Thursday, June 25, 2020

ASIO raided NSW Labor MP Shaoquett Moselmane but ignoring the NSW legal establishments dealings with Zhu Minshen: Zhu can influence legal policy, has strong CPC links, works closely with iFlytek in Australia, has defied AFP and ASIO directives and the information is all in the public domain

by Ganesh Sahathevan





Hon George Brandis


 As reported by The Guardian and others:
The Australian spy agency Asio has raided the Sydney home of the New South Wales upper house Labor MP Shaoquett Moselmane, searching for evidence to support allegations of a Chinese government plot to influence a serving politician.
The controversial MP has been a strong supporter of China publicly and has come under scrutiny for his recent praise of China’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

Meanwhile ASIO seems happy to ignore the matter of Zhu Minshen and Top Group, despite all that is available in the public domain: 

Zhu Minshen announces that NSW LPAB review "went smoothly": AG NSW Mark Speakman and officers unconcerned by Clive Hamilton's disclosures of threats, intimidation and defiance of AFP directives ,share price collapse





TO BE READ WITH 

Thursday, January 23, 2020

Zhu Minshen & Top Group's business partner iFlytek blacklisted by the US Gov for human rights violations:NSW LPAB and Law Council Australia continue to supervise Zhu & Top's activities

by Ganesh Sahathevan




China’s AI champion iFlyTek brushes off US entity list inclusion with bullish profit forecast

In October 2019 Reuters reported that the China's iFlytek had been blacklisted by the US Government for "human rights violations and abuses in the implementation of China’s campaign of repression, mass arbitrary detention, and high-technology surveillance against Uighurs, Kazakhs, and other members of Muslim minority groups.”


The blacklisting " bars the firms from buying components from U.S. companies without U.S. government approval."

In August 2019 this writer reported that Liberal & Labor donor Minshen Zhu's Top Group had entered into a commercial agreement with iFlytek (see story below).

Despite the above, Top Group and Zhu Minshen continue to remain part of the New South Wales and Australian legal establishment as a result of the NSW LPAB and Law Society Australia granting Zhu the"first and only" right to issue LLB degrees issued a private company which is not a university. With that right comes duties and obligations conferred pursuant to Australian laws that can be used to determine who may or may not practise law in Australia, even after degrees have been conferred. 

Being under the patronage and supervision of the NSW LPAB, which is chaired by the Chief Justice Of NSW Tom Bathurst, and the Law Council of Australia provides Zhu and his Top Group a high degree of credibility and status in Australia, regardless of what anyone might think of the iFlytek MOU. 

The NSW LPAB, the Law Council and the Chief Justice have all chosen to ignore the growing number of questions about their dealings with Zhu Minshen and Top Group.

END 




Wednesday, August 28, 2019


Liberal & Labor donor Minshen Zhu's Top Group will fund business with China's iFlytek using Commonwealth of Australia FEE HELP funding: iFlytek is being considered for blacklisting in the US, like Huwaei

by Ganesh Sahathevan 







A few other Australians can be spotted in footage of the event, which was attended by Xi Jinping and Politburo Standing Committee Member Wang Yang. Here is Zhu Minshen, who famously paid Sam Dastyari's travel bill, shaking hands with Papa Xi 4/-Alex Joske
@alexjoske

Image


3:59 PM · May 31, 2019
China-HK protest on Australian campuses but not at Minshen Zhu controlled campuses-Are legal profession admission rules being used (again ) to suppress complaints and protests

The Sydney based Hong Kong listed Top Education Group Ltd,which is funded in part by Australian Commonwealth Government FEE HELP   courtesy of among other things the "first and only"license granted a private entity to issue LLB degrees, informed the Hong Stock Exchange  yesterday that Top had entered into a MOU with two Chinese state supported companies, iFlytek, and its associated company , Jingle Magic:  




The board (the “Board”) of directors (the “Directors”) of the Company is pleased to announce that,  on 21 August 2019, the Company signed a memorandum of understanding (the “MoU”) on the potential cooperation of the international educational artificial intelligence project with iFlytek Co Ltd. (“iFLYTEK”) and Jingle Magic (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. (“Jingle Magic”). Pursuant to MoU, TOP will introduce smart classroom products and related educational artificial intelligence product systems and services from iFLYTEK and Jingle Magic, and iFLYTEK and Jingle Magic will assist TOP in evaluating the smart campus plan, work out an executable plan by leveraging the strengths of iFLYTEK and Jingle Magic, and help TOP complete the development of smart campus. 

The Board believes that this cooperation will take full advantage of the technological strength of iFLYTEK and Jingle Magic in artificial intelligence and assist TOP to achieve 2 its own strategic goals and build Australia's first higher education institute with full coverage of artificial intelligence, which will become one of the symbols for the integrating education with industrial production. It is also a demonstration base of an overseas joint smart campus for iFLYTEK and Jingle Magic. The extension coverage of the artificial intelligence higher education will extend to TOP’s possible expansion targets and related cooperative teaching platforms in China.



In July tis year the  South China Morning Post detailed iFlytek links with the Chinese Government:


iFlytek’s focus on AI technology and its state support has put the company at the forefront of the tech war being waged between the US and China, with Washington deliberating whether to add iFlytek to a blacklist that would bar it from purchasing US components or software without US government approval, Bloomberg reported in May citing a person familiar with the matter.
“Huawei and iFlytek are very similar in DNA. Both are the kind of companies persistent enough to take 10 years to sharpen one sword,” Hu Yu, who takes the title of rotating president of iFlytek, said at an public event in May.

This deal further confirms the Communist Party China links of Top Group's CEO and major shareholder, Minshen Zhu.

It raises further questions about the approvals provided him by the AG NSW Mark Speakman, whose portfolio included security.
END 

Enterprises
China’s voice recognition champion iFlytek gets US$407 million funding boost from state investors

Company to invest 2.05 billion yuan in its AI speech platform, with 1.18 billion yuan coming from proceeds of the private placementSarah Dai


Published: 11:48am, 17 Jul, 2019


iFlytek, China’s national champion in voice recognition, has raised 2.8 billion yuan (US$407 million) via a private placement that brought in money from a state-backed industry fund and several provincial government funds.


The Shenzhen-listed company will use the proceeds to bankroll research in open platforms for smart speech, so-called next generation cognitive technology, and service robots, it said in a stock exchange filing on Wednesday.


The placement has pulled in investors including Anhui Development Investment Company, Anhui Railway Development Fund, Anhui Smart Voice and Artificial Intelligence Venture Capital, as well as an investment fund for state-owned companies under government-controlled investment vehicle China Reform Holdings.


Founded in 1999 and headquartered in Hefei, the capital of the eastern Chinese province of Anhui, iFlytek has established itself as the country’s foremost developer of advanced speech recognition, speech evaluation and natural language processing technologies.





In 2017 the company was handpicked by the Chinese government to spearhead the country’s development in voice intelligence and take the lead in building an “open innovation platform”.


The firm’s AI speech open platform is expected to be the biggest beneficiary of the new funds as iFlytek intends to invest 2.05 billion yuan in that project, with 1.18 billion yuan the amount coming from proceeds of the private placement.


iFlytek’s focus on AI technology and its state support has put the company at the forefront of the tech war being waged between the US and China, with Washington deliberating whether to add iFlytek to a blacklist that would bar it from purchasing US components or software without US government approval, Bloomberg reported in May citing a person familiar with the matter.


“Huawei and iFlytek are very similar in DNA. Both are the kind of companies persistent enough to take 10 years to sharpen one sword,” Hu Yu, who takes the title of rotating president of iFlytek, said at an public event in May.


Huawei Technologies, China’s telecoms national champion, was put on the blacklist in May although US President Donald Trump softened that stance after talks with Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in June.


China Asset Management and Harvest Fund Management, the country’s two top mutual funds, also backed the iFlytek offering, according to the filing. The new investors have a one year lock up period and cannot sell their shares until July 18 next year.

SEE ALSO 
The reports below from Hong Kong' s AA Stock Financial News quote Top Education Institute's Minshen Zhu informing investors in Hong Kong that he expects to increase fees at Top by 5-10% per annum.

Top also expects  local Australian students to constitute 30% of its student population and this will provide Top with a steady Commonwealth funded cashflow for Top has been granted access to Commonwealth funding, in the form of Commonwealth student fee assistance.

The Commonwealth Department Of Education has made clear to this writer, in response to queries, that it will not object to private colleges charging any amount in fees; the Department considers only the decision by students to bear  the debt to the Commonwealth to be  of relevance.

However, despite the guaranteed Government funded cashflow Top's annual operating cash flows are barely positive,and profit margins have been declining.


Approvals from the Chairman TEQSA,Nick Saunders  and the LPAB NSW,which is overseen by the AG NSW  and chaired by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court NSW  are critical to Top's business success. Both have refused to answer queries regarding TOP.
The AG's evasion is particularly troubling for he and his LPAB can and have  used  Rule 19  of the Legal Profession Uniform Admission Rules 2015    under the Legal Profession Uniform Law to discredit any complaint from law students enrolled at law schools in NSW, and it particular private law colleges. The story below from The Australian 17 January 2019 provides an example.Documents provided readers will show that the background to what was reported in The Australian was a series of complaints and stories about another private college, the College Of Law Sydney,

 As with the College of Law, the AG and his LPAB appear not to have taken any action against Top with regards the issues raised in this story in 2016. 
See also 



Posted by at  
Posted by at  
Posted by at No comments:

Kenya's Court Of Appeal declares China-funded railway illegal for lack of competitive bidding, and because burden will fall on taxpayers: Ruling can provide basis for Malaysia to rescind ECRL and other contracts with China

by Ganesh Sahathevan 



                                             Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib Razak and China's Premier Li Keqiang attend 
                                                                                           a signing ceremony at the Great Hall of the People, in Beijing, China, Najib 
                                                                                 seems to have forgotten that he needs the approval of Parliament for his China and 
                                                                              IPIC funding deals..

Malaysia's courts have long relied on decisions made in African common law jurisdictions. Kenya's Court Of Appeal has recently d declared the USD 3.2 Billion  rail contract between Kenya and the China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC) illegal.According to the South China Morning Post:

The Court of Appeal, which handles cases arising from the decisions of the High Court in Kenya, ruled that state-owned Kenya Railways had failed to comply with – and violated – the nation’s laws “in the procurement of the SGR project”.

Kenyan activist Okiya Omtatah and the Law Society of Kenya, an association of practising advocates, brought the suit in 2014 in a bid to stop construction of the SGR. They argued the railway was a public project that should have been subject to a fair, competitive and transparent procurement process.

Instead, they said, the contract was single-sourced without being put up for tender, despite the burden of loan repayments falling on Kenyan taxpayers.


This writer has said long ago that then Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng was wrong to say that Najib Razak era contracts with China could not be rescinded without penalties:


Evidence in court from Najib that loans from China ,IPIC are illegal ,and can be cancelled -Najib Tapes add to evidence, suggest IPIC , China were complicit in the illegal transactions


TO BE READ WITH


Contract for Kenya’s China-funded railway ruled ‘illegal’

Court of Appeal finds against US$3.2 billion contract for belt and road project which started operating in 2017
Ruling throws question mark over future of this and other construction agreements


Jevans Nyabiage


Published: 6:00pm, 23 Jun, 2020




Kenya’s Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) project has faced a number of setbacks, but the latest court ruling could have implications for its future development. Photo: AFP
When Chinese President
Xi Jinping hosted African leaders at last week’s
China-Africa Summit, he singled out Kenya’s Standard Gauge Railway, a multibillion-dollar Chinese-funded
Belt and Road Initiative project, for helping to move cargo during the coronavirus pandemic.


Xi congratulated Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta for ensuring the uninterrupted flow of cargo from the Port of Mombasa on the Kenyan coast into the East African hinterland via the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR), which first started operating in 2017. Kenya’s decision, he said, had helped keep trade flowing in the region despite freight restrictions required by Covid-19 containment measures.


But the rail project has faced one setback after another, and the latest could have major implications on its future and any other projects that may follow. On Friday, a Kenyan appellate court declared the rail contract between Kenya and the China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC) illegal.


The Court of Appeal, which handles cases arising from the decisions of the High Court in Kenya, ruled that state-owned Kenya Railways had failed to comply with – and violated – the nation’s laws “in the procurement of the SGR project”.



