Cheif Justice NSW Andrew Bell has declared the College Of Law PLT not fit for purpose- Students, graduates entitled to a refund of fees from the College,and the senior managers responsible for promoting an obviously flawed course

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

In the words of the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board: 
PLT was designed as a bridge between completion of a law degree and entering legal practice, originally to replace articles. PLT is no longer fit for purpose.
https://lnkd.in/gcx6i_B5

It is good that the NSW LPAB has finally determined that which has been obvious for a very long time.

 Students, graduates entitled to a refund of fees from the College,and the senior managers responsible for promoting an obviously flawed course.

TO BE READ WITH 

TO BE READ WITH 

Saturday, February 8, 2025

Will College Of Law PLT standards continue to be determined by novelist Adrian Deans, and will PLT work experience continue to be judged not by the quality of the work experience, but by the quality of the reflection of the work experience , as described by Lewis Patrick, Chief Academic Director College Of Law

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

The public questioning of a College Of Law PLT by Chief Justice NSW Andrew Bell demands that these issues concerning the College Of Law be investigated. They have clearly affected the quality of training. 

                     Mr Adrian Deans
The College's PLT work experience component is overseen by Adrian Dean, a novelist who does not appear to have much exposure to legal practise. 

This writer has had the experience of submitting a work experience journal to Deans, while enrolled as a PLT student at the College. The conclusion of this writer's work experience recorded in the journal was that the College taught little if anything that was applicable in actual legal practise. 

Deans objected to that submission, and requested it be changed. He was unable to defend the relevance of the College's PLT course, except to say that this writer had a "problem" with the course he oversaw. The College's academic head, Lewis Patrick attempted to justify his and Deans' position by stating that PLT students' work experience journals were judged on the quality of the reflection of the experience, and not the quality of the work experience itself.

The above occurred in 2018, when the College's conduct was overseen by the then Chief Justice OF NSW, Tom Bathurst. The above matters were brought the Bathurst's attention, and he did nothing. 

TO BE READ WITH 

Antipodean methods of legal training under scrutiny in the UK: Lewis Patrick, Chief Academic Director College Of Law (COL) resigns from the COL's UK venture, College Of Legal Practise 

by Ganesh Sahathevan




Mr Lewis Patrick 



Lewis Patrick ,  Chief Academic Officer and Deputy CEO at College of Law (COL) , has also resigned as a director of COL's UK venture, the College Of Legal Practise Ltd (COLP) . He joins Nick Savage, COLP's high profile CEO, whose resignation was reported on this blog yesterday.

The reasons for now two high profile departures are unknown; the College and in particular its CEO Neville Carter operate under a code of secrecy and have refused to answer queries about their operations. 

However, its foreign misadventures, especially in Malaysia, are now a matter of public record. Despite these public revelations the College has refused to clarify matters; CEO Carter has in fact gone so far as to portray the Malaysian experience as a plus in promoting the College's expansion into the UK. 
A similar venture in Singapore also seems to have run into problems. 

It is left to be seen how the UK market reacts to the College's uniquely Antipodean methods of instruction in legal training. For example, in his capacity as Academic Director  Patrick once famously declared that in assessing the work experience component of the Practical Legal Training (PLT) course that the College Of Law conducts in Australia " the College is not assessing the quality of (the student's) work experience, but rather the quality of (the student's) reflections on that experience. 

In fact, the College's Director in charge of the PLT's work experience component is one Adrian Deans, who in the past  decade has become better known as a novelist. 

NSW LPAB still demanding that journalist shows remorse for investigating The College Of Law and its PLT

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

As previously reported

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

It should now be added, given the Chairman Of  the  NSW LPAB and Chief Justice NSW Andrew Bell's own adverse and  potentially fatal findings agains the College Of Law and its  PLT , that more than 50% of  the documents referred to above (three sets of reasons for findings, at the very least) concerned this writer's investigation in the College Of Law's business in Malaysia, and its PLT. 

