Dutch Court Of Appeal seems to have acknowledged that the consumption of oil is driven by consumers demanding cheap fuel, that they are not force fed product by devilish oil companies

 by Ganesh Sahathevan

In  Shell, M&M and Milieudefensie et al. the Dutch Court Of Appeal held:

At 7.99 : It is therefore too easy to say that Shell has no influence on scope 3 emissions (ie demand for oil and gas products) even though Shell’s power in this regard may be somewhat limited.

At 7.106 :There may be a causal relationship between a production limitation and emission reduction...... but (Milieudefensie et al,the respondents)have failed to put forward sufficient grounds to (demonstrate) that in this case a causal relationship (also) exists between  a sales limitation and emission reduction.

At 7.108) Shell could reduce its fossil fuel sales while Shell Trading continues to offer its services to the market. A party that would sell fossil fuels in Shell’s place would not need to have the logistical and financial capabilities of Shell Trading. If necessary, this party could purchase these services from Shell Trading or other service providers.

7.110  It has not been established in the present proceedings that downsizing the resale activities of Shell Trading will lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions. 

Milieudefensie argued instead that Shell was guilty of impossing the use of fossil fuels by provding a cheaper product that "sustainable altrenatives" cannot compete with [see 7.59].

 The above taken together suggests that the Dutch Court Of Appeal  recognises tha the consumption of oil and gas is driven by demand from ordinary consumers, and not, as many in the climate change business insist, "imposed" on users by oil company executives

END 

SEE ALSO 

Friday, July 28, 2023

Shell may exit Singapore, Singapore Strait Times blames "challenges to the global petroleum industry" - Shell however has announced swing back to oil and gas, Shell's review of business in Singapore probably due to Singapore Government wanting to kill its refining ,petrochem industries to pursue renewables, save the planet

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

Strait Times Ovais Subhani says:

Shell’s decision in June (2023) to assess the viability of its plants on Pulau Bukom and Jurong Island says more about the challenges to the global petroleum industry than the future of Asia’s fifth-largest refining hub.

The “strategic review” announced by the London-based energy giant has sparked talk that the company may sell its plants or decommission them if a suitable buyer cannot be found.

Shell however, in June this year, under the leadership of new CEO  Wael Sawan announced a shift back to oil, and away from renewables.  It would want to stay, not leave , Singapore.

It does therefore  appear that Shell is being forced to review its business in Singapore given the Singapore Government's apparent policy of killing its  refining ,petrochem industries to save the planet.

TO BE READ WITH 

Friday, February 23, 2018

Singapore wants to kill its refining ,petrochem industries to save the planet: New carbon tax will kill a pillar of the economy, Singapore seems set to repeat the Lim Chong Yah " high wages shock therapy" experiment of the 1980s

EDITED ON 16 JUNE  2023

Singapore's domestic exports of oil last year firmed by 52.4 percent in nominal terms.

by Ganesh Sahathevan

There is nothing that needs to be added to the Strait Times story below , but readers are reminded that Singapore's contribution to world carbon dioxide emissions are probably negative,given its size (or rather lack thereof) and the fact of the yearly "haze" from Indonesia and Malaysia.

As to the effect of climate change on Singapore, one would think that a country that boasts of its ability to reclaim land from the sea would understand that reclamation is not without its own inherent
problems,that are of more immediate danger.

Meanwhile, Singapore's PAP seems to have forgotten that it relies on the very industries it wants to punish. On the other hand, this is a tax,it goes to government, government gains, but why this desperate measure? 

Readers might recall that Singapore experimented with a similar policy of restructuring the economy by force in the 1980s,  with disastrous results. 

That was of course the high wages policy, which reared its head again in 2012, and was quickly decapitated by Lee Kuan Yew. AsiaTimes.com.sg reported in 2012:

PM Lee rejected Prof Lim Chong Yah's "shock therapy" idea, explaining that it was better to apply sustainable measures.
Mr Lee was responding for the first time to the recent proposal for "shock therapy" by the well-known economist and former chairman of the National Wages Council, Professor Lim Chong Yah, to raise wages of the lowest-income workers by 50 per cent over three years.

Mr Lee said: "I appreciate his good intentions, I share his concerns over this group of workers. But I do not agree with his drastic approach because the only realistic way to move is step by step, with wages and productivity going up in tandem...as fast as we can, as fast as it's possible."
Mr Lee disagreed with the proposal, pointing to the 1980s when Singapore pushed up wages sharply and had "room" to do so. He said: "But even then, we ran into problems."

Mr Lee explained that in the 1980s, Singapore's economy was growing rapidly at 8 to 10 per cent a year. It also helped that the country's only competition then came from the "three little dragons" - South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan. China and India were not on the scene, he added.
And during that period, the labour market was tight as multinational companies such as Philips entered the labour market, creating thousands of jobs.

He said: "In 1985, when the winds changed, when the conditions turned difficult, we plunged into a very deep recession...We had to cut wages sharply...so that the economy could recover."


Left unsaid is the fact that the architect of the 1980s wage increase was the same Lim Chong Yah .

END

$5 per tonne carbon tax 'fair' for 

firms: Masagos

A carbon tax is a common tool used to control the amount of earth-warming greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. PHOTO: ST FILE

PUBLISHED

 FEB 23, 2018, 5:00 AM SGT

FACEBOOKTWITTEREMAIL

Amount as a start will give big emitters time to 'adjust and get used to compliance regime'

Samantha Boh

 

Getting large carbon emitters to pay $5 for every tonne of greenhouse gases they generate is a "fair" way to start a compliance regime, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli said yesterday.

From next year till 2023, all facilities producing 25,000 tonnes or more of greenhouse gas emissions a year will be taxed $5 per tonne of emissions - significantly lower than the $10 to $20 per tonne envisioned last year.

However, the Government will review the tax rate in 2023, and eventually increase the carbon tax to between $10 and $15 per tonne by 2030.

Mr Masagos called the starting $5 per tonne a "fair amount", which gives the affected 30 to 40 companies - which contribute 80 per cent of Singapore's greenhouse gas emissions - time to "adjust and also get used to the compliance regime".

He said: "They will need time to change their processes and improve their emissions."

He added that the transition period will allow the affected companies - mainly from the petroleum refining, chemicals and semiconductor sectors - to be better placed to comply with the higher tax rates to be imposed by 2030.

Mr Masagos was speaking on the sidelines of a visit to Bukit View Secondary School, where he launched a new green classroom comprising various eco-friendly features, including a green wall - covered in plants - and motion-activated fans.

A carbon tax is a common tool used to control the amount of earth-warming greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

About 67 countries and jurisdictions, including China, the European Union and Japan, have implemented or announced plans to implement such a scheme. They aim to encourage companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency.

Households here could see their total electricity and gas expenses increase by 1 per cent on average due to the carbon tax, which will be offset by additional Utilities-Save rebates.

Asked how companies can be made accountable, Mr Masagos said it is necessary to pass a carbon tax Act which will require companies to submit data on their greenhouse gas emissions, and which will impose stricter requirements on large emitters such as an audit report that confirms their data.

"By doing so we will have a better grasp of how much each of these industries and companies emit and, therefore, have an idea of how we can then nudge (them) to do better," he said.

The Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources said there are no plans to make individual company emissions data public.

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on February 23, 2018, with the headline '$5 per tonne carbon tax 'fair' for firms: Masagos'. Print Edition | Subscribe

Curious that Senator Penny Wong has said nothing about fellow South Australian and Malaysian Adele Koh

  by Ganesh Sahathevan 

"The trouble is that the Australian press is still infantile....It does not know how to control its bowels. Only one paper has to get on to a good story and we get several cases of verbal and pictorial diarrhea, all trying to go one better"\

Adele Koh,c .1975

The Advertiser,,1977

                                SA State Library -Royal Visit archives
    

When campaigning for election in 2019 Penny Wong said that appointing her the first Asian-Australian foreign minister would send a strong message to Asians that Australia was not white and racist . Australian media, especially the ABC were happy to go along with that narrative, but a bit of research would  have shown that relations between Australians and Asians, including Malaysians,  were well underway at all levels long before Penny Wong Ying Yen was born.

It is highly unlikely that Penny Wong is unaware of that history, her Sabah Hakka-Cantonese father married an Australian from South Australia, while he was a student here. Given that history it is curious that Penny Wong has had nothing to say about fellow Malaysian and South Australian Adele Koh's contributions to that ongoing relationshsip.  Adele Koh's contributions were quite public, and the photo above from The Advertiser was front page of the Malay Mail in 1977, when that paper was the country's premier afternoon paper.                                                                                                                                                                       Those who knew her in Malaysia had a good laugh, all in the knowledge that someone whom they knew to be highly intelligent had conjured up yet another episode to amuse herself and entertain others. Wong's failure to acknowledge the work of others in an attempt to portray herself as the one born to redeem Australia's reputation in Asia and the world is even more galling given the record of the former South Australian Premier Don Dunstan's close relationship with Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Penang's Lim Chong Eu, and native appreciation of South East Asian culture. He was also married to Adele Koh, until her death in 1978.

END

See Also 

"The trouble is that the Australian press is still infantile," she said. "It does not know how to control its bowels. Only one paper has to get on to a good story and we get several cases of verbal and pictorial diarrhea, all trying to go one better."

Yesterday in their Reliving 40 Years series, the STAR featured two ladies I knew as friends.

I met Adele at one Press Ball. We used to have lots of Balls those days like the Ad Agency Balls. Every organization held one ball or another annually. However, when we questioned why nobody held the government’s Ball, a furor ensued and we never had anymore Balls and henceforth only Annual Dinners…..no more holding any Balls. Period. I digress….

Adele, when we reminisced, reminded me that she boarded with Mum when she had a brief stay in Taiping. I was training to be a teacher in Penang then. I remember Adele for many things, some told to me by her journalists’ colleagues. But we all agreed on one thing…..her legs were meant only for mini-skirts which was the rage then and dang, she did carry those minis so well. All typewriters stopped clacking when Adele entered the Press Desk. She had straight, healthy jet-black hair which was in vogue then. In 1975 she moved to South Australia as a political staffer and later became the wife of the 35^th Premier of South Australia, Don Dunstan. "She has the high cheekbones of her Asian forebears," wrote one, "and she walks with the in-born grace of the East." The fact that she was from Penang added to her exotic status. If you thought she was a bimbo, how wrong you are. She chided the Australian Press:

"The trouble is that the Australian press is still infantile," she said. "It does not know how to control its bowels. Only one paper has to get on to a good story and we get several cases of verbal and pictorial diarrhea, all trying to go one better."

If cancer of the lungs did not end this young firebrand’s life can you imagine what she would today say about our Main Stream Media! Maybe much worse things! No?

PwC's FCPA problems may include its conduct in the matter of Malaysia's 1MDB

by Ganesh Sahathevan 

      Nazir Razak paying a courtesy call on old friend and new chairman of the SC, Faiz Azmi

As previously reported on this blog,  PwC may have a FCPA problem, arising out of its business  dealings with the Communist Party China linked Top Education Group .

That however is not the only FCPA problem that PwC may have to contend with. As mentioned: 

PwC's Australian scandal reveals PwC has a global centre which can intervene in local operations; there are now more reasons to believe that PwC Malaysia's 1MDB work was compromised by the fact that PwC has been Goldman Sachs' auditor for over 30 years

 Concerns about PwC's conduct in Malaysia with regards the 1MDB have been raised on this blog since at least 2019 but PwC has been very good at playing Malaysian politics. Rather than pursue PwC  for 1MDB related damages, Prime Minister Anaw Ibrahim has appointed PwC' Malaysia's executive  chairman at all relevant times, Faiz Azmi, a known associate of Najib Razak's brother Nazir, the new chairman of the Securities Commission, Malaysia's primary corporate regulator.

To Be  Read With 

Monday, August 12, 2024

PwC may have a FCPA problem - The Communist Party China linked Top Group investment by PwC Australia and its partners can have consequences under US law

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

FCPA

Like many other of the Big 4 accounting firms PwC which has its headquarters in the United States, structures itself in a way  that allows the firm to claim worldwide reach, but where national firms can claim to be independent of each other. KPMG tried that during the 1MDB  kleptocracy investigation , and PwC seems to be attempting the same to avoid any connection to the Australian tax scandal involving a number of Australian partners.  The revelation that the newly appointed CEO Kevin Burrowes received undisclosed payments from PwC International further complicates the effort.

 

 In the course of the media's investigation into PwC's tax scandal the ABC's Investigation Unit discovered that PwC and a number of its partners had acquired IPO shares in Top Education Group Ltd, an Australian company that was sought and was listed on the HKEX. Top was listed in early 2018, in what appears to have been a ramp and dump of the type known to attract the attention of Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). 

 

Top Group's listing was made possible only as a result of the company being granted what remains the first and only license to grant law degrees. The license was granted by the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board, at  a point which coincided with donations from that company, and its then owner, Zhu Minshen, to the NSW Liberal Party. Zhu Minshen has since passed away, but in 2016, just two years prior to the IPO, and 3 years before his license to grant law degrees was renewed, Zhu's role in influence peddling on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party was given a very public airing.

The chairman of the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board at all relevant times was the then Chief Justice Of NSW, Tom Bathurst AC KC, who has been recently appointed by Kevin Brookes to oversee his review of PwC's processes, which is supposed to address  the  failings in governance that led to the tax scandal.

 

The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act   has broad application . PwC's attempts to distance itself from the tax scandal of its Australian operations do not appear to working, and the Top Group affair, condemned by Australia's Minister For Education Jason Clare involves  Australian public officials at very many levels of government.

END

PwC may have a FCPA problem - The Communist Party China linked Top Group investment by PwC Australia and its partners can have consequences under US law

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

FCPA

Like many other of the Big 4 accounting firms PwC which has its headquarters in the United States, structures itself in a way  that allows the firm to claim worldwide reach, but where national firms can claim to be independent of each other. KPMG tried that during the 1MDB  kleptocracy investigation , and PwC seems to be attempting the same to avoid any connection to the Australian tax scandal involving a number of Australian partners.  The revelation that the newly appointed CEO Kevin Burrowes received undisclosed payments from PwC International further complicates the effort.

 

 In the course of the media's investigation into PwC's tax scandal the ABC's Investigation Unit discovered that PwC and a number of its partners had acquired IPO shares in Top Education Group Ltd, an Australian company that was sought and was listed on the HKEX. Top was listed in early 2018, in what appears to have been a ramp and dump of the type known to attract the attention of Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). 

 

Top Group's listing was made possible only as a result of the company being granted what remains the first and only license to grant law degrees. The license was granted by the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board, at  a point which coincided with donations from that company, and its then owner, Zhu Minshen, to the NSW Liberal Party. Zhu Minshen has since passed away, but in 2016, just two years prior to the IPO, and 3 years before his license to grant law degrees was renewed, Zhu's role in influence peddling on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party was given a very public airing.

The chairman of the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board at all relevant times was the then Chief Justice Of NSW, Tom Bathurst AC KC, who has been recently appointed by Kevin Brookes to oversee his review of PwC's processes, which is supposed to address  the  failings in governance that led to the tax scandal.

 

The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act   has broad application . PwC's attempts to distance itself from the tax scandal of its Australian operations do not appear to working, and the Top Group affair, condemned by Australia's Minister For Education Jason Clare involves  Australian public officials at very many levels of government.

END

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.

 

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

 

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