Najib's SRC trial: AmBank manager R. Uma Devi is not the only source of evidence;other more important bits of evidence appear to have been ignored.

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Ambank manager Uma Devi (left), who testified at the trial of Najib Razak. There seems to be an unhealthy reliance on her testimony.

The Straits Times and others have reported today:

 A sum of RM1.9 billion (S$626 million) was credited into one of Malaysia's former premier Najib Razak's private bank accounts between 2011 and 2013, the High Court heard on Monday (April 29).

Part of the money was purportedly a donation from one "Prince Faisal al Turki" and the Finance Ministry of Saudi Arabia.

This was confirmed by AmBank manager R. Uma Devi during cross-examination by Najib's counsel Harvinderjit Singh.

Meanwhile, this writer had, in 2015,  analysed bank remittance documents placed in the public domain by WSJ  which suggested that the remittance into Najib's account was not a donation. This writer and others had expected, in 2015, that a change of government would allow investigation  of the details disclosed in the documents but that appears not to have been done.Had it been done, the prosecution would not have to rely solely on Ms Uma Devi's testimony about Najib's bank statements.
That would be no need to allegedly purport anything.
END

Thursday, August 6, 2015

On the matter of the US$ 681 million donation to Prime Minister Najib Razak: Sender did not describe payment as a donation

by Ganesh Sahathevan
The Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has said that  someone has sent him a donation of US$ 681 million, via Wells Fargo Bank of New York, using a BVI company (since liquidated) called Tanore Finance. That company was a client of Falcon Private Bank Of Singapore, which was the ordering institution for that wire transfer.

The Wall Street Journal which broke the story of that massive "donation" has placed on-line the relevant documents.

Readers are referred to pages 2 and 3 of the documents,and to the items marked70-Remittance Information.
Curiously the transfers  (the sum total was paid in two amounts)  are  described as  "Payment" and not " Donation".
This is not a matter of mere semantics.In these days of heightened controls on the transfer of funds, given the fear of terrorist financing, descriptions are important , even for very small sums. In this case where that large amount of money was being transferred to an individual the description becomes even more important.


Readers may also be interested in item 71A Details o Charges
 "SHA" means charges are shared and it is again curious that such a generous donor would want the recipient to share in the charges for the transfer.

Will the Bar Council ‘s proposed CBC be offered in collaboration with Australia's College Of Law’,and based on its flawed PLT?-New at Realpolitikasia

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The Malaysian legal system counts amongst its

elders the likes of Tan Sri Ahmad Ibrahim.It 

was very much tied to the UK system from the

1800s to well after Independence.Nevertheless.

Australia's College Of Law claims it identified

and cured "gaps" in Malaysian legal practice.

First see

Circular No 147/2017

Dated 11 July 2017

To Members of the Malaysian Bar

Providing Assistance to The College of Law, Australia | Development of Localised Master f Laws Programme
The Bar Council Malaysia has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with The College of
Law, Australia and New Zealand in order to create further legal education and training platforms
for the benefit of Members of the Bar.

Apparently, not many members of the Malaysian Bar are even aware that this MOU exists.

The Bar Council has recused to answer any questions about the MOU or anything to do with the College Of Law:

“The Malaysian Bar believes that the emphasis of the CBC should not be primarily on examinations. 

“Rather, the CBC(Common Bar Course) should be outcome-driven and focus on, amongst others, the development of critical skills, including those relating to advocacy, legal procedure in civil as well as criminal matters, arbitration and mediation, negotiation, and managing the operations of a law firm,” said (former Bar Council President George)  Varughese:

The sentiment is good, but as explained in this article by this writer, the College of Law's basic Professional Legal Training (PLT) course has significant weaknesses that go back to at least 2006.These weaknesses remain given poor enforcement by the entity in charge of overseeing the College, the Attorney General of NSW, currently  Mark Speakman SC:

Bar Council Malaysia & College Of Law Australia on-line Masters students not protected: College does not have real presence in Malaysia,and Australian regulators including the Attorney General NSW will act to protect it from complaints made in Australia

The Bar Council's insistence on a collaboration with the College Of Law  in offering practical training courses is difficult to understand. Any number of online course providers, including some in Malaysia, have more advanced on-line tutorial systems that can be readily adapted to local requirements. Most are larger and better funded. 

END 

The Bar Council -College Of Law LLM: No physical presence raises tax, MIDA issues; Australia's Lawyers Weekly 2006 story raised issues about lack of reality in the College's basic PLT.

by Ganesh Sahathevan


As previously reported the College Of Law's lack of a physical presence in Malaysia leaves Malaysian customers of the College's "practical LLM" exposed to a number of financial risks.

That the College have a physical presence in Malaysia via a locally incorporated company seems to be a requirement of the Malaysian Industrial Development Authority (MIDA) but as reported,it only has a virtual presence. MIDA does not appear to have any provision for offering courses in Malaysia on-line from a foreign base, in collaboration with a local party, in this case the Bar Council Malaysia.

