Landbridge, owner of Darwin Port, will divert gas meant for the Australian market to China as part of the Belt and Road initiative

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Headline from the subscription only Tradewinds newsletter:



Landbridge Group joins $1bn China LNG import terminal project



Vincent Lai Jingye, chief executive officer of Shandong based

VLCC owner Landbridge Holdings Ltd

Photo: Bob Rust

Landbridge Group joins $1bn Chinese LNG import terminal project

Deal fits into China's Belt and Road Initiative and will see gas diverted from the Australian domestic market

8 July 2019 10:55 GMT UPDATED 8 July 2019 11:13 GMT
by Bob Rust










See also

realpolitikasia

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

The Darwin Port deal will provide Chinese naval vessels access to Australia, the Indian Ocean and the South Pacific

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Corrs and its CEO ,John Denton ,say this on their website:

The recent Darwin Port deal will provide Chinese shipping and naval vessels with facilitated access to Australia, the Indian Ocean and the South Pacific, as well as to Indonesia and PNG over the coming century.



JOHN W.H. DENTON AO CEO Corrs

ONE BELT ONE ROAD

As our China Business Group Co-Chair Dr Geoff Raby recently commented, many Australians fail to appreciate that Australia is a part of the One Belt One Road.

Since becoming President, Xi has made OBOR central to his vision of China's greater standing and influence in the world. The official Xinhua report on the Malcolm Turnbull/Xi Jinping meeting highlighted Xi's call for the "alignment of China's Belt and Road initiative with Australia's Northern Development Plan". Despite the “noise” over the sale of the Port of Darwin to private investors from China, Xi still went ahead with this giant step forward in the bilateral relationship – putting Australia firmly on the OBOR map is a very big deal. 

According to some estimates, in today’s money, OBOR and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank could be more than 12 times larger than the Marshall Plan - America's aid contribution to post-second-world-war Western Europe.

Australia has a place on the One Belt One Road Strategy (Image Source: Charting the Belt and Road)

In a recent visit to Xinjiang in China's far west, the Corrs China Business Group met with numerous officials who enthusiastically shared their role in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).This initiative (one of a number of initiatives encompassed by OBOR) is intended to promote connectivity across Pakistan with a network of highways, railways and pipelines accompanied by energy, industrial and other infrastructure development projects to address critical energy shortages needed to boost Pakistan’s economic growth. Eventually, CPEC will also facilitate trade along an overland route that connects China to the Indian Ocean, linking the Chinese city of Kashgar to the Pakistani port of Gwadar.

In a world that is increasingly interconnected and as a trading nation, Australia has a significant role to play in the policy thinking on global maritime economic issues. Australia is working with Chinese officials as they develop the country’s maritime economy strategy. As a maritime trading nation, these strategic issues of vital importance to us, including their political dimensions. Attracting capital to Northern Australia as part of OBOR will be a key focus. Darwin is intended to be a crucial link in China's new 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. The recent Darwin Port deal will provide Chinese shipping and naval vessels with facilitated access to Australia, the Indian Ocean and the South Pacific, as well as to Indonesia and PNG over the coming century.

END 

AG NSW justifies exclusion of foreign regulatory risks from Dept of Justice annual reports on the basis that he was threatened, intimidated by the information:The matter of Top Group has implications for all regulators (including the NSW Law Soc)

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Top Education Institute received accreditations from TEQSA and the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB) to offer a course of studies leading to the award of the Bachelor of Laws Degree (LLB)

Top Education Institute received accreditations from TEQSA and the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB) to offer a course of studies leading to the award of the Bachelor of Laws Degree (LLB). TOP will commence delivery of the LLB program from Semester 2, 2015 for domestic students.

Picture: TOP’s LLB is published by NSW Law Society

(The above is a screenshot of the the Top Education Group's website
advertising its LLB)



The Attorney General NSW Mark SPeakman SC oversees the Department Of Justice NSW and bodies under its purview, which include the Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB).

The LPAB's responsibilities have been confined to NSW, and more often than not Sydney and limited to regulating the local legal profession.In the past five years however, the LPAB has taken  itself into the sphere of international business, thus exposing itself, the Department Of Justice, and the AG NSW to foreign regulatory risks.

Top Education Group Ltd, listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, provides an example of how the LPAB, the Department and the AG are now exposed to foreign regulatory risk in one of the most volatile and unruly financial markets in Asia.


