Sunday, June 7, 2020

In Dan Andrews Victoria, shades of Najib Razak's 1MDB deals with China: Victorian Premier Andrews awarded steel supply contract to China despite promising Australian steel would be used is multi-billion dollar tunnel project

by Ganesh Sahathevan




The HeraldSun reported in early 2019:


A deal to import 33,000 tonnes of Chinese steel for the West Gate Tunnel will torpedo Premier Daniel Andrews’s local content pledge and threatens to cause chaos on the project.

Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries (ZPMC) announced online it would be making its “first entry” into the steel bridge market in Australia, after striking a contract with the $6.7 billion Tunnel’s builder — a group made up of CPB Contractors and John Holland.

The Australian Workers’ Union has labelled the announcement, posted via digital networking site LinkedIn, a “disgrace” that breaches a guarantee for 92 per cent local steel on the project.

Unions like the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) form the bedrock of  Andrew's Labor Party's electoral support, but the AWU's criticism did not seem to bother Andrews or his government. 
Malaysian readers will find it hard to find much difference between the conduct of the Andrews Government and that of Najib Razak's.

TO BE READ WITH 

Saturday, May 30, 2020


Evidence of China linked political donation before Dan Andrews signed Silk Road/BRI agreement, but Australians cannot still bring themselves to confront the reality that their Silk Road deals are tainted, just like the Malaysian ,Kuwaiti Silk Road/BRI deals

by Ganesh Sahathevan




Daniel Andrews accepts a cheque for the Victorian Labor Party in 2014.









The investigative website Sarawak Report has added to the evidence of corruption in the Kuwait Silk Road/BRI deal:


As Sarawak Report has lately revealed Jho Low had been busy in the course of early 2016 making provision for the transfers of large sums of laundered money from these Chinese contracts using a new business relationship in Kuwait.
The by now fugitive Malaysian financier who, despite denials at the time, was still working for Najib to resolve the growing crisis over 1MDB had forged a business deal with the family of the then Kuwait prime minister and had agreed to pass the billions expected from these Chinese “commissions” through companies owned by Sheikh Sabah Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah (Sheikh Sabah) the prime minister’s elder son.



Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’ top Belt and Road adviser was instrumental in landing a $100,000 donation to the Labor party through a key Chinese business group years before Victoria signed up to the controversial infrastructure scheme.
Mr Andrews’ senior adviser, Marty Mei, who is on the board of the Hunan Business Association, helped secure the contribution in the lead up to the 2014 state election, according to sources with knowledge of the donation. He later became Mr Andrews' multicultural adviser and worked on the Belt and Road deal.
Despite even this revelation Australians seem unwilling to accept that their Belt & Road deals are tainted in any way. Even in Malaysia an anti-corruption agency and police investigation would have been commenced on the strength of the Nine news report above. 
It is time Australians grew up.
TO BE READ WITH 
Surgical mask raider Greenland Property featured in Belt & Road deal with Jho Low of 1MDB fame: More evidence from Sarawak Report that Australian Government intelligence on the Silk Road/BRI is false; former Morrison security adviser and south east Asian expert Michelle Chan should be interrogated for intelligence failure




Saturday, June 6, 2020

Andrew Robb and Peter Varghese's China deal further compromised by revelations of Robb's of AUD 1 Million debt to an underworld figure: To assume that China had not intelligence on Robb's financial position is naive, ChAFTA must be reviewed, Vargehese & Robb interrogated

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Maureen and Andrew Robb
Andrew and Maureen Robb are rumoured to be looking to move closer to the beach but only once they have sold their Cremorne Point home. Robb has been doing quite well out of his China contacts, 
so it is hard to understand why he would have a problem repaying a million dollar loan.


The SMH reported this morning:


Former Liberal trade minister Andrew Robb is running a health and wellness business partly funded by convicted drug trafficker Shane Charter, the biochemist at the centre of the Essendon and Cronulla football doping scandals.