The foreign base also raises tax issues;there are questions about who exactly will pay the income taxes on the revenue generated from this practical LLM venture. All this must be novel to the Bar Council which has not, to date, been a provider of degree courses.


The College Of Law Asia Pacific's Director Peter Tritt has maintained his silence. Others involved in the course include College Of Law CEO Neville Carter, Head Of PLT OnLine Anthony Jackson and the Members Of The Academic Board led by Lewis Patrick.

Meanwhile, as readers can see from the story below, even the basic PLT course had to be trimmed to a bare minimum in order for it to fit into the on-line format.

The following excerpt from the 2006 story below from Lawyers Weekly quotes then director of program development at the College of Law, Katherine Mulcahy:

The college completely redesigned to a web-based program. Sometimes things take people longer to do online, so we tried to simplify tasks,says Mulcahy. We wanted to retain the very practical nature of the training but tried to strip out all but the key steps.

One does expect the Practical Masters tobe a much more complex course. How the online system, which is not reliable even within Sydney, is going to cope catering to students from Malaysia is difficult to understand but we do hope that Mr Tritt and his colleagues will provide us answers.
END

Degrees of Practicality To differentiate themselves, practical legal training providers are focusing on theoretical catchphrases. But with training competencies now standardised, students can get a more uniform qualification than ever before. Deborah Hodgson reports Online and practical may sound like a contradiction in terms, but online practical legal training has been one of the most dramatic developments in training graduates for admission in the last decade. Online training is still a minor option for some providers, and even online students must turn up for on-campus intensive training. But as location becomes less than top priority for students choosing a practical legal training (PLT) institution, more and more competition has providers grappling with the challenge of making the classroom experience as hands on as they can, without actually putting the student in the hot seat of the law firm itself. Making it as practical as possible is the big challenge, says Katherine Mulcahy, director of program development at the College of Law, where the majority of students study online. The whole idea for the last 25 years of PLT was to simulate what happened at the workplace.Students typically followed the instructions of clients all the way through to the end of a file, interacting with other students on the other side of the matter. When the early version of online learning came in the form of CD Rom, The College of Law took the face-to-face course and simply replicated it online  students still competed against each other, albeit by email. But by 2002 the College had become aware of difficulties with the technique. The students, as students will do, sometimes got frustrated with each other, waiting on tasks that the other hadn't performed on time. It's difficult to control that in the online environment, says Mulcahy. And the sheer quantity of work for lecturers and students made it untenable. The college completely redesigned to a web-based program. Sometimes things take people longer to do online, so we tried to simplify tasks,says Mulcahy. We wanted to retain the very practical nature of the training but tried to strip out all but the key steps. Simpler is not always better The Melbourne-based Leo Cussen Institute has gone the other way, focusing more on detailed classroom-based training rather than online simplified tasks. The Institute follows the traditional interactive method, which it calls the transactional mode. Students are required to complete 31 weeks of class-based training, compared to the College's 15 weeks, and only 3 weeks of professional placement, as opposed to the College's 15. We find that works very well, says Elizabeth Loftus, executive director of Leo Cussen. We have 31 weeks on campus so we can incorporate more content. Ours is a method of constant assessment, of students running their hypothetical firm, applying their learning in a practical context under supervision. The shorter courses perhaps dont have the luxury of doing the transactional work. Time is against them. Teaching daily reflection The ANUs Legal Workshop favours the reflective practitioner� approach, developed from the teachings of the instructional theorist Donald Schon, who popularised artistry as opposed to technical knowledge in developing professional excellence. We try and duplicate the manner in which students will learn to reflect daily on how successfully they are using legal skills, how ethically they are operating, and how effectively they are getting services to clients, says Tony Foley, associate director of the Workshop. We sum it up in the phrase, better to be a guide on the side, not the sage on a stage. Legal Workshop's professional placement (a wide range of options from 20 to 80 days) is conducted parallel to an online program, where students participate in a group discussion on ethics, time management and other issues coming out of the practice experience.  Our students really like the opportunity to talk online about things that are happening in their placement, says Foley.  think the market is well served by providers that have different emphases. Other providers offer variations on the instructional theory theme. But the actual skills lawyers-to-be will graduate with should be more similar than ever. Since 2002, all PLT providers must comply with competency standards. That ensures students have lawyerly skills like problem solving and business management as well as experience in core practice areas like civil litigation and commercial law. Fashionable specialisations not always employable What students want their studies to concentrate on changes with fashion. Students often say they want to study intellectual property, or see commercial law as the preferred focus of their course. But providers try not to let that, or the preferences of law firms, affect the subjects they teach. You can't. Students might have wanted to study human rights, but the availability of jobs in that area is very limited. We have a broader obligation to the students, to get a wider range of training,says Leo Cussen's Loftus. Indeed, with the competition for clients, today�s students have growing needs for training in more than the law. �In the future they�ll need to master, in a more methodical sense, skills like management, marketing, customer service and internal communication skills,� says Loftus. �There would still be a question mark over at what point in their career they would want to tackle those skills, as they do require actually being in the practice to some extent. But in future we would at least expose them to the students during PLT.� Internship system probably a �bureaucratic nightmare� Students can be hard to please. �An internship programme run by the universities would be far more �practical�,� says one young lawyer to be in the middle of his training. But the providers are used to hearing that. �No doubt some top quality training takes place on the job in law firms,� says The College of Law�s Mulcahy. �But that can vary considerably. It�s very difficult to assure the quality of training if it is taking place in diverse workplaces.� Students can be exploited as extra labour without any emphasis on training. And, as training providers found in the United Kingdom, where students completed professional placement over two full years, the necessary systems of approval and records can prove an expensive bureaucratic nightmare for employers. �If the system is difficult for employers to administer, it won�t do. Already in Australia, Victoria in particular, there is a shortage of employers willing to take placements,� says Mulcahy. �Like any course, you will always get students saying they didn�t learn anything. But in the end, we�re preparing people for the beginning of their career. They will hopefully continue to learn.� What students get out of PLT is not all tangible either. Part of the time at training is necessary, says Leo Cussen�s Loftus, to gain perspective on the world the student is about to enter. �I would advise students during their time here to, above all, be observant. Look around you at what�s happening around you in the world. �You can�t operate with your client in a vacuum; you need to know their industry.� If PLT can offer the chance to cement that habit, so much the better. 25 May 2006

REPOST: The 1977 case of Datuk Harun Idris-Useful reference for current times

Malayan Law Journal Reports/1977/Volume 2/DATUK HAJI HARUN BIN HAJI IDRIS v PUBLICPROSECUTOR - [1977] 2 MLJ 155 - 10 June 1977

25 pages[1977] 2 MLJ 155

DATUK HAJI HARUN BIN HAJI IDRIS v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

FC KUALA LUMPURSUFFIAN LP, ALI HAMAN AND WAN SULEIMAN FJJFEDERAL COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 19 OF 197621-25, 28-31 MARCH 1977, 1-4, 6 APRIL 1977, 10 June 1977

Criminal Law and Procedure -- Transfer of case from subordinate court to High Court on certificate of Attorney-General -- Whether legal -- Whether section 418A Criminal Procedure Code ultra vires the Constitution -- Corruption -- Admission of statement to police -- Evidence of other possible offences, wrongly admitted -- Evidence of system -- Evidence Act, 1950, ss 15, 24, 29, 54 -- Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6), ss 138, 177, 417 and 418A -- Fedederal Constitution, Articles 4(1) and 8 Bribery and Corruption -- Whether accused solicited gratification -- Whether gratification was solicited corruptly -- Gratification solicited as inducement to obtain approval of application for State land -- Whether accused solicited and accepted money corruptly -- Whether accused "agent" -- Prevention of Corruption Act,1961, ss 3, 4 and 9 Constitutional Law -- Legislation giving discretion to Attorney-General to issue certificate for transfer of case from subordinate court to High Court -- Whether contrary to Federal Constitution -- Right to Equality -- Federal Constitution Articles 4(1) and 8.

This was an appeal from the decision of Raja Azlan Shah FJ. ( [1977] 1 MLJ 15).The appellant had beenconvicted on three charges of corruption, in that he as Mentri Besar of Selangor (a) solicited the sum of$250,000 for U.M.N.O. as an inducement to obtain the approval of the Executive Council in respect of anapplication for a piece of State land; (b) being a member of a public body accepted for U.M.N.O. the sum of$25,000 as inducement to obtain such approval and (c) accepted for U.M.N.O. the sum of $225,000 as aninducement to obtain such approval.The learned trial judge sentenced the appellant to one year's imprisonment in respect of the first charge and2 years' imprisonment in respect of each of the second and third charges, all the sentences to runconcurrently. He also ordered payment of the sum of $225,000 to U.M.N.O.Selangor. The appellantappealed.On appeal it was argued (a) that section 418A of the Criminal Procedure Code (under the provisions of whichthe case of the appellant had been transferred from the subordinate court to the High Court for trial) wasinconsistent with Article 8 and therefore unconstitutional and void by virtue of Article 4; (b) that the verdictwas not supported by such evidence as was admissible.

Held:

(1) section 418A of the Criminal Procedure Code is not discriminatory, as although it uses thewords "any particular case" it does not apply specifically to the particular case against theaccused. The section applies to all criminal cases triable in a subordinate court;(2) a preliminary inquiry is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution; if the accusedhad been tried in the Sessions Court he would not have had the use of depositions before trial;Page 1

and at the trial in the High Court he also enjoyed the chance of not being called upon for hisdefence at the close of the case for the prosecution. By being tried in the High Court he did notrun the risk of greater penalty, for if he had been tried in the Sessions Court he would havebeen liable to the full penalty prescribed by law. In any event the trial in the High Court followedthe same rules of procedure and evidence as would have been followed in the Sessions Courtand so there was no question of the accused being denied a fair and impartial trial. Theaccused also had a right of appeal and a provision for appeal, it has been held in the Indiancases, may cure any defect in the law;(3) even if (contrary to the view of the court) the law may be regarded as discriminatory, there wasreasonable classification in it, there was a nexus between it and the object of the law and therewas a principle or policy in it to guide the Attorney-General in the exercise of his discretionunder section 418A. The Attorney-General when acting under the section 418A will beexpected to transfer to the High Court only cases of unusual difficulty or of unusual importance.Sections 417 and 418A of the Criminal Procedure Code are vehicles for the Attorney-Generalto exercise his power under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and it is for him to judgewhich case is difficult or important enough to be given an early trial after a transfer to the HighCourt under section 418A;(4) it is obvious that the scheme of the amendments to sections 138, 417 and 418A is to expediatetrials, and there is an obvious classification, a classification clearly connected with theunderlying principle of administration of justice that an alleged criminal should be placed on trialas soon as possible after the commission of the crime as the circumstances of the case wouldpermit and this classification cannot be regarded as unreasonable and not having a nexus withthe object of the amendments, namely speedy trial;(5) the statement made by the appellant to the officer of the National Bureau of Investigation wasadmissible by virtue of section 15(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961 , and also byvirtue of section 29 of the Evidence Act which provides that if a confession is otherwiseadmissible, that is, if the court is satisfied that it is made voluntarily, it does not becomeinadmissible simply because it was made in answer to questions which he need not haveanswered whatever may have been the form of those questions;(6) evidence relating to cheques paid by the appellant out of the U.M.N.O. Special Fund to hispersonal account was wrongly admitted and should not have been used to discredit theaccused, but in this case there was, apart from that evidence, enough evidence to support thefinding of guilt;(7) evidence of the receipt of other donations received by the appellant was rightly admitted inevidence to rebut the defence that a voluntary and honest donation had been given in thiscase;(8) there was enough evidence to support the conviction as the evidence showed that theappellant did solicit the $250,000 corrupty from the bank as an inducement for the ExecutiveCouncil to approve the bank's application and that he did accept the two sums corruptly;

1977 2 MLJ 155 at 156 

(9) in the circumstances of the case the appellant was an agent within the meaning of section 4(a)of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was correctly charged on the alternative charges.However in the circumstances it would not be proper or expedient to order the appellant to beconvicted under that section also;(10) the penalty ordered by the learned trial judge should have been ordered to be paid to theFederal Government.

REPOST:Hint of kick-backs in Malaysian Sukhoi jet deal courtesy Rosoboronexport's Deputy General Director Sergei Chemezov

Hint of kick-backs in Malaysian Sukhoi jet deal courtesy Rosoboronexport's Deputy General Director Sergei Chemezov 

According to a TASS News Agency report:

Russia is expected to receive U.S. $900 million from the sale of 18 Sukhoi-30MKM fighter jets to Malaysia, under an agreement signed Tuesday within the framework of Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Kuala Lumpur, ITAR-TASS reported quoting Russia's state arms exporting agency Rosoboronexport's Deputy General Director Sergei Chemezov.
Malaysia will pay for the jets in cash, Chemezov said dismissing reports that part of the contract might be paid in kind.
"No palm oil, the entire sum will be paid in foreign exchange, that is U.S. dollars," Chemezov said.
Although Malaysian law envisages that a certain portion of cash received under such a contract is to be used for purchase of Malaysian-made goods, some unspecified Malaysian companies has proposed that the quota be given to them thus enabling Russia to receive the whole sum, Chemezov said.
"I hope the issue will be decided in a positive way," Chemezov said.
[Source:Russia to supply $900-mln worth fighter jets to Malaysia.
6 August 2003,06:43,Prime-TASS News (Russia)]

Other TASS News reports have stated that Russia will earn a profit of USD 900 million on the deal.

... contract for the delivery of 18 Russian-made Su-30MKM jet fighters to Malaysia was signed in the presence of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Malaysian Prime Minister Mohathir bin Mohamad in the city of Putrajaya on Tuesday. Russia will receive a net profit of 900 million dollars under the contract, according to first deputy director-general of Rosoboronexport arms trading company Sergei Chemezov.

(Source:Itar-Tass news digest of August 5 - 4. 6 August 2003
ITAR-TASS World Service

Posted 2nd October 2007 by Anonymous

Bar Council Malaysia & College Of Law Australia on-line Masters students not protected: College does not have real presence in Malaysia,and Australian regulators including the Attorney General NSW will act to protect it from complaints made in Australia

by Ganesh Sahathevan




Stephanie Booker, another (College Of Law )  PLT student, questioned whether ‘practical legal training’ is an accurate term. “[My course] certainly taught me where to look for things that I may need — rules, areas of law... As for helping me to apply these rules, there is a huge difference between the reality of my workplace and the comfort of my PLT course. For example, I find that the way I draft letters for [my course] is not acceptable in my workplace, and vice versa.”
(from  Malaysian Bar Council "menu" candidate Roger Chan continues to stonewall queries about his promotion of an Australian "Practical Masters", despite obvious problems)


The mystery surrounding the  Bar Council & College Of Law Australia's Master of Laws (Applied Law) in Malaysian Legal Practice grows.The link  at the course website

https://www.collaw.com/about/our-partners/bar-council-malaysia  for the  course no longer works.Readers can see for themselves by clicking the links The Master of Laws (Applied Law) in Malaysian Legal Practice " and "Find out more about our Malaysian LLM programme" located in this paragraph:

MASTER OF LAWS (APPLIED LAW) IN MALAYSIAN LEGAL PRACTICE

The Master of Laws (Applied Law) in Malaysian Legal Practice is designed to meet the needs of the Malaysian legal profession for higher level, practice-based skills acquisition across a range of specialised practice areas. It has been developed by The College of Law in collaboration with Bar Council Malaysia. Find out more about our Malaysian LLM programme.

Consequently it is hard to say if YA Daryl Goon still endorses the course,which does not appear to have the approval of the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (see story below).

Meanwhile, a new website has emerged at this link:
https://www.collaw.com/learnwithus/our-programs/postgraduate-applied-law-programmes/llm-malaysia

A course handbook can be downloaded at the link Download the Malaysian LLM Handbook. YA Goon's name is no longer  listed among the experts who have contributed to the course.

All of the above raises the question:Who can Malaysian lawyers sue if they are not happy with the course? Fees are estimated to be around RM 10,000 per subject,so this will not be a cheap exercise.Total cost are likely to be in RM80,000-RM 100,000 range.

Course delivery is entirely on-line, and this writer can tell from personal experience that the College's IT systems are prone to failure. Complaints are not welcome and in this writer's experience are regarded as a form of harassment,threat and intimidation.

The College is supervised by the Legal Profession Admission Board  (LPAB) which ultimately reports to the Attorney General New South Wales, Mark Speakman SC.

This writer's investigation into the College's business which was prompted by his own experience with poor teaching and infrastructure in the College's local on-line Professional Legal Training program which is compulsory for all lawyers seeking admission in New South Wales,has met with a hostile reception from the LPAB and Speakman. 

The investigation into the business of the College as it expands into Malaysia has been met with official findings of misconduct, in this writer's  work as a journalist.

The LPAB and AG's findings of misconduct include a finding that this writer's referral of queries to then  Attorney General Malaysia  with regards its business in Malaysia are  grounds for a finding that this writer is not fit and proper for admission to practice. 

They have also placed reliance on this story from  RPK's Malaysia-Today, as proof that this writer has been involved in criminal activity,and that too under a USD 1 Million contract with current PM Tun Mahathir:

Ganesh Sahathevan, RPK, Clare Brown, Ginny Stein And The Blood Money Trail

The College's basic Practical Legal Training course from which its teaching methods for all its other courses are derived, has been found to be not very useful in practice, as reported in the Australian industry paper Lawyers Weekly in 2006. The College's PLT includes work experience at  a law firm,after which students are required to submit a journal of their work experience and explain how what was learnt at  the College was applied at work. This writer's report that the College's lessons were of no use at work was rejected and in correspondence with this writer the College's  Chair  Of Academic Studies, Lewis Patrick  said:

Please note that in assessing your work experience journal the College is not assessing the quality of your work experience, but rather the quality of your reflections on that experience. 

Malaysian lawyers can determine for themselves if this is the standard by which they would like their practical experience to be judged,in a course with the emphasis on the practical.

In Kuala Lumpur the College operates out of a virtual office and all queries sent the College Of Law Asia (or College Of Law Asia Pacific) Director Peter Tritt,  have been ignored.

The queries included claims by the College that it had in 1985 or thereabouts, under contract with the MARA Law School, produced the inaugural Legal Practice Handbook with instructional details, materials and resources for Malaysian law and practice. A query was sent the Registrar Federal Court Malaysia, requesting a copy.The  Registrar has responded via her Chief Librarian who says:

Please be informed on the revision of the Web OPAC System in Palace of Justice Library, the material is not in our collection.

I have also referred to the librarians network at 12 Law Libraries in Malaysia as well as the National Library of Malaysia. However, it is regretted that the material is not in their possession.

The issues above add to the normal  issues of cost and inconvenience of suing is foreign jurisdiction. Unsatisfied College customers from Malaysia would be obviously better off suing the College in Malaysia, but as mentioned above, they will find nothing to which they can attach judgement.

It is up to the Bar Council Malaysia and the Minister For Education to insist that the College have a physical presence in Malaysia, just like all other Australian colleges and universities offering courses in Malaysia. Their physical presence in Malaysia provides provides a limited assurance that they will provide what they promise.

Additionally,as reported on this blog the tertiary education standards regulatory board,TEQSA, cannot be relied on to ensure standards are maintained: 

Australia's education sector putting money ahead of standards :The trend continues, aided and abetted by TEQSA

END 

Saturday, Augus8, 2018

YA Daryl Goon , the Malaysian Applied Law LLM ,and YAA Richard Malanjum

by Ganesh Sahathevan

MASTER OF LAWS (APPLIED LAW) IN MALAYSIAN LEGAL PRACTICE

This writer has spent much time this week, and the last praying that the newly appointed Yang Ariff Daryl Goon might condescend to explain why he has has endorsed something called the Master of Laws (Applied Law) in Malaysian Legal Practice.

Goon has been asked to explain given the fact that this LLM (and indeed no others) have been approved by the Legal Profession Qualifying Board..

The Malaysian Bar Council seems to have played some part in promoting the course (see below) but its President and Secretary have refused numerous requests  for information about what

approvals if any the Malaysian Bar Council had obtained to promote the course in Malaysia.

The course website , hosted by the private college in Australia that manages the course (with a faculty of one person) shows prominently the Bar Council's logo. YA Daryl Goon is listed among its advisers. 

The private college also claims that it produced in 1985-86 the first group of "elite" law graduates from MARA who were admitted to practice in Malaysia. This does come as a bit of surprise to this writer and others like him who know and know of Malaysian lawyers who graduated from MARA in the 1970s. In the latter category (for I do not know him personally) is the current Chief Justice , YAA Tan Sri Richard Malanjum, who graduated in 1973.

One hopes that the newly minted YA will at least  have an explanation for his YAA. 

END

The questions (see below) remain despite this promotion by the Bar Council Malaysia:

e

Circular No 147/2017

Dated 11 July 2017n 

To Members of the Malaysian Bar

Providing Assistance to The College of Law, Australia | Development of Localised Master

of Laws Programme

The Bar Council Malaysia has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with The College of

Law, Australia and New Zealand in order to create further legal education and training platforms

for the benefit of Members of the Bar.

In this regard, The College of Law is interested to localise the content of its existing Australian

Master of Laws (“LLM”) in Applied Law programme for Malaysia, and is interested in working

with Members of the Bar who have relevant legal research and writing, and practical legal

experience. This is to be carried out on a project basis, and the Members will be remunerated.

The first six subjects in this new LLM programme are near completion and will be offered in

September 2017 as part of a new LLM (Applied Law) with a major in Malaysian Legal Practice.

The next 11 LLM subjects that The College of Law is interested in localising are listed below:

(1)

Advocacy;

(2)

Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice;

(3)

Arbitration.

(4)

Banking and Finance;

(5)

Family Law Practice;

(6)

Intellectual Property Practice;

(7)

Islamic Banking and Finance;

(8)

Mediation;

(9)

Mergers and Acquisitions Practice;

(10) Negotiation; and

(11) Wills, Estates and Trusts.

If you are interested in pursuing this opportunity, please send your expression of interest together

with your detailed resume and any queries, directly to:

Peter Tritt

Director | Asia-Pacific

The College of Law Australia and New Zealand

Level 23, Nu Tower 2

Jalan Tun Sambanthan,

50470 Kuala Lumpur

Email: ptritt@collaw.edu.au

Mobile: +6013 305 7660

Thank you.

Roger Chan Weng Keng

Secretary

Malaysian Bar

Westfarmers looked to the DAP for support and then ran to Mahathir-story in the SMH, 13 April 2019

by Ganesh Sahathevan


But first, as previously reported on this blog:

Wesfarmer's Lynas takeover: Betting on Mahathir's demise, and a Anwar Ibrahim-Najib Razak Lynas friendly government.

Wesfarmer's Lynas takeover: Anwar Ibrahim shows his hand

And now, turning to the story in the Sydney Morning Herald by Colin Kruger and Elizabeth Kinght:

While the Sydney Morning Herald does not quite put it that way, this excerpt from the story below published this morning says a lot:

By that time, the Wesfarmers delegation were knee-deep in meetings.

They had been meeting officials and ministers from two of the ministries relevant to the future of Lynas in Malaysia - the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) and the Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology and the Environment ( whose ministers in charge are from the DAP).

Their presence had caught Mahathir's attention, which should not have been an unexpected development for the company.

Mahathir had led Malaysia's strong campaign for foreign investment. Wesfarmers is a $39 billion conglomerate with a mandate to invest around $10 billion after the Coles spin-off.

It was an opportunity the PM was never going to ignore, but the relatively low-level delegation clearly needed more firepower for such a high-level meeting. Scott dropped everything and flew to Kuala Lumpur on Thursday to meet with Mahathir, before turning around and flying out that evening.

Only the parties involved know exactly what was discussed in the meeting, but you can imagine the shock when Mahathir stepped out of the cabinet meeting on Friday evening and dropped a bomb with his grand new plan to reconcile the disparate interests of his coalition partners.

“We have opened up the business to other people, and there are other companies willing to acquire Lynas,” he said. “They have given us a promise that in the future, before sending the raw materials to Malaysia, they will clean it up first. They will crack it and decontaminate it in some way with regard to radioactivity.”

His comments were widely interpreted as suggesting Wesfarmers had cut a deal with the Malaysian PM over a company it did not own a single share of.  

l

Again, one must ask, was DFAT's anti-Mahathir pro Anwar stance to blame?

It has been noted on this blog that DFAT has made little effort to hide its preference:

Assisted by DFAT,Australian lawyers take aim at Mahathir,while seeking new markets in Malaysia

Australia attacks Mahathir, backs Anwar for PM: Australian interference in Malaysian elections discovered by former IGP Rahim Noor in 1994

END 

Reference

'Innocents abroad': How Wesfarmers put its reputation on the line in Malaysiafree articles remaining

By Colin Kruger and Elizabeth Knight

April 13, 2019 — 12.00am

Amanda Lacaze, the chief executive of rare earths group Lynas Corp, would have had a lot on her plate as she sank into her seat at the pointy end of Malaysian Airlines flight MH122 from Sydney to Kuala Lumpur on Sunday, March 31.

It's been a crazy week for Lynas and Wesfarmers.CREDIT:

It had been a crazy week. Plans to take her elderly mother to hospital procedure for a bone biopsy that Tuesday morning had been upended by a surprise $1.5 billion conditional takeover offer from Perth-based conglomerate Wesfarmers.

It was the latest chapter in a book of failed negotiations, dating back eight months, revolving around Lynas’ big problem in Malaysia: the new government ruled by the oldest world leader, 93-year-old Mahathir Mohamad, was not enamoured of Lynas’ controversial operations in the country.

Lynas chief executive Amanda Lacaze. CREDIT:PETER BRAIG

Advertisement

Malaysia craves the new-economy aura that relies on the rare earths processed by Lynas - electric cars, smart phones and wind turbines - but is less keen on the perceived environmental cost.

The controversial $1 billion Lynas rare earths processing operations in the country had already produced hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste with low-level radioactive residue, and it was a growing concern to some members of the Mahathir government and a vocal band of locals.

RELATED ARTICLE

RARE EARTHS

The Lynas takeover circus moves to Malaysia

Add to shortlist

Last December, this resulted in a condition being put on Lynas' licence requiring it to export all 450,000 tonnes of existing radioactive waste, creating an existential crisis for the company Lacaze had spent years dragging out of a financial, and operational, black hole.

Opposing views expressed by his cabinet ministers on Lynas last week highlighted the delicate balancing act the veteran politician has had to manage on this very public issue.

No wonder then that the licensing issue was one of the conditions of the “indicative and highly conditional proposal” that Lynas rejected the day after Wesfarmers made it public.

Lacaze must have known that would not be the end of the matter.

A rare earths processor such as Lynas was the perfect target for Wesfarmers boss Rob Scott. He needed the right acquisition to signal the new direction he was taking the $39 billion industrial group after spinning off its supermarket operation, Coles.

Wesfarmers chief executive Rob Scott needed the right acquisition to signal the new direction he was taking the conglomerate.CREDIT:TREVOR COLLENS

So it was not just a bizarre coincidence that a team of Wesfarmers executives were walking past her seat ahead of the flight to Kuala Lumpur that autumn afternoon.

No doubt, the surprised group kept their newspapers high and voices low for the nine-hour flight, given Lacaze's hostile response to Wesfarmers in the wake of its bid.

“For a long period of time I worked at Telstra; I understand the arrogance of large companies,” was one of her verbal barbs at the unwelcome suitor.


“We had assurances from Wesfarmers that it was not in their DNA to do unfriendly and hostile takeovers, yet they took the action they did.”

She would have been doubly unimpressed that this team was joining another Wesfarmers group flying in from Perth to talk with Malaysian government officials about its interest in Lynas and the regulatory jungle engulfing the group. The visit was meant to be discreet and low key. That was the plan anyway.

According to Scott, it was entirely logical for Wesfarmers to visit Malaysia and see first hand the problems relating to the biggest condition on its indicative offer - the uncertainty of Lynas being able to operate beyond September, when its licence is up for renewal.

It is why Lynas and Wesfarmers started talks in August last year on a joint venture to process the rare earths ore it mines in Western Australia within the state and avoid the regulatory problems associated with processing in Malaysia. But Lynas called off those talks in November when Wesfarmers started looking at its would-be partner as a takeover target instead.


Lynas's reluctance to consider a bid at $2.25-a-share is understandable. While the offer was pitched at a 45 per cent premium to its share price the day before, the stock had been trading around $2.90 before the shock Malaysian election result last May reinstalled Mahathir as Prime Minister and triggered its regulatory woes.

But Scott insists Wesfarmers has been very open with Lynas about its intentions, including its plans to visit Malaysia.

"When we made the takeover public, we said to them that we intended to meet with the Malaysian government to, first of all, establish our credentials," Scott told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

"The reason for doing that was two-fold. Any potential transaction by a foreign company would ultimately require the Malay government to endorse the licence.

"Second, it was a strategically important asset in Malaysia and for us to announce a potential transaction without giving the courtesy of speaking to the government would have been considered quite poor form."

Issue comes to a head

But to its critics, Wesfarmers' grand strategy had “face-planted” before the team had stepped off the plane because they had no right to be there in the first place.

One thing both sides would probably agree on is that Wesfarmers could not have picked a worse week to quietly go about the business of probing the Malaysian government on the Lynas issue.

The spat between two ministers last week, about the onerous new conditions put on the Lynas licence last December, forced Mahathir to bring the issue to a head at a cabinet meeting last Friday.