The Top Prospectus contains  17 references to the LPAB; all of which are crucial to the prospects of the education business that Top was promoting to investors;there are  8 references to the "first and only" licence  to grant LLB degrees   issued by the LPAB   to a non-university and a private company.

On 11 May 2018 Top was listed on the HKEX (1752) at HK 40 cents.By 24 May 2018 Top's share price hit a peak of HK 96 cents. It has been on downward trend ever since and currently trades in the 30-35 cent range.

Investors in the IPO may have lost approximately 10 cents per share. These investors are likely to have relied on the Prospectus.Investors who bought at the peak of 96 cents may have lost as much as 60 cents per share, relying on the fact that Top had the LPAB's imprimatur. Despite the 2015/2016  political donation scandal involving Top Group and its CEO and Principal, Minshen Zhou, the LPAB  and the AG have  continued to allow Top and Minshen Zhu the right to exercise powers pursuant to Rule 19 of the Uniform Law, which allows them to determine if a law graduate  is fit and proper for admission to practice law in NSW and Australia.

All of the above expose the LPAB, the Department of Justice and the AG to foreign regulatory risks, but nothing has been disclosed in any of the relevant annual reports. 

The AG and his officers, as well as the LPAB and its chairman, the Chief Justice Of NSW Tom Bathurst, have attempted to deflect questions about the above issues by accusing this writer of harassment ,threatening and intimidatory behaviour.
The same excuses have been used to deflect questions about their exposure to regulatory risks in Malaysia where another entity under their purview, the College Of Law, appears to be exposed.
END 

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. -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.

END

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
(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 https://www.thethirdforce.net/ganesh-sahathevan-rpk-clare-brown-ginny-stein-and-the-blood-money-trail/ 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.

END

News; International News

Proof Of Opposition Spying For ASIS - Malaysian Police

168 words

3 February 1994

The Age

9

English

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

Document

Malaysia

Australia unwilling to help in graft probe, says KL

325 words

15 May 1994

Straits Times

English

(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

Another Australian connection to Anwar Ibrahim: Investigation into College of Law Asia Pac reveals an interesting media link to Team Anwar (despite the College’s aversion to media queries)

JULY 7, 2019 / REALPOLITIKASIA / EDIT

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Brian Donald

The College Of Law Asia Pac maintains its silence despite the now very many questions about its business in Malaysia. Meanwhile, College Of Law Asia Pac Director Peter Tritt’s Twitter account shows that he follows one
Brian Donald a  Malaysian based Freelance Fixer/Producer Ex NBC News and AlJazeera. 

Donald is the only journalist on Tritt’s list of people followed;and it is equally interesting that he does not follow anyone in Malaysia,or even Singapore.Additionally, he is under orders from his CEO, Neville Carter, to not answer any queries from especially this journalist.

Readers should not that that Donald describes himself as a fixer/producer. A fixer is one who has extensive local networks that can be used to arrange matters in the area of interest.  That this fixer chooses to have as his profile a photograph of him shaking hands with the prime minister desperately waiting Anwar Ibrahim implies a relationship that is relevant to his work.

Whether the College Of Law has been using the services of Brian Donald needs to be clarified immediately.

This writer’s investigations into Anwar Ibrahim’s financial dealings are well known especially  in Australia.

END 

https://twitter.com/petertritt/followers

Brian Donald

@BDonaldKL

Malaysian based Freelance Fixer/Producer Ex NBC News and AlJazeera

Kuala Lumpur

Joined July 2009

See also

Bar Council Malaysia & College Of Law Australia on-line Masters students not protected: College does not have real presence in Malaysia,and Australian regulators including the Attorney General NSW will act to protect it from complaints made in Australia

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

REPOST : Diplomatic incident brewing: Mahathir declares Raja Petra a liar,AG NSW and his department insist that RPK is a credible source of information about Mahathir

Share this:

NSW Government public statements raise audit red flags: Rob Stokes reliance on "material accuracy" is not accurate and suggests material exclusions in public accounts

by Ganesh Sahathevan

As reported by Jacob Saulwick of the Sydney Morning Herald:


Planning Minister Rob Stokes and the Greater Sydney Commission are throwing their support behind the organisation’s chief executive, saying they are satisfied with the “material accuracy” of biographical information included in annual report


Mr Stokes’ spokeswoman did not answer questions about what was meant by “material accuracy,” and whether it implied a lower standard of accuracy appropriate for annual reports tabled in parliament.

