Trump's tariffs- Was Qantas decision to end its decades long relationship with Boeing in favour of Airbus an "act of a friend"?

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, a trade union and political operative who has never worked in anything outside of politics, has described Trump's tariffs "not the act of a friend". 

It is understood that Trump's tariffs are only the opening gambit in a rebalancing of US trade interests, and in that regard the question that Australians ought to be asking themselves is why  Qantas chose to end its decades long relationship with Boeing, and chose instead Airbus as its preferred supplier of aircraft.   As Modern Airliner reported:

This announcement will certainly hurt Boeing which is already reeling from challenges they have faced with the Boeing 737 MAX. QANTAS has been a customer of Boeing now since the 1950s, even at one point being the only airline in the world that had an all Boeing 747 fleet

Clearly the US would not consider  that the "act of a friend". 

TO BE READ WITH 

Airbus seals the deal to reinvigorate the QANTAS Fleet.

Modernairliner PostA320QANTAS

21 Dec

Written By Peter Doornbos

In an historic agreement between Australian flag carrier QANTAS and European aircraft maker Airbus, a new deal has been forged to reinvigorate the carrier's aging domestic and short-haul fleet. QANTAS has been a big supporter of the Boeing 737 for the last 30 years, flying models such as the 737-300/400/700 and of course the current workhorse, the 737-800. Competition between Boeing and Airbus for this lucrative deal was fierce with Boeing putting forward their 737 MAX as a logical upgrade option for the QANTAS Fleet.

1. 
   
2. 1. Now Playing
   2. 
   3. 
   4. 
   5. 
   6. 
   7. 
   8. 
   9. 
   10. 

x

Boeing's Quality Control Crisis: A Deep Dive into Recent Incidents

Watch on

Boeing's Quality Control Crisis: A Deep Dive into Recent Incidents

The Qantas Boeing 737-800 has been the trusty workhorse of the domestic and short-haul QANTAS fleet for many years now.

With the average age of the QANTAS fleet of 737-800s being 13 years, it was time to update to more economical and eco-friendly modern airliners. Of course, when you're going shopping it is best to go hard or go home. The QANTAS team took this rationale on board as they dangled a large order in front of both Boeing and Airbus. Not only was the QANTAS fleet of Boeing 737s up for replacement, but they also brought into the deal a requirement to replace aircraft in their subsidiary operators, QANTASLink and Jetstar.

So what have QANTAS and Airbus agreed to for the updated QANTAS Fleet?

The deal that QANTAS and Airbus have agreed to is the largest single aircraft order in Australian aviation history and will be fulfilled over the next decade. So what is the deal exactly?

The Airbus A220-300 is the larger of the two variants of this type, the other being the Airbus A220-100. The A220 was originally designed and built by Bombardier of Canada and is finding great traction in the regional and short-haul market.

The 737-800 workhorse will be replaced by the Airbus A321XLR which is the largest member of the A320 family as well as the longest range. XLR stands for EXtra Long Range. The Airbus will carry 15% more passengers than the 737 it replaces. The other part of the order involves replacing the aging Boeing 717s operated by QANTASLink. QANTASLink is one of three airlines left in the world that still operate the 717. These aircraft will be replaced by the Airbus A220-300, the larger of the two variants of the type.

• Committed to buying 20 Airbus A321XLRs to replace the current Boeing 737-800s.

• Committed to buying 20 Airbus A220-300s to replace the current Boeing 717s.

• Further options for 94 more aircraft.

• The selected engines are Pratt and Whitney.

QANTASLink is one of three carriers that still operate the Boeing 717. This derivative of the original Douglas DC9 has been a popular regional and short-haul aircraft.

This announcement will certainly hurt Boeing which is already reeling from challenges they have faced with the Boeing 737 MAX. QANTAS has been a customer of Boeing now since the 1950s, even at one point being the only airline in the world that had an all Boeing 747 fleet. The change will mean that the Boeing 787 will be the only aircraft in the QANTAS fleet from Boeing. That was the result of a fiercely contested race between Boeing with the 787 and Airbus with the A350 back in 2005.

Maps of Kuala Lumpur from the 1895, 1914 suggest that Sultan Of Selangor's holdings of real estate in and around Kuala Lumpur could be very extensive even if fragmented , but still worth very many billions

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

As reported:

DBKL and Jakel may well be dealing illegally with property that belongs to the Sultan Of Selangor

As explained:

There are likely to be very many parcels of land strewn throughout the Federal Territory, and in the Kuala Lumpur business districts that were never registered, or that are being used as places of worship, nature reserves and the like that have existed as such well before the Federal Territory was formed, or perhaps, like the Dewi Pathra Kaliamman Temple, well before independence in 1957. The Sultan Of Selangor is likely to be still the owner of those lands, thus preventing their sale or assignment to anyone for whatever purpose. 

In that regard the maps below from 1914 and 1895, which provide some evidence of the extent of unregistered land in and around Kuala Lumpur, suggest that the Sultan of Selangor's holdings of real property could be well be worth billions, even if fragmented. 

Readers are reminded that title to land in Kuala Lumpur (and the rest of the then FMS) is by registration, and the matter of the Dewi Pathra Kaliamman saga illustrates that the issue of who precisely holds title is not as straightforward as many assume.

Kuala Lumpur 1914

Kuala Lumpur 1895

Enlargements 

Maybank's Billion Ringgit loss in Australia the result of lending to PKFZ scandal linked Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy's son and daughter-in-law

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                                        Chan Kong Choy

As reported by The Edge:

Construction company Fajarbaru Builder Group Bhd (KL:FAJAR) has proposed to dispose of its 44.44% stake in an Australian property development company in a related party transaction.

The 44.14% stake in BFB Project Pty Ltd is being sold to Mayfair International Investments Pty Ltd — which owns the remaining 55.56% stake — for A$4.2 million (RM12.11 million), Fajarbaru said in an exchange filing.

BFB director Chan Jiaheng is also the director and shareholder of Mayfair. The other shareholder of Mayfair is Teh En Yee.

Chan and Teh are the son and daughter-in-law of Fajarbaru executive chairman Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy.

After this came the billion ringgit loss on the husband and wife team's other project  (see story below).

TO BE READ WITH 

Tuesday, March 25, 2025

Maybank's Billion Ringgit Australian Melbourne STH BNK scandal has links to the PKFZ scandal - Maybank backed Chan Kong Choy against whom PKFZ linked charges were withdrawn, Chan is Fajarbaru's executive chairman , his son Jonathan founding director of Beulah (Australia)

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                         Former transport minister, Chan Kong Choy is now chairman of Fajarbaru. The PKFZ linked case against him was discontinued. 

                                             Kong Choy's son is a founding director of Beulah

Maybank's Billion Ringgit Australian scandal has links to the PKFZ scandal. As reported, Maybank is the  main backer of the failed Melbourne STH BNK project promoted by two children of well known KL Chinese business families. One of those families is that of former MCA Transport Minister Chan Kong Choy. While he is now executive chairman of Fajarbaru(which is promoting the project via Australian company Beulah), he was, in 2011 charged with cheating former Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi in matters related to the Port Klang Free Trade Zone (PKFZ). 

In 2014 the then Attorney General withdrew the charges,  prompting then Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang to write about  The tragedy and farce that is the PKFZ. Lim said, amongst other things: 

Today, former MCA deputy president and retired minister Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy joined the long list of former ministers who were spared incarceration when prosecutors dropped three cheating charges against him in connection with the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project.

The project was initially tagged at RM1.1 billion when it was first mooted in 1997, but more than quadrupled to RM4.6 billion by 2007. The final cost to taxpayers has been estimated at RM12.5 billion.

No one has yet been punished for the scandal.

An independent investigation of the PKFZ farce showed that the former MCA president was among a few who had committed serious breaches that had ballooned the project’s cost and led to billions of dollars in losses.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report in 2009 had singled out Chan, Madam O.C. Phang, the former general manager of the Port Klang Authority and board directors of the port agency for not carrying out their duties with adequate care.

Beulah's  founding director Jonathan Chan Jiaheng is Kong Choy's son.

TO BE READ WITH 

Thursday, March 20, 2025

Maybank chairman ZamZam and board are ultimately responsible for the Billion Ringgit Australian loss- Size of loans, lending outside Malaysia would have all required board approval

Sultans may surrender sovereignty, but retain ownership of their lands -Johor Royal Family retains extensive holdings in Singapore despite surrendering Johor to the British, likewise the Sultan Of Selangor and unregistered land in Kuala Lumpur

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                            Signing of the 1974 Kuala Lumpur Agreement by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (left) and Sultan of Selangor (middle)

Sultans may surrender sovereignty, but retain ownership of their lands. Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah of Selangor surrendered sovereignty over Kuala Lumpur , but it does not follow that he surrendered  ownership of his lands as well. . To illustrate, the Sultan Of Johor remans an owner of large tracts of land in Singapore, even after his predecessors surrendered sovereignty to Queen Victoria in 1819. While the matter of unregistered or "no man's land is different, Wu reminds us: 

Before the introduction of Torrens system to Malaysia, the rights over land allegedly belonged to the Sultans but the people were given the liberty to occupy and use it. Sir Benson Maxwell CJ in Sahrip v Mitchell & Anor summarised the legal position by stating that: It is well known that by the old Malay law or custom of Malacca, while the sovereign was the owner of the soil, every man had nevertheless the right to clear and occupy all forest and waste land, subject to the payment, to the sovereign, of one-tenth of the produce of the land so taken ... If he abandoned the paddy land or fruit trees for more than three years, his right ceased and the land reverted to the sovereign.

There are likely to be very many parcels of land strewn throughout the Federal Territory, and in the Kuala Lumpur business districts that were never registered, or that are being used as places of worship, nature reserves and the like that have existed as such well before the Federal Territory was formed, or perhaps, like the Dewi Pathra Kaliamman Temple, well before independence in 1957. The Sultan Of Selangor is likely to be still the owner of those lands, thus preventing their sale or assignment to anyone for whatever purpose. 

TO BE READ WITH 

Sunday, March 30, 2025

Dewi Sri Pathra Kaliamman Temple -A victory no doubt, but for whom: DBKL may not have any title or other interests to sell to Jakel,and DBKL and Jakel may well be dealing illegally with property that belongs to the Sultan Of Selangor

by Ganesh Sahathevan

           Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah Alhaj Ibni Almarhum Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Alhaj may well be the rightful owner of the temple land

                 Anwar Ibrahim says construction of Madani Mosque a ‘victory’ of wisdom and strength, but for whom

The Dewi Pathra Kaliamman temple is said to have been located on the site in question since 1893, when Kuala Lumpur was already a thriving, commercial settlement. 

There was already at that time, a system of (land) title by registration:.

 In the words of Richard Wu, Associate Professor Of Law , University Of Hong Kong:

 After the British occupation, common law and equity principles were introduced into the Federated Malay States ('FMS') as the new sources of land law, in addition to the local customary land tenure (Maidin, 2008). Moreover, the laws governing lands in these FMS were characterised by the Torrens system, instead of Islamic land law.13 This marked the beginning of a new regime of the registration of title law akin to the Torrens system in Australia on the basis of the Real Property Act 1857 of South Australia. The four states of Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang, which later became the Federated Malay States were the first to enact laws introducing Torrens title for use in a Malaysia setting (Sood and Tee, 2008). The registration of title system was first introduced in Perak by way of the General Land Regulations 1879; in Selangor by way of the General Land Regulations 1882, in Negeri Sembilan by way of the General Land Regulations 1887 and in Pahang by way of the General Land Regulations 1889 (Sood and Tee, 2008). By 1911, a unified Federated Malay States land enactment was passed. Currently, the main registration of title statute in Malaysia is the National Land Code ('NLC'). According to Suriyadi J in the case of Sime Bank Bhd v Mohd Hassan bin Sulaiman:14 the National Land Code 1965 was made effective from 1 January 1966 whereby thenceforth a uniform system of land tenure and dealing existed throughout Peninsular Malaysia. Penang and Malacca were also absorbed into the system by the promulgation of the National Land Code (Penang and Malacca Titles) 1963, effective also on 1 January 1966.

The Temple sits of prime land, which has almost always been prime land. It is likely to  have been alienated and registered a very long time ago, long before the DBKL came into existence in the 1970s, after the then Sultan Of Selangor , Sultan Abdul aziz Shah, surrendered Kuala Lumpur to the Federal Government in 1974.. There is therefore the likelihood that DBKL never had any title to the land, and never had anything with regards the land in question  that it could have sold to Jakel.

The fact that Kuala Lumpur was part of Selangor before it became Federal Territory also raises an intriguing  question as to whether the land could possibly still belong to the  Sultan Of Selangor, now Sultan Sarafuddin . Wu reminds us: 

 Before the introduction of Torrens system to Malaysia, the rights over land allegedly belonged to the Sultans but the people were given the liberty to occupy and use it. Sir Benson Maxwell CJ in Sahrip v Mitchell & Anor summarised the legal position by stating that: It is well known that by the old Malay law or custom of Malacca, while the sovereign was the owner of the soil, every man had nevertheless the right to clear and occupy all forest and waste land, subject to the payment, to the sovereign, of one-tenth of the produce of the land so taken ... If he abandoned the paddy land or fruit trees for more than three years, his right ceased and the land reverted to the sovereign.

If the people of the time were granted the right to build and pray on the land in question in 1893 by the then Sultan Of Selangor, Sultan Abdul Samad Shah, and given that the temple can no longer exist on that land, does it not now follow that all rights and  interests, including monetary interests that flow from that land, must flow to the Sultan, and no one else? Does it not then follow that DBKL, Jakel and all others involved are guilty of stealing from the Sultan?

Readers are reminded that the Sultan surrendered sovereignty, and not necessarily ownership of his land in 1974. To illustrate, see for example how the Sultan Of Johor remans an owner of large tracts of land in Singapore, even after his predecessors surrendered sovereignty to Queen Victoria in 1819. 

Dewi Sri Pathra Kaliamman Temple -A victory no doubt, but for whom: DBKL may not have any title or other interests to sell to Jakel,and DBKL and Jakel may well be dealing illegally with property that belongs to the Sultan Of Selangor

by Ganesh Sahathevan

           Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah Alhaj Ibni Almarhum Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Alhaj may well be the rightful owner of the temple land

                 Anwar Ibrahim says construction of Madani Mosque a ‘victory’ of wisdom and strength, but for whom

The Dewi Pathra Kaliamman temple is said to have been located on the site in question since 1893, when Kuala Lumpur was already a thriving, commercial settlement. 

There was already at that time, a system of (land) title by registration:.

 In the words of Richard Wu, Associate Professor Of Law , University Of Hong Kong:

 After the British occupation, common law and equity principles were introduced into the Federated Malay States ('FMS') as the new sources of land law, in addition to the local customary land tenure (Maidin, 2008). Moreover, the laws governing lands in these FMS were characterised by the Torrens system, instead of Islamic land law.13 This marked the beginning of a new regime of the registration of title law akin to the Torrens system in Australia on the basis of the Real Property Act 1857 of South Australia. The four states of Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang, which later became the Federated Malay States were the first to enact laws introducing Torrens title for use in a Malaysia setting (Sood and Tee, 2008). The registration of title system was first introduced in Perak by way of the General Land Regulations 1879; in Selangor by way of the General Land Regulations 1882, in Negeri Sembilan by way of the General Land Regulations 1887 and in Pahang by way of the General Land Regulations 1889 (Sood and Tee, 2008). By 1911, a unified Federated Malay States land enactment was passed. Currently, the main registration of title statute in Malaysia is the National Land Code ('NLC'). According to Suriyadi J in the case of Sime Bank Bhd v Mohd Hassan bin Sulaiman:14 the National Land Code 1965 was made effective from 1 January 1966 whereby thenceforth a uniform system of land tenure and dealing existed throughout Peninsular Malaysia. Penang and Malacca were also absorbed into the system by the promulgation of the National Land Code (Penang and Malacca Titles) 1963, effective also on 1 January 1966.

The Temple sits of prime land, which has almost always been prime land. It is likely to  have been alienated and registered a very long time ago, long before the DBKL came into existence in the 1970s, after the then Sultan Of Selangor , Sultan Abdul aziz Shah, surrendered Kuala Lumpur to the Federal Government in 1974.. There is therefore the likelihood that DBKL never had any title to the land, and never had anything with regards the land in question  that it could have sold to Jakel.

The fact that Kuala Lumpur was part of Selangor before it became Federal Territory also raises an intriguing  question as to whether the land could possibly still belong to the  Sultan Of Selangor, now Sultan Sarafuddin . Wu reminds us: 

 Before the introduction of Torrens system to Malaysia, the rights over land allegedly belonged to the Sultans but the people were given the liberty to occupy and use it. Sir Benson Maxwell CJ in Sahrip v Mitchell & Anor summarised the legal position by stating that: It is well known that by the old Malay law or custom of Malacca, while the sovereign was the owner of the soil, every man had nevertheless the right to clear and occupy all forest and waste land, subject to the payment, to the sovereign, of one-tenth of the produce of the land so taken ... If he abandoned the paddy land or fruit trees for more than three years, his right ceased and the land reverted to the sovereign.

If the people of the time were granted the right to build and pray on the land in question in 1893 by the then Sultan Of Selangor, Sultan Abdul Samad Shah, and given that the temple can no longer exist on that land, does it not now follow that all rights and  interests, including monetary interests that flow from that land, must flow to the Sultan, and no one else? Does it not then follow that DBKL, Jakel and all others involved are guilty of stealing from the Sultan?

Readers are reminded that the Sultan surrendered sovereignty, and not necessarily ownership of his land in 1974. To illustrate, see for example how the Sultan Of Johor remans an owner of large tracts of land in Singapore, even after his predecessors surrendered sovereignty to Queen Victoria in 1819. 

END 

TO BE READ WITH 

Sunday, March 23, 2025

Anwar Ibrahim can resolve the Dewi Sri Pathra Kaliamman Temple issue by taking over Jakel and its assets , given Jakel's illegally obtained 1MDB funds- 1MDB is now owned by MOF INC aka Anwar Ibrahim

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                                                                   

 Jakel Trading,the company that is currently in the news given its plans to build a mosque on a site currently occupied by the Dewi Sri Pathra Kaliamman Temple,  received RM 44 Million of 1MDB money from Najib Razak.

It is not unlikely that that money, which was very likely  obtained illegally financed Jakel's business, including the acquisition of the land in question. 

Prime Minister and Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who has commented extensively on the issue  can resolve the Dewi Sri Pathra Kaliamman Temple issue by taking over Jakel and its assets , given Jakel's illegally obtained 1MDB funds. 1MDB is now owned by MOF INC or by another name. Anwar Ibrahim.

TO BE READ WITH 

Wednesday, March 19, 2025

Jakel may have financed purchase of

Dewi Sri Pathra Kaliamman Temple land with money Najib stole from 1MDB- Jakel Trading, received RM 44 Million of 1MDB money from Najib Razak

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                                                                           

                                                                                 

Neville Carter v CJ NSW Andrew Bell descends into farce,students and the profession pay the price

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                                                                      




The College of Law Australia 's PLT students commenced the compulsory PLT course on 3 March 2025, just three weeks after the Chairman of the NSW LPAB and Chief Justice Of NSW, Andrew Bell, declared the College 's PLT overpriced and in need of reform of its course content. PLT graduates will ultimately seek admission to practise before Andrew Bell. As chairman of the NSW LPAB he is responsible for accrediting and supervising the College's PLT.

The College responded defiantly, its response reported by the AFR under the headline:
College of Law stares down disquiet about high fees and cheating

The CEO Neville Carter had in fact issued an "Update", where he attempted to dispute his Chief Justice's concerns, and which excluded major concerns in Australia and overseas about his and the College's conduct.

Meanwhile, it does not appear as if students are being advised of the Chief Justice's concerns so that they can withdraw, and be refunded their fees, and so that they can enrol with other PLT course providers..

END