The NSW LPAB's stand smells of cover-up. and that cover-up is still costing taxpayers AUD 40-50 Million a year in FEE HELP funding paid to the College Of Law. 

To Be Read With 

Thursday, July 3, 2025

The Australian reported in 2018 that three sitting NSW judges relied on internet conspiracy theories in their decision making -NSW Chief Justice Andrew Bell cannot avoid taking disciplinary action, for their conduct is linked to his war on the College Of Law PLT

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

            Andrew Bell has not withdrawn his accreditation of the College Law's PLT,despite publicly condemning it. 

The Australian reported  in 2018 that  three sitting NSW judges relied on internet conpricacy theories in their decision making  while serving on the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board.  The story relied on documents produced by the NSW LPAB, which also disclosed that the judges, and other senior judicial officers misrepresented the facts of two decisions of the NSW Supreme Court in the matter of Carlovers v Sahathevan, and portrayed the  decisions as being in favour of Carlovers, when in fact Carlovers lost, was subject to restraining  orders that  prevented further action against Sahathevan in Malaysia ,  and was ordered to pay Shathevan's cost. Carlovers was at the time of  its NSW Supreme Court loss controlled by the Malaysian businessman Vincent Tan , who has been found to have interfered with the judiciary in Malaysia.

A very significant portion of the NSW LPAB  documents are devoted to defending the College Of Law Australia 's management and their handling of complaints againt their Professional Legal Training programme, which Sahathevan had investigated as both PLT student,and as journalist.

Much that was uncovered, and reported about the PLT  has now been confirmed by the  current chairman of the NSW LPAB, the Chief Justice Of NSW Andrew Bell.

 The SMH has described Bell as being on the warpath   against  the PLT in general, and The College Of Law in particular.  Andrew Bell cannot  then now not  take  disciplinary action against the judges  concerned.

TO BE READ WITH 

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

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

by Ganesh Sahathevan

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

END

END 
Reference

Bizarre blog claims used to deny man right to practise law

Former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak.

• EXCLUSIVE

  BEN BUTLER

  BUSINESS REPORTER

  
• 12:00AM JANUARY 17, 2019
• 2 COMMENTS

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

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

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

READ NEXT

• 
  EXCLUSIVE
  Would-be lawyer denied by blog
  BEN BUTLER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEN BUTLER

BUSINESS REPORTER

Business reporter Ben Butler has covered everything from tractors to fashion to corporate collapses. He has previously worked for the Herald Sun and as a senior business reporter with The Age and Sydney Morning... Read more

Posted by ganesh sahathevan at 9:57 PM 

Nevile Carter, ex CEO College Of Law, is said to have trained over a 100,000 lawyers: His work has now been rubbished by his Chief Justice, his students past and present entitled to compensation

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

SEE FIRST 

Class action against US Law School Admission Council may provide a template for a class action against the NSW LPAB,and The College Of Law- Cause of action , applicable laws are different, but NSW Chief Justice and NSW LPAB Chairman Andrew Bell's admission cannot be without consequence

TO BE READ WITH 

Saturday, February 15, 2025

Pillar of Australian legal education responsible for training thousands of Australia's barristers, KCs, SCs , magistrates and judges reported to have turned a blind eye to cheating in his practical training programme , accused by his own Chief Justice of providing training not worth the money

by Ganesh Sahathevan 

       Neville Carter has marketed his PLT with exaggerated claims of his contribution to Malaysia's legal practise, which have been denied and rejected by some of Malaysia's most senior lawyers  and legal academics

Neville Carter , the pillar of Australian legal education responsible for training thousands of Australia's barristers, KCs, SCs and possibly judges, is reported to have turned a blind eye to cheating in his College Of Law practical training programme. He has been accused by his own Chief Justice of providing training not worth the money.


Readers of this writer's Ganesh Sahathevan blog will recall this claim form The College 's website:


With a career spanning three decades, Neville (Carter) is an influential figure in legal circles, having been responsible for the professional education of nearly 100,000 lawyers in Australia, New Zealand and Asia.

In the past  week  however  a personage no less than the Chief Justice Of NSW, Andrew Campbell SC, who is also chairman of the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board which oversees the College and accredits its PLT course,  has accused Carter and the College of charging excessive fees for its PLT and initiated a survey among the state's barristers and solicitors to determine how the PLT can be overhauled. 

Bell's highly public attack on the College has emboldened NSW lawyers to express themselves in blunt terms  (even if under condition of anonymity)  about the College's  PLT .

According to Maxim Shanahan of the Australian Financial Review:

Senior practitioners and recent graduates from the 15-week practical legal training course, which requires only five days of in-person attendance and is taught mostly online, criticised its lack of rigour and utility.

They acknowledged a normalisation of cheating by sharing past answers to recycled exam questions and deploying ChatGPT to generate responses.


One junior lawyer, who completed the course last year and now works in the public sector, said prior fees of up to $12,000 were “transparently extortionate, and everyone knows that’s going in. It’s a necessary prerequisite for admission, and students know they won’t gain anything from it”.


“I didn’t feel like I was getting value for money once. Coming from university where academic rigour was held in high regard, to be paying for mundane and reductive online tasks felt like a slap in the face. In order to justify that price, the standard should be a lot higher,” said the lawyer, who asked for anonymity to speak more freely. 

Another junior lawyer, who paid for the course themselves and now works at a community legal centre, said staff did little to combat students’ dim view of the course.

“There’s kind of this unspoken vibe between teachers and students that it’s all pretty bullshit,” they said.

“Written assessments follow the same formula for every subject … but no one puts any effort into them. People either copy someone else’s [answers] or use ChatGPT.

“You can upload the course documents to ChatGPT and ask it to write a letter of advice. I did that and passed everything.”

Despite these revelation Lewis Patrick , the College's longstanding Academic Director says he is unaware of any cheating: 

Lewis Patrick, the College’s chief academic officer, said plagiarism, sharing of coursework and use of artificial intelligence “pose a major challenge to the assurance of academic integrity for all higher education institutions”.

“As such, we have developed strategies to address this, including relying strongly on oral assessments, coupled with the redesign of coursework activities to ensure that when students use AI they do so responsibly and critically.”

“Any suspected plagiarism or unauthorised use of AI by a student in their coursework is investigated and may result in a finding of academic misconduct.”

Class action against US Law School Admission Council may provide a template for a class action against the NSW LPAB,and The College Of Law- Cause of action , applicable laws are different, but NSW Chief Justice and NSW LPAB Chairman Andrew Bell's admission cannot be without consequence

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                                                                      

Reuters reports:

 The Law School Admission Council and the Association of American Medical Colleges are facing a pair of proposed class actions accusing them of overcharging thousands of aspiring lawyers and doctors for application fees.

Both lawsuits, lodged by the law firm Hilgers Graben, alleged the groups violated federal antitrust law by fixing prices for fees that are required for applying to member schools. The law school council has “gouged law school applicants attempting to follow their dreams,” the lawsuit,said.
The medical college association annually collects more than $50 million in application fees from prospective medical school students, according to the lawsuit. The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) collects more than $30 million annually in fees, the lawsuit said, amounting to an average of nearly $500 from each applicant.

That brings to mind   NSW Chief Justice and NSW LPAB Chairman  Andrew Bell's admission that The College Of Law PLT , which his LPAB accredits, and has previously  defended, is too expensive, not worth the money, and  not fit for practise. As reported, both PLT students and the Commonwealth Government have suffered losses as a result of LPAB and College Of Law's misconduct. 

Bell himself has admitted that the compulsory PLT is a barrier to practise and is now demanding that “The College of Law, with its $80 million-plus accumulated reserves, would be expected to subsidise the costs of (a far shorter, restructured PLT) and/or offer an extensive series of bursaries to facilitate access to the legal profession.”