Materiality with regards information in an annual report has a specific meaning.The concept of materiality is used to determine the inclusion or exclusion of items from an annual report.

Accuracy of course goes to the truth of a given statement.

While what is material and what is accurate can be open to argument, conflating both concepts in a phrase like "material accuracy" suggests an appalling misunderstanding of basic accounting concepts if not a too clever use of language to conceal the lack of accuracy in a material fact.

If the CEO of a public company attempted to explain away a discrepancy by use of weasel words like "material accuracy" the shares in that company would be sold down, and its auditors would be expected to investigate the discrepancy as well as be on the alert for any other matters that the company may be concealing.

The statement by Rob Stokes and his officers is an obvious red flag that NSW Audit should not ignore. As reported previously on this blog (see stories below) even the Attorney General NSW is not averse to excluding inconvenient matters from  annual reports for which he is responsible.

END 

Legal Profession Admission Board Annual Report 2015-16 shown to be incomplete and deficient by publicly available documents,including documents of the Australian Academy Of Law

JULY 4, 2019 / REALPOLITIKASIA / EDIT

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The following is an excerpt from the Legal Profession Admission Board’s Annual Report 2015-16: 

Accreditation of PLT providers The LPAB also determines applications from
institutions which offer courses of practical legal training (PLT). Accreditation or
reaccreditation  recognises that successful completion of the course provides the
required competencies for entry-level lawyers set out in Schedule 2 of the Legal Profession Uniform Admission Rules 2015. Similar to its decision in relation to the
reaccreditation of law courses, the LPAB determined that it would reaccredit existing
PLT providers in NSW for a period of 2 years, pending review of the accreditation
framework.

The College Of Law Sydney is the largest issuer of PLT certificates in NSW. It is in essence part of the NSW legal establishment, having been once owned by the NSW Law Society.

Consequently statements by its long standing  CEO and Principal ,Neville Carter, which are  readily available in the public domain,cannot be considered irrelevant to the LPAB’s disclosures in its 2015-16 Annual Report. In the words of Neviile Carter , from a paper presented at an  Australian Academy of Law Conference held between  11-13 August 2017 : 

 Increasingly, there were complaints from students, law firms and other stakeholders addressing a variety of issues best summarised in terms of three main areas of concern; uncertainty, unevenness and unfairness. In April 2014 the Board commissioned a Stakeholder Consultation intended to investigate the basis for these concerns, to provide reliable evidence of perceptions of need and a fact-based evaluation of the key issues. Ultimately, its purpose was to inform recommendations to regulators about priorities for a national review of the PLT sector 

Senior executive staff at the College subsequently participated in more than one hundred consultation meetings involving regulators, firms and other employers, professional associations, students, teachers, courts and government. The volume of qualitative information arising from the process was large. Surprisingly, the main themes which emerged were almost entirely about time, cost, flexibility, clarity and utility of the system. 

   Project leaders had expected that, consistent with history, the dominant concerns of stakeholders would be about “standards” in various dimensions, ultimately sourced in opinions about the relative capabilities of the graduates. However, in a post GFC-world, it was plain that the concerns of the stakeholders of the Australian legal education system were very different, essentially economic and logistical in nature.  

“Utility of the system” is an interesting phrase, given the historic complaints about course content.As re-published on the Realpolitikasia blog,quoting the Australian trade paper Lawyers’ Weekly:

Stephanie Booker, another (College Of Law )  PLT student, questioned whether ‘practical legal training’ is an accurate term. “[My course] certainly taught me where to look for things that I may need — rules, areas of law… As for helping me to apply these rules, there is a huge difference between the reality of my workplace and the comfort of my PLT course. For example, I find that the way I draft letters for [my course] is not acceptable in my workplace, and vice versa.”

The LPAB in its Annual Report gives the impression of a routine renewal of accreditation despite the complaints against the College Of Law,which go back to at least 2006.

The College’s CEO  has admitted that the problems have persisted well into at least the middle of this decade and his admission is a matter of public record.

The LPAB’s 2015-16 Annual Report cannot therefore be considered complete;the fact that its contents are contradicted by a publicly available statement of the CEO of an entity it supervises suggests that the exclusion of that information  is not accidental.

As this writer has shown in an earlier post (see below) this is not the only exclusion from the LPAB’s Annual Reports.

SEE ALSO

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

Share this: