Wednesday, July 24, 2024

Muslims celebrate the first time in history a NSW Supreme Court admissions speech has been delivered by a person donning the kefiyeh -CJ Andrew Bell can longer distance himself from the misconduct of his underlings

 by Ganesh Sahathevan

In the words of the Australian Jewish Association :

An ugly anti-Israel protest took place with the seeming approval of the NSW Law Society.

 However, as Mahmud Hawila states in his Linkedin feed, the video of this incident has been posted on the NSW Supreme Court Youtube page. The Chief Justice Andrew Bell is ultimately responsible for conduct in his court, but has been unwilling  to address the misconduct of his underlings.

 



May be an image of 5 people and text




TO BE READ WITH 

Sunday, April 17, 2022

NSW Supreme Court position in favour of sharia not matched by any statement in favour of other faiths-Perception of bias among adherents of other faiths justified

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 


The. NSW Supreme Court's  position in favour of sharia   is  not matched by any similar statement in favour of other faiths.  There is at least a perception of bias, especially given the somewhat sanitized version of sharia that the Court describes, which  it says is  not incompatible with Australian law. 



TO BE READ WITH 



Sharia: The Sultan Of Brunei & the Governor designate NSW Margaret Beazley's views compared.;the official position of the Government Of Brunei vs that of the Supreme Court NSW 

by Ganesh Sahathevan





Readers are referred to the article published earlier on this blog about the views of the Governor designate NSW, the former President Of The Court Of Appeal NSW Margaret Beazley AO.
The Governor designate's views are contained in a speech that continues to be broadcast (or "published")  to the whole world on the NSW Supreme Court website:

Governor designate Margaret Beazley AO  will have to clarify her position on Islam very soon.:Her silence in the case of the Malaysian lesbians punished by caning maybe acceptable among judges but not from the Queen's representative


The story above includes this paragraph which the Legal Profession Admission Board NSW, whose chairman is the Chief Justice NSW Tom Bathurst, have deemed to be defamatory ,and lacking "insight": 


The Hon Justice M J Beazley AO, President Of The Court Of Appeal ,State Of NSW, Australia ,said in a speech delivered in 2014, but not widely reported:
"...despite a perception that Islam and the Australian law are incompatible, this is not borne out by the caselaw"
She did so in conjunction with the Affinity Intercultural Foundation, the Australian arm of the Fetullah Gulen movement. While Gulen and his followers have been recently victimised by former friend and ally Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the president of Turkey who they helped install, Gulen and his people are not innocent of jihadi activity.
They are nevertheless quite adapt at recruiting Western "intellectuals" to promote their, cause, Her Honour is only the most recent.



Now , compare the views of the highly learned justices to that of the Sultan Of Brunei, an absolute monarch of a Muslim country:




A Powerful Message From Brunei to the World

Why do you care so much what's happening here in an Islamic nation when you didn't even bat an eyelid about the Syrians, Bosnians, Rohingyas, Palestinians, etc.

“In your countries you practice freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, etc. It’s in your constitution. It’s your political system, your national identity, your rights, your way of life. In my country, we practice a Malay, Islamic, Monarchical system and we’re going to start practicing the laws of Islam, Shari’ah Law. Islam is in our constitution, our national identity, our rights, our way of life. We may find loopholes in your laws and justice system, and you may have found ours, but this is our country. Just like you practice your right to be gay, etc. for this world you live in now, we practice our rights to be Muslims for this world and the Hereafter. This is an Islamic country practicing Islamic Law. Why don’t you worry about your kids being gunned down in schools, worry about your prisons being unable to accommodate convicts, worry about your high rate of crimes and DUIs, worry about your high suicide and abortion rate, worry about whatever it is that you should be worried about there. Many religions are against homosexuality, it’s nothing new. The moment you hear that Islam and Muslims making a stand and trying to reaffirm their faith, you judge, you boycott, you say that it’s wrong, it’s stupid, it’s barbaric. Again, go back to those worries that you should focus on I’ve mentioned earlier. Is it not wrong to legalize deadly weapons, is it not wrong to allow unborn babies to be killed, is it not wrong to allow a lifestyle that results in AIDS and discontinuation of the next generation? Why do you care so much what’s happening here in an Islamic nation when you didn’t even bat an eyelid about the Syrians, Bosnians, Rohingyas, Palestinians, etc. Thousands are being killed there and you don’t care, not one is killed here under this Shari’ah Law, and you make a big fuss, even when the citizens here who are directly affected by it, accepts it with peace. Punishments may be harsher but it does not mean it’s easier to be carried out. There are processes to go through before an actual conviction. We are fine with it, we are happy.”

Government of BruneiFacebook

TwitterWhatsAppFacebook MessengerSkype

 



Wednesday, July 17, 2024

MH 17: Australia's Penny Wong solemnly swears to pursue Russia, but says nothing about Malaysia's opposing views

by Ganesh Sahathevan


Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong vowed to continue to hold 
Russia to account. Picture: NewsWire/ Martin Ollman



News.com.au and others have reported:

Marking 10 years since the horrific downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong has reignited her vow to hold Russia to account for the nearly 300 deaths.  

n her speech, Wong said the downing of the plan was “incomprehensible”, and promised to continue to pursue justice against Russia.

“On behalf of the Australian Government, I recommit, again, to our collective pursuit of truth, justice and accountability for the outrages perpetrated on July 17, 2014,” she said.

“I recommit to our ongoing partnership with the Netherlands, which lost nearly 200 nationals, with Malaysia, Belgium and Ukraine.

Malaysia however has taken a different stance, distancing itself from laying any blame on Russia. As reported on this blog:

MH 17 : On the second anniversary Malaysia's PM Najib spends time in Moscow,while Australia's Julie Bishop continues to defend her handling of the issue


Australian media in particular the ABC have gone to great lengths to play up Wong's Malaysian antecedents,  implying that being Malaysian born and Chinese Wong can more readily speak with Asia's leaders. There is however nothing to indicate that Malaysia has changed its position on MH17 was a Malaysian plane to Malaysia's position on the matter is crucial. If nothing else Malaysia may well have access to evidence that could make or break the case. Malaysia' s opposing views may well be fatal to the case brought by Australia and The Netherlands, and it is unlikely that Wong is unaware of that fact.
 END



To Be Read With

Comment
There are many reasons why Fauziah cannot be ignored, the fact that she was " Malaysia’s Ambassador to the Netherlands when the MH17 incident occurred" is just one of them.


Gaps in JIT probe over MH17 By Datuk Dr Fauziah Mohd Taib
June 22, 2019 @ 12:29am



THE June 19 press conference by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) over the downing of MH17 has caused some dissension in international affairs. Because of the murkiness of the situation and the many angles, I believe it is worthwhile for us to break down the matter into components before looking at it as a whole again.



Facts of the case: Malaysia Airlines MH17 was shot down by an air missile near Donetsk in the eastern part of the Ukraine five years ago on 17 July. All 298 passengers, including crew members, were killed. MH17 was flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur passing through a zone of conflict in eastern Ukraine.



The JIT: The team comprises prosecutors from the Netherlands, Malaysia, Australia, Belgium and Ukraine. The purpose was to establish the facts of the case, determine the truth of what happened, gather criminal evidence and identify those responsible.

Malaysia was initially excluded from the JIT until it protested, justifying that we have ownership to the aircraft and the number of Malaysians who perished were considerable.



JIT findings: MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile transported into the separatist-controlled territory of eastern Ukraine from Russia. The Dutch findings were based on physical evidence where some 35 per cent of the aircraft’s remnants were transported in 11 containers to the Netherlands. According to the Dutch Safety Board, each piece of evidence was meticulously examined at least five times.



Based on these findings, the JIT held a joint press conference in The Hague to announce four suspects to be charged with the downing of the MH17 aircraft. Of the four, three are Russian nationals while the fourth is Ukrainian.

They are said to be responsible for bringing in the deadly weapon into eastern Ukraine, which according to the JIT had only one purpose — to shoot down a plane. The suspects were eliminated from hundreds of others based on screened big data, tapped telephone conversations and the social media.

Under Dutch criminal law their act is punishable even though they were not active soldiers and did not pull the trigger.



Despite the findings, JIT has left many questions unanswered. These questions, I believe, are more pertinent to the case:

FIRST, none of the four suspects were the crew members of the vehicle from which the surface to air missile was shot. The JIT was unable to identify who they were, how many of them, and how they were linked to the four suspects. What was their chain of command and what was the instruction? What was the intent of firing the missile? Was the incident a conscious and deliberate act intended to hit the Malaysian commercial aircraft per se or was the Malaysian aircraft caught in a crossfire?



Under criminal law, it is usually the act and intention at the same time that constitute a crime. The plaintiff has to prove that the civilian aircraft was intentionally shot. The defence is successful simply if it raises a reasonable doubt.



SECOND, there were 160 commercial flights flying over the Ukraine on that day. Why did the Ukraine air traffic controller direct MH17 to fly at a lower flight path, at 33,000 feet, over the conflict zone that put our aircraft in danger? Is the Ukraine not also culpable for directing MH17 to fly at that level, knowing that it was allowing a commercial airliner to fly straight into a zone of conflict?



THIRD, JIT members were drawn from the countries involved in the downing of MH17. But why was Russia not included in the JIT? Some press statements have alluded that Russia was invited to join the JIT, but declined. Was this the same way that Malaysia was initially excluded from joining the JIT, because it could not be determined if Malaysia would be supportive of Russia and not the West?



According to the JIT, the suspects are innocent until proven guilty and it is now in JIT’s hands to show that they are innocent. Witnesses have been asked to come forward. This comes after five years of the establishment of the JIT. It shows how little evidence they have to begin prosecution yet the trial will still begin on March 9 in The Hague next year.



For Malaysians, the fact that the four suspects are linked to the Russian government is not relevant. We should not be caught in a geopolitical feud between the West and Russia. After all, from the very beginning, the Russians have been blamed by the West either directly or indirectly for the incident.



What is relevant for us is the truth. What happened on that fateful day? Who caused it, and was it intentional? If it was intentional, then why us?

The writer was Malaysia’s Ambassador to the Netherlands when the MH17 incident occurred

Singapore court says non-executive directors not excused from duty to be informed of company's activities, and advice accordingly - Australian directors in Singapore vulnerable given lower standards in Australia

 by Ganesh Sahathevan



John Arthur
Independent Non-executive Director
Gail Kelly
Independent Non-executive Director

This recent decision of the Singapore High Court  should cause Singapore company directors to want to consider resignation despite the prestige and perks they enjoy. It should be of even greater concern to Australian directors of Singapore companies, for they would be used to  the lower expectations under Australian law of non-executive directors: 


64 First, I did not consider the proper approach to be to focus on whether Dr Goh’s proper designation was that of an executive or non-executive director at any given time. A director’s particular designation is not determinative or conclusive of the role that he plays in the company. Rather, the content of a director’s duty is determined by the involvement, responsibilities or functions he undertakes. Put simply, the focus is on substance rather than form.

65 The second point is that, regardless of whether Dr Goh was in form or substance an executive or non-executive director of IPP, the fact would remain that he would be subject to a “minimum objective standard of care which entails the obligation to take reasonable steps to place [himself] in a position to guide and monitor the management of the company” (see the Court of Appeal decisions of Ho Yew Kong at [137] and BIT Baltic Investment & Trading Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v Wee See Boon [2023] 1 SLR 1648 (“BIT Baltic”) at [56]). Thus, even if Dr Goh were to succeed in his attempt at downplaying his role in IPP, he could not escape a duty to maintain a minimum degree of awareness and oversight.

(Excerpt from judgement Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (in liquidation)v

Goh Jin Hian [2024] SGHC 17 )            


In Australia non-executive directors may place greater reliance on management documents than executive directors but the decision above does not appear to make that distinction. That  places Australian non-executive directors like John Arthur and Gale Kelly on the Singtel board in  a position where they would need to be careful to exercise a greater degree of care than when serving in similar roles in Australia.  Being the Australian directors on the board they may even be under a duty to advice the Singtel board of matters in  Australia in which  they are likely to have superior intelligence. The matter of Gladys Berejiklian's rain making role in Optus is an obvious matter that comes to mind.


To Be Read With 


Saturday, June 8, 2024

What is Singtel going to do with a problem like Gladys Berejiklian -

Appointment aimed at winning government business, in defiance of 

Australia's anti-corruption laws, has led to massive write-downs

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 


The AFR reported in April 2024: 

The $S3.1 billion ($3.5 billion) Singtel write-down, revealed early on Monday in Singapore, is mostly related to Optus, which is struggling with falling profits in its enterprise business that provides services to business and government clients and is run by former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian.




TO BE READ WITH 


Thursday, March 14, 2024

Brookfield may crash land onto a Gladys Berejiklian FCPA problem if it buys into Optus

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 




Gladys Berejikliam


Singtel is reported to be in talks with Brookfield to sell a significant part of Optus.


Brookfield is listed on the NYSE and as a result, comes within US jurisdiction and hence the ambit of US the Foreign Corrupt Practises Act.In any event while the FCPA is US legislation, it can have extraterritorial jurisdiction. 



If Brookfield buys into Optus it could, at some point,  be in breach of the FCPA given the presence of the former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian, who has been appointed to win government business, despite being found to be seriously corrupt by the NSW ICAC. Berejiklian has done well for Optus, winning for Optus a contract from a NSW government department that reported to a political ally. 

 



To Be Read With


Saturday, February 17, 2024

How do Singtel, Temasek and the Government Of Singapore maintain a zero tolerance for corruption policy, while Gladys Berejiklian wins them Australian government business "despite the corruption stuff"

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently re-affirmed his commitment to his government's policy of zero tolerance for corruption. 


How then  do Singtel, Temasek and the Government Of Singapore maintain a zero tolerance for corruption policy, while Gladys Berejiklian wins them Australian government business     "despite the corruption stuff".


TO BE READ WITH 


Tuesday, November 21, 2023

SMH reports that Singtel would be happy to appoint Gladys Berejiklian as Optus CEO "despite the corruption stuff" - Singtel 's willingness to appoint seriously corrupt Gladys Berejiklian reminiscent of Temasek's deals with Takshin Shinawatra and his telco Shincorp , which did not end well, politics and business is not necessarily a winning formula

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 


                               Former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian is expected to become OptusCEO


The SMH 22 November 2023  has reported: 

The former executive said that he expected former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian to be appointed Optus’ next chief executive despite the findings of corruption against her earlier this year. They think the relationship between Singtel and Optus is still tenable despite the geographical and cultural differences.

“I think they would be happy to appoint another Australian in the role, despite the corruption stuff,” the executive said.

It seems obvious that Singtel and Optus expect that Berejiklian's government and political connections will be good for business, and indeed it has, even if it has given rise to further suspicion of corruption. 

The Berejiklian affair  is reminiscent of Temasek's moves in 2006 to acquire former Thai Prime Minsiter Thakshin Shinawatra's Shincorp. The deal seemed to have been structured and enginereed by Temasek with an expectation that Thakshin's political clout would ensure that the deal was executed without  hinderance, and win Temasek business in Thailand. That did not happen, Singtel acquired its parent Temasek's stake in Shincorp, and Thakshin is now in jail after being convicted for corruption.

TO BE READ WITH 


Interesting news today that Singapore's sovereign wealth fund has offloaded shares in Shin Corp, its major Thai asset, at a substantial loss. Temasek Holdings sold around 8% of Shin Corp for 36 baht a share, yielding $308 million, a substantial discount to the market price, according to Reuters:

Temasek's stake sale comes just over a month after the Puea Thai Party led by Yingluck Shinawatra, the sister of self-exiled Thaksin, won a general election in a landslide. She became the prime minister this month.



The sale of Shin Corp's controlling stake by Thaksin's family in 2006 triggered the events that led to his overthrow by the military in September that year.

The news of Cedar stake sale sent Shin Corp shares down more than 6 percent as investors worried that Temasek may sell more Shin shares at a discount. At 0509 GMT, the shares were at 38.25 baht, down 4.4 percent.

The 36 baht offer price is a 10 percent discount to Shin's Wednesday close of 40 baht.

It is also a significant discount from the 49.25 baht a share that Temasek-linked units paid in 2006 to purchase a controlling stake in Shin Corp from the family of Thaksin Shinawatra.

via UPDATE 1-Singapore's Temasek unit selling 8 pct in Thai Shin Corp | Reuters.

Temasek may have decided to cut its losses as Thailand's telecoms sector is hopelessly tangled in political and regulatory battles that have delayed the introduction of 3G, even as other Asian countries embrace 4G. Its placement of shares in the market will raise the free float of Shin, whose major asset is AIS, Thailand's largest mobile operator. Investors don't bother with the stock as there is so little liquidity.


But it doesn't end the controversy over foreign ownership of Thai telecoms, which is supposed to be capped at 49%. Temasek still controls 88% of Shin Corp via two affiliates. Its largest competitor DTAC is controlled by Norway's Telenor. Both are trying to launch full-scale 3G services, even as politicians and bureaucrats squabble over who has the regulatory authority. AIS remains hugely profitable, for all the political noise. 2Q net profit was up 26% on the year-earlier period.



Singtel to pay $330m to raise stake in Thai telco Intouch in deal with Temasek


Singtel 
Vivienne Tay

PUBLISHED
16 JUN 2022, 0:26 PM SGT

SINGAPORE (THE BUSINESS TIMES) - Singtel on Thursday (June 16) proposed to raise its stake in Intouch Holdings to 24.99 per cent from 21.21 per cent by acquiring an additional 3.78 per cent stake from Temasek's wholly owned subsidiary Anderton Investments.

Singtel will pay $330 million in cash, which represents a 5 per cent discount to the volume-weighted average price for each Intouch share on the Stock Exchange of Thailand calculated for 20 trading days before the date of the share purchase agreement.

The $330 million consideration also represents about 2.04 per cent of Singtel and its subsidiaries' latest audited consolidated net tangible assets as at March 31, 2022. Singtel plans to complete the transaction by the end of June 2022.

The Singapore telco is one of the two largest shareholders of Intouch, which is the parent company of Advanced Info Services (AIS), a regional associate of Singtel and Thailand's largest mobile phone network. The largest shareholder is Thai-listed power producer Gulf Energy.

Back in 2006, former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra sold InTouch, then known as Shin Corp, to Temasek, setting off public criticism that led to his ousting in a coup.

Singtel group chief executive Yuen Kuan Moon said in a statement on Thursday that the increased investment deepens the group's partnership with Gulf Energy and is part of Singtel's strategy of actively recycling capital to invest for growth and shareholder returns.

He noted that Intouch has been delivering good returns supported by consistently strong execution from AIS.



Appointed independent financial adviser Ernst & Young has given its opinion to Singtel's independent directors that the terms of the acquisition, as an interested person transaction, are on normal commercial terms and not prejudicial to the interests of Singtel and its minority shareholders.

Singtel shares shares were down one cent, or 0.4 per cent, at $2.49 at the midday trading break on Thursday. 



  • Share Post
  •  
  •  

Supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra say the recent Central Tax Court ruling in his favour proves his innocence in a multibillion-baht tax case.

But his critics argue the verdict instead confirmed that the deposed premier had cost Thailand billions by illegally concealing his massive wealth.

The ruling, which was issued on July 18 and made public on August 8, said that a Revenue Department order in March 2017 for Thaksin’s children Panthongtae and Pintongta to pay 17 billion baht in back taxes and interest was unlawful.

The case was filed by Thaksin.

The court ruled that the department should have directed its tax appraisal at Thaksin, who was deemed the actual offender, and not his children, who were described by the court as Thaksin’s proxies holding shares for him.

Sale of family business

In January 2006, during Thaksin’s second term as prime minister, the Shinawatras sold all their shares in the family business, Shin Corporation, for 73 billion baht to Singapore’s state-linked investment firm Temasek Holdings.

Income from the share sale was tax-free, as under regulations at the time, individuals selling shares on the stock exchange were exempt from paying capital gains tax.

Shin Corp was a telecom giant that owned national satellite operator Thaicom and Advanced Info Service (AIS), Thailand’s largest mobile network operator. Laws were amended while Thaksin was in power to allow businesses linked to national security, such as Thaicom and AIS, to be majority-owned by a foreign entity.

Beginning of the end

The controversial tax-free share sale triggered the beginning of Thaksin’s political decline.

It was used by Thaksin’s critics and political enemies in their campaign to oust him from government. He was portrayed as abusing his power to boost his wealth. That was in addition to other allegations of corruption and power abuse against the leader, despite his claims of being “too rich to be corrupt”.

The tax-free share sale unleashed a wave of public criticism and widespread discontent. The People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) began holding street protests which drew several thousand angry participants at a time.

The PAD-led protests culminated in a military coup in September 2006 led by then Army commander-in-chief, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin and staged while Thaksin was away in New York to attend a United Nations meeting.

The post-coup junta then set up the Assets Examination Committee to investigate allegations of corruption and irregularities against Thaksin’s government.


‘Unusually wealthy’

In June 2007, the 12-member panel — which included judges, law scholars and an auditor-general — resolved to freeze 76.6 billion baht of assets belonging to Thaksin and his family on grounds that his “unusual wealth” was amassed while in office.

When he first took office in 2001, Thaksin and his wife had declared assets totaling 15.1 billion baht, although he had transferred large parts of his wealth to his children, maids and drivers before assuming premiership.

In that year, Thaksin was charged with illegally concealing billions of baht by transferring the ownership of his Shin Corp shares to others. The Constitutional Court acquitted him after a tearful Thaksin told the judges that he had simply committed an “honest mistake”.

Accusations of hidden wealth came back to haunt Thaksin after he returned to power for the second time, following his Thai Rak Thai Party’s landslide win in the February 2005 general election.

Offshore company

The tax saga started in 1999 with the formation of a company called Ample Rich Investments in the British Virgin Islands, a notorious tax haven.

Ample Rich, registered by Thaksin himself, bought Shin Corp stocks at 10 baht apiece in a deal worth 329 million baht, reportedly borrowed from the large corporation.

Thaksin explained at the time that the deal was aimed at helping his telecom empire make inroads on the US Nasdaq stock exchange.

In December 2000, when he was rocked by the share-concealment inquiry, Thaksin reportedly sold Ample Rich to his son Panthongtae for one dollar. The splitting of Shin shares to increase their number in August 2001 meant Ample Rich was holding 329.2 million Shin shares, up from 32.92 million.

In May 2005, Thaksin’s daughter Pintongta became an Ample Rich co-owner after buying a one-dollar Ample Rich share from her brother. They each owned 164.6 million Shin shares.

In January 2006, Ample Rich sold the Shin shares to its owners Panthongtae and Pintongta for one baht apiece. Just a few days later, the 329.2 million Shin shares ended up in the hands of Temasek Holdings, at 49.25 baht apiece.

The Shinawatras argued that no tax had to be paid because Ample Rich was “not making any profit”. But critics said that if the company had sold the Shin shares directly to Temasek, it would have been taxed heavily. They argued that this was the reason why the Shinawatra siblings opted to sell the shares as individuals on the Stock Exchange of Thailand.

Seizure of assets

In February 2010, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Office ordered the seizure of 46.3 billion baht in Thaksin’s assets, out of the 76.6 billion baht frozen after the 2006 coup. The court ruled that the ex-PM had abused his power, resulting in the increased value of Shin shares, as many of his government’s policies and measures benefited the telecom giant’s businesses.

Shin Corp was renamed InTouch after it was purchased by Temasek, which later sold a large portion of its stake to Singtel, a Singaporean telecom conglomerate.

Following the 2010 court verdict to seize Thaksin’s assets, the Revenue Department estimated that he owed 15.9 billion baht in back tax. By March 2017, when the department served a summons for his two children to pay the tax and fine, the total amount had risen to 17.6 billion baht.

Thaksin’s lawyers argued that his transaction with Ample Rich could not be regarded as a share sale, so he should not be taxed.

After his unsuccessful appeal, the ex-premier brought his case against the Revenue Department to the Central Tax Court, seeking a court order to revoke the agency’s order – which was granted last month.

By Thai PBS World’s Political Desk