-sea fishing boats operating in the exclusive economic zones of 37 countries, as well as the open seas of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans, and the waters near the South Pole. However, the oceans and coastal regions are susceptible to attacks by pirates, terrorists, illegal armed forces and political disturbances. This makes it hard for the PLA to maintain maritime security.
Fourth, the PLA should ensure the security of strategic sea lines of communication. China relies heavily on foreign trade and more than 90 percent of China's exported cargos are freighted by sea.
Maritime vessel protection, the evacuation of Chinese nationals overseas and emergency rescue have become important ways and means for the PLA to safeguard national interests and fulfill China's international obligations. Despite its growth, however, the PLA is unable to fully protect the needs of China's overseas economic development.
First, the PLA's transportation capacity is insufficient. China has an urgent need for large amphibious assault ships and military transport aircraft. Existing craft are ill-suited to carrying out large-scale evacuations. When riots broke out in Libya, the Chinese government had to use merchant ships and rent foreign ships in order to evacuate Chinese nationals. China currently has 10 Ilyushin Il-76 aircrafts at most, each of which has a payload of 40 tons -- roughly one-third of the capacity of the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, which is the largest military transport aircraft available to the U.S. military. The Yun-20 military transport aircraft, wholly developed by China, can carry a load of 65 tons. Hundreds of Yun-20 aircraft would be required in order to undertake a strategic airlifting task.
Second, China's forward military presence is weak. The U.S. Navy is deployed worldwide and is therefore capable of engaging in peacekeeping missions or wars in coastal regions. Military presence is important to the U.S. government's diplomatic and national defense policies.
Third, the PLA needs to deepen international cooperation. In the White Paper, China made its first reference to cooperation with foreign military forces, indicating that the issue has caught the attention of the authorities. There is no question that China is seeking genuine partnerships to promote cooperation with regard to joint defense.
Fourth, China needs to build up its military capacity to show its will and determination. As the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force Colonel-General Alexander Zelin said, waving your fist 100 times is not as powerful as flapping a bomber's wings once.
According to former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, deterrence is based on three main factors: military strength, willingness to employ it, and effective information transmission. China's 2013 national defense White Paper declared that the scope of China's national interests is within the framework of international laws, the PLA remains resolute in protecting the country's overseas interests and China's determination to develop its military strength to cope with its economic development is absolute. The White Paper also clearly identified potential threats to China and showed the PLA's confidence and competence to better deter and, if necessary, prevail in any conflict, however large.
The author used to serve as a colonel with the General Staff of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA).
This post was first published in Chinese and translated by Chen Xia.
Opinion articles reflect the views of the authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.