Kenyan activist Okiya Omtatah and the Law Society of Kenya, an association of practising advocates, brought the suit in 2014 in a bid to stop construction of the SGR. They argued the railway was a public project that should have been subject to a fair, competitive and transparent procurement process.

Instead, they said, the contract was single-sourced without being put up for tender, despite the burden of loan repayments falling on Kenyan taxpayers.


The High Court dismissed the case and ordered that documents used by the plaintiffs to support their case – including the contract and other negotiation documents, which the government said were classified – had been obtained illegally and were to be expunged from court records. Aggrieved by the decision, the plaintiffs appealed.
Kenya Railways and CRBC defended the contract, saying the Kenyan government had negotiated a financing agreement with Exim Bank of China for two loans, each for US$1.6 billion, to support the SGR project.

China to forgive interest-free loans to Africa that are coming due, Xi says
18 Jun 2020



But the appeal court’s decision in favour of the plaintiffs comes after a large section of the project has been completed and is operational. While it is unclear what might happen next, it is possible either the Kenyan government or CRBC could take a challenge of the appeal court ruling, or seek its interpretation, in the Supreme Court.



However, legal experts said that Friday’s ruling may also have future implications as it gives leeway for both the government and the CRBC to avoid meeting contractual obligations.



Nelson Havi, president of the law society, suggested the Court of Appeal ruling may provide an excuse for the Kenyan government to dismiss its liability over the project if it wanted to. “It may be a preparatory process for GoK [Government of Kenya] to plead illegality at an international arbitration should China Road and Bridge Corporation sue for breach of contract,” Havi posted on Twitter.



Gad Ouma, a commercial lawyer and managing partner at Nairobi-based law firm G.M. Gamma Advocates, described the ruling as one which the government could use as grounds to find its way out of its obligations in the contract – but that it would not be easy.



For a completed project, Ouma said, if there was any dispute, the government would likely to be found liable to discharge its obligations under the contract. “It would be very hard at this point for the government to come out of the contract to say it is not liable.”

Railway to nowhere? Kenya launches cargo services on China-funded line
19 Dec 2019



CRBC would have a case regarding the legality of the appellate court ruling, he pointed out. “Where a party is likely to steal a march through the back door, the courts or any international arbitration body is likely to protect the weak party,” Ouma said, adding that such contracts always have applicable laws or dispute resolution mechanisms.


CRBC was awarded the US$3.2 billion contract in 2014 to build the rail line running from the port of Mombasa to Kenya’s capital city, Nairobi. Its parent company, the China Communications Construction Company, later stepped in to build an extension from Nairobi to Naivasha, a town in the Central Rift Valley, for another US$1.5 billion.


Both projects have been completed, with passenger and cargo trains operating, and in 2017 the Africa Star Railway Operation Company, a CRBC subsidiary, was awarded the contract to manage the operations of both passenger and cargo trains on the SGR.



Kenya planned to extend the railway to Malaba, on its western border with Uganda, but China’s Exim Bank, which financed the first two phases, asked Kenya to redo a feasibility study for the Malaba extension to prove its commercial viability before funds were released.


“China Exim Bank is currently carrying out a feasibility study on the construction of the railway extending westwards,” the Chinese embassy in Nairobi said.


Under pressure to pay its debts amid the coronavirus pandemic, which has ravaged the economy, the Kenyan government has been forcing importers to use the train. But truckers and importers have resisted, saying it is more costly to use the rail than trucks.


Last year, SGR made US$136 million in revenues from cargo and passenger services. But this month, Kenya’s parliament disclosed that Kenya Railways had not paid US$380 million in management fees to Africa Star Railway. The Chinese embassy in Nairobi confirmed that Africa Star Railway had not been paid part of the fees but “appreciated the efforts that the Kenya government has made to clear the pending payments”.

Sign up now for a 50% early bird discount on the 100+ page China Internet Report 2020 Pro Edition, which includes deep-dive analysis, trends, and case studies on the 10 most important internet sectors. Now in its 3rd year, this go-to source for understanding China tech also comes with exclusive access to 6 webinars with C-level executives. Offer valid until 30 June 2020.


Recommended for you



This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: BEIJING-funded railway contract RULED illegAl

COMMENTS


Jevans Nyabiage

Kenyan journalist Jevans Nyabiage is South China Morning Post's first Africa correspondent. Based in Nairobi, Jevans keeps an eye on China-Africa relations and also Chinese investments, ranging from infrastructure to energy and metal, on the continen



SEE ALSO 
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

More than a year since The Australian reported that NSW LPAB and Chairman Bathurst CJ placed reliance on conspiracy theories which defamed the ABC, but no action from the Legal Services Commission, NSW Law Soc, or NSW Bar: How would Dyson Heydon sexual harassment be treated any differently?

by Ganesh Sahathevan


The SMH has reported:

A group of the most senior female barristers in NSW have lodged a complaint with the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner, following allegations of sexual harassment and indecent assault against Mr Heydon. The 14 silks took their action following the revelation in the Herald that a High Court investigation found Mr Heydon had sexually harassed six former associates of the court. None of the female barristers making the complaint allege they themselves were the subject of inappropriate behaviour by Mr Heydon.

The statutory body, which acts as the professional watchdog, has powers to investigate Mr Heydon's alleged misconduct. It can determine whether Mr Heydon is a "fit and proper person" under the official admission rules for the legal profession. It can also take disciplinary action against a barrister, or commence disciplinary proceedings in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. In the most serious cases, a practitioner can be disbarred.

Complaints to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner are confidential.

The move came as the NSW Bar Association president Tim Game SC released a strongly-worded message warning "barristers who engage in sexual harassment can be investigated and disciplined for professional misconduct".
However, as reported on this blog (see story below), the NSW and Australian legal hierarchy, including the NSW Bar Association and the Office Of The Legal Services Commissioner have shown a tendency to not see or hear even when the issues are published in a national daily like The Australian. This is unlike even Malaysia, which has not got a reputation for good governance. There. as this writer can attest, revelations such as this can lead to resignation of judges. 
TO BE READ WITH 





A year has passed and still no explanation from NSW LPAB Chairman Tom Bathurst about his attitudes to corporate governance:: Events marking commencement of the 2020 Law Term provide CJ the opportunity to respond publicly to article in The Australian published in Jan 2019, as well as his oversight of the College Of Law and Top Education Groupby Ganesh Sahathevan



NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst says he is "still enjoying the job". Wolter Peeters,AFRChief Justice Bathurst told the AFR's Michael Pelly was his "present intention" to serve until the end of February, 2022. However, he noted that he can continue to preside until March 17, 2023 (when he turns 75).



More than a year has passed since The Australian reported that the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board and its  Chairman Tom Bathurst (also CJ NSW) determined that a conspiracy theory found on the internet was credible and true (see story below). 

The story has attracted world-wide attention, causing UK  investigative journalist Clare Rewcastle-Brown to observe that the NSW LPAB had shown poor judgement and research skills. 

While only mentioned in passing in story in The Australian, the NSW LPAB and its chairman who was this country's leading commercial silk before he became chief justice also determined that the facts of a decision of the Supreme Court NSW could be re-written (see below).

Also mentioned in passing without elaboration is the issue of the chief Justice's oversight of the College Of Law.His aggressive defence of the College has resulted in his actions being investigated in Malaysia: 

Malaysia will investigate NSW AG and LPAB oversight of the College Of Law: College's Malaysian business removes protective mantle; likely to further expose LPAB Annual report exclusions




All these matters require explanation but nothing has been heard from the NSW LPAB or the Chief Justice. The events  planned for the coming week to mark the beginning of the 2020 Law Term provide the Chief Justice ample opportunity to finally explain himself. 

While at it he may also want to explain the matter of Zhu Minshen and Top Group. 

END



Tuesday, June 11, 2019


Protection provided journalists,whistle blowers and sources by Carlovers v Sahathevan ,Bond v Barry undermined by NSW judicial body overseen by Chief Justice NSW, and AG Speakman

by Ganesh Sahathevan

In October 2001 the Supreme Court NSW handed down its decision in Carlovers Carwash Ltd v Sahathevan . The decision provided this writer and other journalists significant protection, and was later applied in Bond v Barry, where Paul Barry (better know now as host of MediaWatch)  relied on  the Carlover's decision to successfully defend himself against a charge of defamation by the late Alan Bond.

Quite apart from affirming the statutory safe harbor provisions protecting journalists found in for example the Fair Trading Act NSW, the cases were important for the defining the noun " journalist" in very broad terms.That broad definition is especially relevant today given the ability of researchers, investigators and writers to self-publish via their own blogs and social media such as Twitter and Facebook. Bond v Barry continues to be quoted to this day (and Sahathevan concedes he will never be as famous as Barry).

There has however been a recent decision of a quasi-legal body that seems to suggest that the protection provided by those cases and the decisions that follow them is being restricted, if not discarded by the legal establishment, especially in NSW.

In a recent decision finding this writer not fit and proper for admission to practice law in NSW the Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB), which is overseen by the Chief Justice of NSW Thomas Bathurst,  the LPAB (which includes three sitting judges,) determined that the Carlovers decision  did not concern the work of a journalist but rather a Carlovers  employee who after being sacked by Carlovers, harassed, threatened and intimidated the company and its directors.

In doing so the LPAB is suggesting that the  Carlovers decision was incorrectly decided, or that the NSW Supreme Court's views on the rights of journalists to report, and of press freedom generally, have become more restrictive.

The Carlovers decision attracted much media attention locally and in this region and it has relevance especially today given the recent raids by the Australian Federal Police In his story on that matter published in the SMH on 14 October 2000 the last Ben Hills reported:


Mr Sahathevan's counsel, Ms Judith Gibson (now Judge Judith Gibsion) , argued that it was an important press freedom case, because if injunctions could be used in this way it would ``place every whistle-blower and every source at risk''. She said her client had claimed that Carlovers had made false and misleading statements to the Stock Exchange.

The LPAB put its findings with regards Carlovers in the context of what it claimed was evidence of this writer's history of publishing material that was false or otherwise lacking any evidence and were in fact part of this writer's criminal enterprise (see story below published in The Australian on 17 January 2019).


So certain is the LPAB of its findings that it has included in its findings a determination that this writer has shown no  remorse for his work as a journalist; it has made specific reference to the story this writer investigated and wrote for publication in  The Sun newspaper in Malaysia in 1996, which earned him the  sacking from that paper  which in turn led to a number of related defamation matters in Malaysia and Australia, including the Carlovers matter.


In Carlovers submissions were made by Carlovers and its directors about this writer's sacking from The Sun,and the Malaysian matters which included an AUD 7 Million claim for damages.The directors included the Malaysian  businessman Vincent Tan Chee Yioun, who owned The Sun,and still controls it via his Berjaya Group of companies. The LPAB has found that these submissions were "irrelevant".

Tan's role in a number of questionable high profile defamation and corporate matters in Malaysia were well known, and the subject of adverse media reports worldwide, even in 2000. In 2006 a Malaysian Royal Commission which investigated corruption of the judiciary found that there was prima facie evidence that Tan and two former chief justices of Malaysia had committed offences under Malaysia's Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act, Penal Code and the Legal Profession Act. Early this year the Malaysian Government announced that there will be a second RCI into judicial corruption; the events of the past continue to have an impact even today. 

The LPAB's findings given the issues concerning Vincent Tan described above suggests  that the  current NSW Supreme Court will not tolerate investigation by journalists regardless of how serious the matter.It does suggest a degree of antagonism towards journalists that is so great that the Court would be happy to re-write its past decisions,no matter how well established  those decisions might be. In doing so the Court 's seem prepared to re-interpret the not merely the opinion but even the facts of past decisions.


Meanwhile, this writer continues to investigate and write about the issues and facts he discovered in 1996 which got him sacked, as well as other more recent events such as the 1MDB affair, Australia's submarines, and the NSW legal establishment's College Of Law.

END





END 
Reference

Bizarre blog claims used to deny man right to practise law

EXCLUSIVE


The body overseen by Chief Justice Tom Bathurst responsible for deciding who can practise law in NSW relied on a wildly defamatory Malaysian blog depicting ABC journalists, former British prime minister Tony Blair, financier George Soros and others as part of a global conspiracy when deciding to deny a would-be solicitor a certificate to practise.

