Former Malaysian PM Najib's work, home telephone conversations intercepted, recorded: Crown Prince UAE caught, other foreign personalties who worked with Najib cannot feel safe

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Malcolm Turnbull's son Alex reportably had a role in blowing the whistle on controversial Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB.CREDIT:AAP Turnbull invited Najib to APEC in April 2018 despite the 1MDB scandal.Najib was voted out in Maly 2019.

In the latest episode of the 1MDB saga Malaysia's anti-corruption chief Lateefah Koya released this afternnon a series of recordings of telephone converstaion  which further implciate former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak in the 1MDB theft.

Most intriguing to this writer is the fact that the recordings are of telephone calls to the then Prime Minister ,at work and at home, which have obviously been intercepted. The telephone calls include calls to and from the Crown Prince of the UAE and between Najib and his wife Rosmah Mansor.

It is unclear who ordered the interecpets, but intercpeting calls to and from the Prime Minister, especially calls to and from the Prime Minister's home,are probably unprecendented. 

There are Malaysian agencies which have these types of capabilties, so it is not necessarily the case that the intercepts are the work of any foreign agencies, like Australia's Defence Signals Directorate which have been said to be active in Kuala Lumpur.


END

SEE ALSO

MACC tapes depict a frantic Najib pleading with Abu Dhabi crown prince to help stepson Riza Aziz 

Wednesday, 08 Jan 2020 01:35 PM MYT

BY THASHA JAYAMANOGARAN

Datuk Seri Najib Razak speaks to reporters at the Kuala Lumpur High Court January 8, 2020. ― Picture by Firdaus Latif

PUTRAJAYA, Jan 8 ― Back in 2016, Datuk Seri Najib Razak had called the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Sheikh Mohamed Zayed Al-Nahyan and pleaded for help with money laundering accusations faced by his Hollywood filmmaker stepson Riza Aziz at the height of the 1MDB financial scandal, according to tapes of the conversation released by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) today.

Najib who was then prime minister sounded frantic in the audio recordings as he sought to clear Riza’s name.

The tapes also contained conversations between Najib and his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor who sounded angry as she instructed her husband on how to deal with the fallout from the 1MDB accusations by the US Department of Justice (DoJ).

Other conversations recorded were between Mubadala Development Company (MDC) chief executive Khaldoon Al Mubarak and Najib’s special officer Datuk Amhari Efendi Nazaruddin.

MACC chief Latheefa Koya told a press conference after releasing the tapes that the recordings were authentic and showed conspiracy at the highest level of government.

Below are some excerpts from the tapes played that lasted 45 minutes:

Conversation between Najib and the Crown Prince

July 22, 2016, 8.54pm 

Crown Prince: Mr prime minister, how are you and how is your family there?

Najib: I’m delighted to speak to you and of course we are experiencing dark cloud, by the announcement of DOJ. That’s why your Highness it is important for us to resolve this to the impasse with the 1MDB soon. It is embarrassing us, Malaysia and the UAE as well as personalities close to you. I wish we can find a solution as soon as possible. Difficult to talk over the phone, possible to meet as soon as possible?

Crown Prince: It’s fine by me but I will be travelling for medical check-up for five days. I can get someone to come to you and talk about it.

*Conversation continues on planning where to meet among suggestions of Najib to fly over to Abu Dhabi*

July 22, 2016, 11.33pm (Conversation between Najib and the Crown Prince)

Crown Prince: Mr prime minister I’m sorry I was late. I’ve consulted with my guys and I really don’t want to push this anymore. This is of mutual interest. I don’t think you should fly over, people will know about it. I will tell my person to come there. He is in California, I will call him now and he can come.

Najib: *sounding stressed and stuttering* Your highness I have a personal request. My son Riza Aziz, related to his movie production in America if there can be an agreement with  Sheikh Mansour signed, so that it can show it was legitimate instead money laundering. At the moment he’s under pressure in America. I’m worried if they make him a scapegoat.

I hope the agreement can be signed immediately with Sheikh Mansour so that it can appear as a legitimate loan agreement. When he (Riza) received it, the bank cleared the source of money, I don’t want him to be a victim when he doesn’t know and genuinely think its from Sheikh Mansour. I need that agreement to be sorted out quickly.

Crown Prince: I promise you, I will do it now and I believe he is your son.

Najib: Yes he is innocent. He just wants to make a movie. Now they want to connect with him with 1MDB, but time is essence my honour. We cannot leave it for a day. We don’t want DoJ to figure.

Crown Prince: I want to finish this, I will help.

Najib: This is very catastrophic. Can lead to catastrophic in my government and your side. This is not impossible. It’s within our means to resolve it.

July 23, 2016, 2.49am (Conversation between Najib and Khaldoon)

Khaldoon: I’ve spoken to Rizal, we meet tomorrow. I think better we meet alone. I need a sit down for me understand directly what to be done. I don’t want him to bring a lawyer.

Conversation between Najib and Rosmah

July 27, 2016, 12.46am 

Rosmah: Maybe Khaldoon should come here with Amhari. Invite him and sort it out once for all..he’s eaten with us...call them to sit down. We can sort out Riza. A lot of things can be resolved.