A money-lending company linked to Mr Charter has provided a $1 million loan to Global Brands Australia, which the company used to underwrite the purchase of the weight-loss supplement program Celebrity Slim.


Mr Robb joined GBA as a director and non-executive chairman in April 2019 ahead of mooted plans to publicly list the company on the Australian Stock Exchange. He is also a shareholder.


The former minister in the Abbott and Turnbull governments came on board to boost the start-up's credentials and for his extensive local and international political connections, particularly in China.

The above raises questions about Robb's financial standing, especially when he was still a minister, and presumably earning only a minister's pay. To assume that the Chinese government had no intelligence on his financial problems would be naive.

There are now even more question marks over ChAFTA. Both men responsible, Andrew Robb and Peter Varghese must be interrogated about their management of the ChAFTA negotiations.

TO BE READ WITH 

Tuesday, May 19, 2020


That ordinary Australian university student politics can harm trade with China demonstrates why Peter Varghese & Andrew Robb's China FTA is a bad deal: Varghese must be removed as UQ Chancellor, must not be allowed to trash Australian university traditions in order to defend his legacy

by Ganesh Sahathevan




                         

                                           Australian national interest better served by the removal of
                                                               Peter Varghese as UQ Chancellor



In praise of his work the then  Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Peter N Varghese AO declared in 2015: 

"ChAFTA is a remarkably good deal for Australia and the best deal that China has done with any partner to date.ChAFTA will make a real difference to the livelihoods of Australian farmers and producers".

The claim that the China-Australia Free Trade deal (ChAFTA) is "the best" that China has done with any country is interesting. Given the position that Australia finds itself in today where it would seem that nothing can be decided in the national interest 

Varghese worked on that deal with his minister, the then Minister for Trade and Investment, Andrew Robb.  That Robb agreed to Chinese workers effectively taking the place of local workers on Australian construction sites, in order to get the deal done, says much of Robb's incompetence. That he then went on to work for the PLA linked Landbridge says much about his loyalties. 

That ordinary student politics at UQ  can be seen to harm UQ's  business relationship with China provides further evidence that the ChAFTA was a bad deal to begin with. That Varghese finds himself in a position where he has to deal with the consequences of his work is poetic. He must not however be allowed to use his position to defend his legacy, and in the process ruin the tradition we have in Australian universities of open and vigorous debate, no matter how unruly or offensive it may seem. 
Varghese must go,and Pavlou be provded all the backing he needs to ensure that the perpetrators of the so-called "disciplinary action" against him are removed from the tertiary education system.

END 

TO BE READ WITH 

Peter Varghese has been wrong about Iran, jihadis in SEA, and now China: Australia's national interest better served by the activism of UQ student Drew Pavlou, not UQ Chancellor Peter Varghese. Australians should seek Varghese's removal as UQ Chancellor

Zhu Minshen's law school an example why Treasurer Frydenberg's definition of "sensitive national security business" should include anything that can affect Australia's legal, educational institutions

by Ganesh Sahathevan 

Ambassador Cheng Jingye Pays an Official Visit to the State of New
South Wales (2016/08/16-NSW the first and only jurisdiction in the world to grant a 

Chinese Communist Party linked entity the right to issue law degrees


The Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the Treasurer Josh Frydenberg have proposed that the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) would have to approve all investments in a "sensitive national security business", regardless of the value of the deal.
That could apply to businesses in communications, technology, energy and major infrastructure such as ports and defence contractors.
There are to be public consultations on the proposed national security criteria. The public discussion is to be welcomed for it will provide an opportunity to determine if the definition of "sensitive national security business" ought be be broadened to include businesses that can give foreign interests the ability to affect Australia's legal, educational and other institutions.
The case of Zhu Minshen and Top Education Group's is an example of a foreign controlled and funded business that is now in a position to influence the regulation of Australia's legal system. 
Zhu Minshen's Sydney City School Of Law (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Top Education Group) is the"first and only" private  institution to have been granted the right to issue law degrees by the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board, which is ultimately under the purview of the NSW Attorney General, Mark Speakman and the Cheif Justice Of NSW , Tom Bathurst. 

 Together with that right comes the power to prevent law graduates from being  admitted to practice law in NSW and in Australia, even after they have successfully completed their law degrees. 

Known as Rule 19 certificates issued pursuant to the Uniform Legal Profession Admission Rules, the power to do so can and has been used to protect the interests of the entity that issues the degrees. As this writer discovered the power to issue Rule 19 certificates can be used to conceal poor delivery of courses, and can be done with the collaboration of the regulator, in this case the NSW LPAB. 

The case of Zhu Minshen and Top Education Group raises the issue of how Rule 19 certificates can be used to ensure that Sydney City School Of Law may be used to ensure that graduates align themselves with the interests of the Communist Party Of China. This is not an unreasonable conclusion given Zhu's history. 

In his 2018 book "Silent Invasion" Professor Clive Hamilton reports that Top Education Group's Zhu Minshen organised students , including students from his Top Education Institute to protest against Tibetans at the 2008 Olympic Torch rally, which counted towards the Top students’ assessment.As he puts it, Zhu’s Top Institution is “perhaps the only accredited degree program in Australia that counts agitating for a foreign power towards its qualifications.”



Zhu's law school will soon be producing LLB graduates who will qualify for admission to practise law in NSW and in Australia. As members of the various state law societies they can, like the Chinese students at Sydney University gather sufficient support to control the leadership of those societies. 


END 




SEE ALSO 
NSW LPAB found Zhu Misnhen's Top Group fit and proper to issue LLBs despite Top's links to Chinese government, tax havens, and a mysterious major shareholder -SMH investigation of 2016 reveals details which should concern ASIO, and cause investigation into the conduct of the NSW LPAB

Thursday, June 4, 2020

Even the Agong is prevented from holding an office of profit: The illegality (and impropriety) of denying that MPs cannot be GLC directors, and that parliament must be dissolved

by Ganesh Sahathevan



  Malaysia's King Abdullah Of Pahang cannot avoid  the matter 
of the legitimacy of his Government.


The publication on this site of the story Malaysia's new constitutional crisis -MPs appointed to the boards of GLCs are disqualified from being MPs; dissolution of Parliament now unavoidable

has attracted commentary from various persons  who have attempted to explain why MPs are not prevented from being directors of GLCs, in breach of the Article 48 of the Constitution of Malaysia which prohibits MPs from holding offices of profit.

Absent from the commentary is the fact that Article 34 of the Federal Constitution prevents even King Abdullah from holding an office of profit.

While it is true that the prohibition ( or "disability") is worded in broader more general terms readers are reminded that the definition of "office of profit" in Article 160 is not exclusive. 

Quite apart from the black letter law arguments stated above there are issues of propriety: Are MPs, including the Prime Minister to be held to a lower standard vis-a-vis the Agong, King Abdullah?

In that regard readers are reminded that the basic concept of separation of powers underlies the prohibition. As reported previously:

MPs and MLAs, as members of the legislature, hold the government accountable for its work. The essence of disqualification under the office of profit law is if legislators holds an ‘office of profit’ under the government, they might be susceptible to government influence, and may not discharge their constitutional mandate fairly. The intent is that there should be no conflict between the duties and interests of an elected member. Hence, the office of profit law simply seeks to enforce a basic feature of the Constitution- the principle of separation of power between the legislature and the executive.


TO BE READ WITH 
Indian cases show why Malaysia faces a Constitutional crisis that can only be resolved by King Abdullah dissolving Parliament: Cases show MPs appointed to GLC boards clearly disqualified from being MPs

Wednesday, June 3, 2020

Lee Kuan Yew's 2013 Forbes interview about America and multiculturalism : Did LKY warn then that the riots America is facing today were inevitable?

by Ganesh Sahathevan


English: Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singa...


Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore

In 2013 Forbes published an interview with Lee Kuan Yew. Headlined  Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew Talks America's Strengths And Weaknesses Lee was reported to have said:

Lee warns about the growing risk of America’s losing its “self-help culture” and going “the ideological direction of Europe.” If it continues that slide, he says bluntly, “the U.S. will be done for.” He also gives U.S. immigration practices a failing grade, declaring that “multiculturalism will destroy America.” The key question is: “do you make the Hispanics Anglo-Saxons in culture or do they make you more Latin American in culture?” 

The violence that is being witnessed in America today, even if initially a protest over police violence against blacks, is now obviously about a desire for "change" ie toward the “multiculturalism (that) will destroy America.”
Did then Lee leave unsaid that the conflict will be violent. On the hand, should it not have been assumed that he meant violent conflict? 
END 



Tuesday, June 2, 2020

Indian cases show why Malaysia faces a Constitutional crisis that can only be resolved by King Abdullah dissolving Parliament: Cases show MPs appointed to GLC boards clearly disqualified from being MPs

by Ganesh Sahathevan



  Malaysia's King Abdullah Of Pahang cannot avoid  the matter 
of the legitimacy of his Government.

In drafting the Malaysian Constitution the Reid Commission drew heavily on the Indian Constitution. Additionally India like Malaysia is a common law country so it should not surprise anyone  that Malaysian courts regularly draw on Indian decisions. 

The concept of an office of profit applies in  India as it does in other common law countries, including Malaysia The application of the  concept is explained clearly in this excerpt from a publication by India's PRS: 


Following the recommendation of the Election Commission (EC), the President disqualified 20 MLAs of the Delhi Legislative Assembly last month for holding an ‘office of profit’. The legislators in question were appointed as parliamentary secretaries to various ministries in the Delhi government. The Delhi High Court is currently hearing a petition filed by the disqualified MLAs against the EC’s recommendation. There have been reports of parliamentary secretaries being 
appointed in 20 states in the past with court judgments striking down these appointments in several cases.  




That being the concept, there are differences in how the concept is defined in the Indian and Malaysian constitutions. The Malaysian position is defined in Article 160 of the Malaysian Constitution, but it is not exclusive, and can be defined quite broadly. While the definition provides a list of public offices that come within the definition, these are preceded by the words "includes". 

As to how broadly the definition can go, it is important to recall the concept, which is quite well described in the PRS article referred to above:

MPs and MLAs, as members of the legislature, hold the government accountable for its work. The essence of disqualification under the office of profit law is if legislators holds an ‘office of profit’ under the government, they might be susceptible to government influence, and may not discharge their constitutional mandate fairly. The intent is that there should be no conflict between the duties and interests of an elected member. Hence, the office of profit law simply seeks to enforce a basic feature of the Constitution- the principle of separation of power between the legislature and the executive.


As mentioned before, the Malaysian case is rather obvious: that of a prime minister appointing MPs loyal to him to positions at companies he controls, and will continue to control for so long as he has their support.

Again,  is difficult to see how Malaysia's  King Abdullah can  avoid the fact that his Government must be dissolved.

TO BE READ WITH


Sunday, May 31, 2020

Malaysia's new constitutional crisis -MPs appointed to the boards of GLCs are disqualified from being MPs; dissolution of Parliament now unavoidable

by Ganesh Sahathevan




  Malaysia's King Abdullah Of Pahang cannot avoid  the matter 
of the legitimacy of his Government.
                                   

Malaysia may be at the brink of a constitutional crisis that has arisen as a result of the appointment of a number of ruling Perikatan Nasional (PN) Members Of Parliament to the boards of government linked companies (GLCs). The appointments have resulted in the MPs holding offices for profit, thus disqualifying them as MPs.

All but nine of the PN's 112 (or more)  MPs are said to have been appointed to GLC boards, some as chairmen, and there have been demands from at least one component party, UMNO, that all MPs be appointed to such positions.
However, in making these appointments, which are widely regarded as a meanss of consolidating his position, PN leader, the Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, seems to have neglected the concept  if not rule, that an  MP  cannot hold an office of profit.

Holding an office of profit is a reason  for disqualification from holding office as an MP.  Given the numbers involved it is difficult to see how a dissolution of Malaysia's Parliament can be avoided.

First, the concept :

While it is true that Malaysian politics, while rooted in the Westminster system, is often played out according to its own peculiar rules, the  current situation where MPs are also on the boards of GLCs raises obvious conflicts of interest; Parliament and its members are  after all meant  to oversee the administration of GLCs. This can include scrutinising GLC  finances, and their management.
Where required MPs may have to pass or review legislation that regulates the structure , management and business operations of GLCs.  Clearly, all this would not be objectively possible if the MPs are also on the boards of those GLCs.

Then , the rule, as stated in the Malaysian Constitution:

Disqualification for membership of Parliament 

48. (1) (c) Subject to the provisions of this Article, a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament i f he holds an office of profit;

The matter of disqualification of a member asa result of holding "an office of profit" has not arisen in Malaysia so no cases on the matter have been located. However, the matter has been discussed and debated extensively in other Commonwealth countries. , including the UK, Australia and India.

Importantly, the Malaysian case is somewhat obvious; that of a prime minister appointing MPs loyal to him to positions at companies he controls, and will continue to control for so long as he has their support.

It is difficult to see how the King can now avoid the fact that his Government must be dissolved.

END

Sunday, May 31, 2020

Malaysia's new constitutional crisis -MPs appointed to the boards of GLCs are disqualified from being MPs; dissolution of Parliament now unavoidable

by Ganesh Sahathevan




  Malaysia's King Abdullah Of Pahang cannot avoid  the matter 
of the legitimacy of his Government.
                                     

Malaysia may be at the brink of a constitutional crisis that has arisen as a result of the appointment of a number of ruling Perikatan Nasional (PN) Members Of Parliament to the boards of government linked companies (GLCs). The appointments have resulted in the MPs holding offices for profit, thus disqualifying them as MPs.

All but nine of the PN's 112 (or more)  MPs are said to have been appointed to GLC boards, some as chairmen, and there have been demands from at least one component party, UMNO, that all MPs be appointed to such positions.
However, in making these appointments, which are widely regarded as a meanss of consolidating his position, PN leader, the Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, seems to have neglected the convention, if not rule, that an  MP  cannot hold an office of profit.

Holding an office of profit is a reason  for disqualification from holding office as an MP.  Given the numbers involved it is difficult to see how a dissolution of Malaysia's Parliament can be avoided.

First, the convention:

While it is true that Malaysian politics, while rooted in the Westminster system, is often played out according to its own peculiar rules, the  current situation where MPs are also on the boards of GLCs raises obvious conflicts of interest; Parliament and its members are  after all meant  to oversee the administration of GLCs. This can include scrutinising GLC  finances, and their management.
Where required MPs may have to pass or review legislation that regulates the structure , management and business operations of GLCs.  Clearly, all this would not be objectively possible if the MPs are also on the boards of those GLCs.

Then , the rule, as stated in the Malaysian Constitution:

Disqualification for membership of Parliament 

48. (1) (c) Subject to the provisions of this Article, a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament i f he holds an office of profit;

The matter of disqualification of a member asa result of holding "an office of profit" has not arisen in Malaysia so no cases on the matter have been located. However, the matter has been discussed and debated extensively in other Commonwealth countries. , including the UK, Australia and India.

Importantly, the Malaysian case is somewhat obvious; that of a prime minister appointing MPs loyal to him to positions at companies he controls, and will continue to control for so long as he has their support.

It is difficult to see how the King can now avoid the fact that his Government must be dissolved.

END