Chief Justice Bathurst and Legal Practitioner Admission Board executive officer Louise Pritchard declined to answer The Australian’s questions about how the article came into the board’s hands and why its members felt the conspiracy-laden material could be relied upon as part of a decision to deny Sydney man Ganesh Sahathevan admission as a lawyer. Nor would either say which of the 10 members of the LPAB, three of whom are serving NSW Supreme Court judges, was on the deciding panel.

Ms Pritchard has left her role at the LPAB since The Australian began making inquiries in September. The article, published in December 2017 on website The Third Force, accuses Mr Sahathevan of engaging in a conspiracy to attack then Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak.

READ NEXT



Mahathir Mohamad, who returned as prime minister after toppling Mr Najib in elections held last May, is also smeared as a participant in the globe-spanning conspiracy.

Mr Najib was under pressure at the time over the country’s sovereign wealth fund, 1MDB, which the US Department of Justice says has been looted of billions of dollars that was spent on property, art, jewels and the Leonardo DiCaprio film, The Wolf of Wall Street.

Malaysian authorities have charged Mr Najib with dozens of corruption offences that could attract decades in jail over his role in the 1MDB scandal, which allegedly included the flow of about $US1 billion through his personal bank account.

The article’s author, Malaysian political operative and Najib loyalist Raggie Jessy, also accused Rewcastle-Brown, Stein and Besser of receiving money, totalling millions of dollars, to participate in a Four Corners program exposing the 1MDB scandal that aired on the ABC in March 2016.

There is no suggestion any of Mr Jessy’s bizarre allegations are true. However, the LPAB cited the piece when denying Mr Sahathevan admission as a lawyer in an undated and unsigned set of reasons sent to him on August 3 last year.

It used the article as evidence in a passage dealing with legal conflicts between Mr Sahathevan, who has largely worked in the past as a journalist, his former employer, Malaysia’s Sun Media Group, and the company’s owner, tycoon Vincent Tan.

In that context, the board said the Third Force article reported “that Mr Sahathevan was investigated for blackmail, extortion, bribery and defamation”. While the article claims that blackmail, extortion, bribery and defamation “are but some of the transgressions many from around the world attribute” to Mr Sahathevan, The Australian was unable to find any reference in it to an investigation into him on these grounds.

It is unclear why the board felt the need to rely on the article, as it also made adverse findings about Mr Sahathevan’s character based on a series of other allegations including that he used “threatening and intimidating” language in emails to the College of Law and the NSW Attorney General and did not disclose his sacking from a previous job to the board.

Mr Sahathevan has denied the allegations in correspondence with the board.

The board also cited evidence that one of Mr Sahathevan’s blogs on Malaysian politics was banned by the Najib regime as indicating his poor character.

In an email to Chief Justice Bathurst, sent on August 30, Rewcastle-Brown said her site, Sarawak Report, which exposed much of the 1MDB scandal, was banned by the Malaysian government.

“I along with other critics of the 1MDB scandal (which includes Mr Sahathevan) became the target of immense state-backed vilification, intimidation and online defamation campaigns on behalf of the Malaysian government,” she said.

She said the board’s use of the Third Force article against Mr Sahathevan displayed “a troubling level of misjudgment and poor quality research, giving a strong impression that someone seeking to find reasons to disqualify this candidate simply went through the internet looking for ‘dirt’ against him”.

“The Third Force has consistently been by far the most outlandish, libellous, vicious and frankly ludicrous of all the publications that were commissioned as part of former prime minister Najib Razak’s self-proclaimed ‘cyber army’ which he paid (and continues to pay) to defame his perceived enemies and critics,” she said.

Besser, who now works in the ABC’s London bureau, told The Australian: “It’s clearly nonsense and comes from the darkest corners of some pretty wild Malaysian conspiracy theorists.”

Mr Sahathevan’s application is to be reconsidered at an LPAB meeting next month (Admission has since been denied, for the same reasons, but without explicit reference to the Thirdforce story).

BUSINESS REPORTER
Business reporter Ben Butler has covered everything from tractors to fashion to corporate collapses. He has previously worked for the Herald Sun and as a senior business reporter with The Age and Sydney Morning... 
Posted by at  
Posted by at  
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)