Najib: I will suggest to Amhari. 

At press time, Latheefa said the MACC will be handing over the full 50-minutes recording to the police for further investigations.

“Yes, we will hand over to the police now,” she said.

SEE ALSO 
Melissa Goh

@MelGohCNA

A fuming Rosmah, heard shouting at her husband Najib over his handling of the 1MDB saga following revelations from DOJ. The proposed arbitration with IPIC will be damaging if it were to go ahead . “ Many will get hurt “ Najib agreed. In total, 8 clips were played by MACC

Why is the Australian Government discussing "legal reform" with the President of the Bar Council Malaysia ? Meanwhile, still no apology to Mahathir, and the belief that 1MDB is a Mahathir conspiracy against Najib remains

by Ganesh Sahathevan


The Australian High Commissioner to Malaysia Andrew Goledzinowski tweeted this from the official Australian High Commission to Malaysia Twitter account:

Andrew Goledzinowski

@AusHCMalaysia

As we approach the beginning of the new Legal Year in M’sia, I took the opportunity to catch up with

@malaysianbar

President Dato’ Abdul Fareed. • Cooperation on legal reform and professional issues has long been a strength of the

relationship.

Why these types of discussions are being conducted with the President of The Bar Council and not the Law Minister or Attroney General are unclear. Meanwhile the High Commssion and the relevant arms of the Australian Government continue to maintain their silence on these issues:

Assisted by DFAT,Australian lawyers take aim at Mahathir,while seeking new markets in MalaysiaREPOST with tweet from the Australian High Commissioner to Malaysia ,Andrew Goledzinowski ‏ Verified account

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

END 

Understanding Equinor's Australian Bight play: Norway's climate change evangelising government can see that Australia's determination to transition to a carbon free economy will end in grief, and to increased reliance on fossil fuel revenues, with less restrictions

by Ganesh Sahathevan


In mid-December the ABC (and others) reported: 

The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) has accepted Equinor's environmental plan, the second of four approvals required before drilling activity can begin.

Drilling in the Bight has been fiercely opposed by environmental and community groups which are concerned about the threat of a catastrophic oil spill.

Under Commonwealth law, energy companies must have a petroleum title, accepted environmental plan, well operations management plan and facility safety case before they can undertake offshore oil and gas activity.

The environment approval process took eight months, with NOPSEMA reviewing more than 30,000 submissions and twice requiring Equinor to modify and resubmit its plans.

The company, which is majority owned by the Norwegian Government, plans to drill its Stromlo-1 exploration well about 372 kilometres south of the Nullarbor coastline.

The Norwegian Government is a leader in climate change initiatives but it does rely on oil and gas exploration in Norway to finance itself. 

The twin and contradictory positions means that the dirty but necessary business of oil and gas exploration must be increasingly conducted outside Norway. However, the pursuit of the Australian Bight lease is intriguing for given the environmental concerns even local players like BHP seem to have steered clear of the region for fear of  "green" protests.

The Norwegian's Australian Bight play can therefore be seen as a long-term bet on the prospect that at some point in the future Australian governments will, forced by growing deficits, have no choice but to relax environmental rules so as to generate relatively steady and certain cashflows from taxes on coal, oil, gas and resource companies. The taxes are likely to be high but Equinor is government owned and can readily seek cheap debt and equity finance from its shareholders.

The reason why future Australian governments might be desperate enough to abandon what are even today, by world standards, relatively strict environmental and cultural restrictions on the exploration and mining industry are obvious: unless the country's two party system collapses, it does seem likely that future governments will restrict mining activities (due to lobbying pressures from inner-city electorates) despite being reliant on the revenues from mining to finance government expenditure, which includes an ever growing social security bill.

Estimated Australian Government expenses on social security and welfare

At some point, rules will have to be relaxed, and anyone still left standing in the industry can make substantial profits. These are more likely than not to be government owned players like Equinor, and of course the Chinese state-owned players.

END 

Malaysia still not reclaiming Luconia Shoals; meanwhile Indonesia is sparing no effort to fight Chinese attempts to assert sovereignty over the Natuna Islands

by Ganesh Sahathevan

MoFA Indonesia

@Kemlu_RI

Indonesia Kembali Tegaskan Penolakan Klaim Unilateral RRT atas Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif Indonesia. Selengkapnya https://kem.lu/eg #IniDiplomasi #DemiNKRI

Translate Tweet

6:44 PM · Jan 1, 2020·Twitter Web App

33

Retweets

While Malaysia seemed, toward the end of last year, to assert its rights to the South China Sea via a diplomatic note that clearly irritated China, the Malaysian Government will still not take the simple step of reclaiming Luconia Shoals, from which the Malaysian flag was removed in an act of surrender, if not aggression(see story below).


Meanwhile Indonesia has wasted not time debunking China's claims to the South China Sea and in particular its Natuna Islands.

The Indonesian Foreign Ministry has  begun the New Year with a tweet protesting China's intrusion into the waters surrounding the islands, and rejecting China's claims of a historical connection to them (see tweet above and statement below).