"There may be differences in opinion, but what is determined by the cabinet is what is official,” he told reporters on Wednesday.

By that time, the Wesfarmers delegation were knee-deep in meetings.

They had been meeting officials and ministers from two of the ministries relevant to the future of Lynas in Malaysia - the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) and the Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology and the Environment.

Their presence had caught Mahathir's attention, which should not have been an unexpected development for the company.

Mahathir had led Malaysia's strong campaign for foreign investment. Wesfarmers is a $39 billion conglomerate with a mandate to invest around $10 billion after the Coles spin-off.

It was an opportunity the PM was never going to ignore, but the relatively low-level delegation clearly needed more firepower for such a high-level meeting. Scott dropped everything and flew to Kuala Lumpur on Thursday to meet with Mahathir, before turning around and flying out that evening.

Only the parties involved know exactly what was discussed in the meeting, but you can imagine the shock when Mahathir stepped out of the cabinet meeting on Friday evening and dropped a bomb with his grand new plan to reconcile the disparate interests of his coalition partners.

“We have opened up the business to other people, and there are other companies willing to acquire Lynas,” he said. “They have given us a promise that in the future, before sending the raw materials to Malaysia, they will clean it up first. They will crack it and decontaminate it in some way with regard to radioactivity.”

His comments were widely interpreted as suggesting Wesfarmers had cut a deal with the Malaysian PM over a company it did not own a single share of.

Wesfarmers has been on the back foot, defending its corporate reputation, ever since.

"We question the governance of companies that make undertakings to foreign governments about assets that they don't own,” says Matthew Ryland, a portfolio manager with one of Lynas’ biggest shareholders, Greencape Capital.

At the bottomline, this looks for me like a chapter of innocents abroad.

Ownership Matters' Dean Paatsch

Dean Paatsch, the influential head of corporate governance advice group Ownership Matters, says: "I think it is unethical. It may be legal but it’s not the way to do business."

No one is accusing Wesfarmers of anything illegal, but it's almost as bad. Wesfarmers, which is still licking the wounds from its disastrous attempt to expand its Bunnings Hardware chain into the UK- its only other international venture - has been accused of dreadful naivety and poor judgement.

“There is certainly hubris, there is misjudgment, there’s, I believe, unethical behaviour. But at the bottomline, this looks for me like a chapter of innocents abroad,” Paatsch says.

He sees the major issue as the fact that Wesfarmers did not even have a formal bid on the table, it merely had a highly conditional indicative offer.

“They can walk away tomorrow and be no better or worse off, that to me should give you pause for thought,” he says.

And Malaysians with a close-up view of the issue say Wesfarmers' interference has certainly had an impact.

Lee Tan, a former Australian Conservation Foundation activist who campaigned against the Lynas presence in her country, was in Malaysia during the pivotal week ahead of Mahathir's announcement. She says Wesfarmers' presence impacted on Lacaze's bargaining position with the government.

“She probably wouldn't have got away with the waste problem, but would have had a lot more negotiating power," says Lee, who is currently a research candidate at RMIT. "Right now, she has nothing.”

Scott, unsurprisingly, has a benign interpretation of Mahathir's comments.

"As is evident publicly, for many months there has been a very adversarial relationship between Lynas and the government. And the government was very, very frustrated. The community was putting pressure on government to take action and I think the PM’s comments reflected that," he says.

As for what was discussed, Scott says: "We were careful not to make any representations on behalf of Lynas but did explain to the government why we were interested in it ... because we like the sector and we want to keep investing in the business in Malaysia. And we made it clear we were attracted to maintaining the Malaysian operations. In our initial proposal that went public, we made a very strong statement to that effect. That seems to have been lost."

The good news is that Mahathir's comments opened up the tantalising possibility that the Lynas operation, whoever owned it, would be able to continue operating in Malaysia if it cleaned the raw material of any radioactive elements before shipping it to Malaysia.

The problem is, one week after his statement, even government officials could not say for sure what this meant for the conditions governing the renewal of Lynas’ licence, and if it did anything other than add yet another onerous condition to its survival.

Whatever the outcome of the government’s deliberations, and Wesfarmers’ interest in the company, the long-term damage for the latter could be significant.

In its first flirtation with an investment with significant overseas exposure since blowing more than $1 billion on the ill-fated Bunnings UK venture, its actions in recent weeks hardly instil confidence.

“It will give investors pause for thought if they’re taking on more sovereign risk,” Paatsch says, “when the observation is their first step off the plane in Malaysia has been a face-plant.”

And Wesfarmers may face other challenges if its bid for Lynas is ultimately successful - depending on what conclusions the Malaysian government has drawn from its interaction with the group.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Send via Email

License this article
WASTELYNAS CORPORATIONWESFARMERS

Colin Kruger

Email

Colin Kruger is a business reporter. He joined the Sydney Morning Herald in 1999 as its technology editor. Other roles have included the Herald's deputy business editor and online business editor.

Elizabeth Knight

TwitterEmail

Elizabeth Knight comments on companies, markets and the economy.