END

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh decision suggests Malaysia has surrendered right to Luconia-removing own flag from Luconia Shoals in stark contrast with past practise

by Ganesh Sahathevan

These submissions by the  Government Of Singapore to the International Court Of Justice in the Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh matter were part of Singapore's ultimately successful defence against Malaysia's claim:

6.53 It should be noted that Malaysia has demonstrated her awareness of the significance of flying national emblems over territory for purposes of evidencing sovereignty. Malaysia demanded (and obtained) the lowering of the Singapore Ensign flown until 3 September 1968 over another lighthouse facility maintained by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, a territory over which Singapore does not exercise or claim sovereignty.

7.11 In the present case, neither Johor nor Malaysia ever protested against the regular flying of the British and Singapore emblems over Pedra Branca, even though this was done as a clear display of State authority and without seeking consent from Malaysia or Johor, and Malaysian officials were fully aware of this. 

7.12 Moreover, Malaysia’s long silence regarding this clear and public manifestation of Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca since 1847 is in sharp contrast to Malaysia’s response to the flying of the Singapore marine ensign on the lighthouse administered by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, an island which belongs to Malaysia. In 1968, Malaysia objected to the flying of the Singapore flag over Pulau Pisang Lighthouse320. Following Malaysia’s objection, Singapore ceased flying her flag on the Lighthouse. In contrast, at no time had Malaysia ever protested against Singapore’s flying of her flag over Pedra Branca. 7.13 If Malaysia had any belief that she had a claim to sovereignty over Pedra Branca, one would have expected Malaysia to have exercised or attempted to exercise her sovereign authority over the island in the same way that she had done with respect to Pulau Pisang, if only to put on record that, notwithstanding Singapore’s presence on Pedra Branca, Malaysia had sovereign authority over the island. This omission on Malaysia’s part is especially significant as it occurred shortly after Singapore left the Federation of Malaysia in August 1965, when the governments of both countries treated each other with the utmost caution on bilateral issues. 

7.14 Singapore contends that, given these facts, Malaysia had consciously (and correctly) decided that, in contrast with Pulau Pisang, any protest was not appropriate with respect to the flying of the Singapore flag on Pedra Branca. 

Given that these arguments led to the decision against Malaysia, one would expect that the Government Of Malaysia would exercise and strenuously defend its right to fly the flag on all its possessions, but this was obviously not the case with Luconia Shoals.  It is hard to see that by removing its own flag, Malaysia has not surrendered its right to the Shoals.

In fact, it does seem as if China has already assumed control of the shoals:

(Hans Berekoven, an Australian  marine archaeologist) chose Malaysia's independence day, August 31 last year, to protest against the situation by raising the Malaysian flag on the tiny island.

It is the first time the video of the incident has been released.

"I took the curator of the museum that we're working with, and a couple of other Malaysian friends, and a journalist from the Borneo Post," he said.

They mounted a stainless steel flagpole into a cement footing and raised the Malaysian flag, as the China Coast Guard vessel watched from about 500m offshore.

"They must have got on the blower to Beijing and Beijing must have got on the blower to Kuala Lumpur, because suddenly there was a big kerfuffle in KL," Mr Berekoven said.

The next morning, a Malaysian aircraft flew low over Mr Berekoven's boat and the island.

"A Malaysian coast guard vessel was despatched. Went out there and unbolted the flag," he said.

"It's absolutely absurd. It's 88 miles, well within the 200 mile economic exclusion zone, and they've forced the Malaysians to take the flag down — their flag, asserting their authority, their sovereignty."

END 

Reference

ABC Australia reports that Malaysia surrendered special rights to Luconia Shoals to China : Rights to adjoining EEZ may be lost

RI Kembali Tegaskan Tolak Klaim Unilateral RRT atas ZEE Indonesia

 Wednesday, 01/January/2020

• 

​1. Sehubungan dengan pernyataan Jubir Kemlu RRT pada tanggal 31 Desember 2019, Indonesia kembali menegaskan penolakannya atas klaim historis RRT atas ZEEI.

2. Klaim historis RRT atas ZEEI dengan alasan bahwa para nelayan China telah lama beraktivitas di perairan dimaksud bersifat unilateral, tidak memiliki dasar hukum dan tidak pernah diakui oleh UNCLOS 1982. Argumen ini telah dibahas dan dimentahkan oleh Keputusan SCS Tribunal 2016. Indonesia juga menolak istilah “relevant waters” yang diklaim oleh RRT karena istilah ini tidak dikenal dan tidak sesuai dengan UNCLOS 1982.

3. Indonesia Mendesak RRT untuk menjelaskan dasar hukum dan batas-batas yang jelas perihal klaim RRT di ZEEI berdasarkan UNCLOS 1982. 

4. Berdasarkan UNCLOS 1982 Indonesia tidak memiliki overlapping claim dengan RRT sehingga berpendapat tidak relevan adanya dialog apa pun tentang delimitasi batas maritim.

(Sumber: Kementerian Luar Negeri RI)