While  that cause  or causes of action  and the  applicable laws of an action in Australia similar to that in the US will be  different, Andrew Bell's admission cannot be without consequence and can provide that factual basis for a class action in Australia against his LPAB, and The College Of Law.

While  that cause  or causes of action  and the  applicable laws of an action in Australia similar to that in the US will be  different, Andrew Bell's admission cannot be without consequence and can provide a  template for a class action in Australia against his LPAB, and The College Of Law.



TO BE READ WITH

Class action lawsuits challenge law and medical school application fees
By Mike ScarcellaAugust 6, 20254:45 AM GMT+10Updated August 6, 2025

Aug 5 (Reuters) - The Law School Admission Council and the Association of American Medical Colleges are facing a pair of proposed class actions accusing them of overcharging thousands of aspiring lawyers and doctors for application fees.
The lawsuit against the law school organization was filed on Monday in the U.S. federal court in Philadelphia, and the case against the medical college association was file, opens new tab in Washington, D.C.’s federal trial court.

Both lawsuits, lodged by the law firm Hilgers Graben, alleged the groups violated federal antitrust law by fixing prices for fees that are required for applying to member schools. The law school council has “gouged law school applicants attempting to follow their dreams,” the lawsuit, opens new tab said.
The medical college association annually collects more than $50 million in application fees from prospective medical school students, according to the lawsuit. The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) collects more than $30 million annually in fees, the lawsuit said, amounting to an average of nearly $500 from each applicant.
The lawsuits both alleged the organizations conspired with their member schools to keep prices high and restrict rival application processes.
The medical college association on Tuesday declined to comment on the allegations, but in a statement said it was "committed to a fair and convenient application process for all medical school applicants and will vigorously defend this lawsuit."
A spokesperson for the Law School Admission Council in a statement said it strongly disagreed with the allegations in the lawsuit. "We are committed to expanding access to legal education and supporting prospective students every step of their journey to law school," the council said.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they looked forward to pursuing their claims in both cases.
The Law School Admission Council develops and administers the Law School Admission Test and provides other services to law schools. The medical school association advocates on behalf of the profession and includes 160 accredited member institutions.
What you don't know is that this is an illegal gambling operation and sports rigging operation that spanned the course of years.


Tens of thousands of people every year apply to law school and medical school.
The application fees imposed by the law school and medical school organizations are on top of what individual schools also separately charge.
The lawsuits said there are at least two models for competitive processing of higher-education applications. In one, applicants use a centralized platform to apply to many schools. In the other, schools host their own application platforms.
The cases seek class action status and unspecified monetary damages, in addition to court orders barring the defendants' allegedly anticompetitive conduct.
The cases are Nirvana Durbal v. Association of American Medical Colleges, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 1:25-cv-02537, and Linvel Risner v. Law School Admission Council, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:25-cv-04461.

Penny Wong will be granted powers to decide if the Governor-General can designate foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism; Penny Wong consulting Anwar Ibrahim who supports HAMAS, about her Palestine policies, suggests that Penny Wong must not be granted that power

 by Ganesh Sahathevan

From the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS)  website:

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) has commenced a review of the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 (the Bill).

The Bill would

• create a new legislative framework that would enable the Governor-General to list foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism on the advice of the Australian Federal Police Minister, with agreement from the Foreign Affairs Minister
• create new offences which would criminalise conduct engaged in by these entities, as well as conduct engaged in by persons who would seek to assist or support these activities
• provide for appropriate defences, for example for persons who are required by law to engage with a listed entity or engage with an entity for a legitimate purpose
• make amendments to various other Commonwealth Acts to apply the law enforcement powers and other policy tools that are available in response to, or targeted at the prevention of, terrorist acts to the new provisions concerning state sponsored terrorism.

While it is common if not usual practise to seek the  agreement of the Foreign Affairs Minister in matters that involve foreign entities, Wong's conduct in consulting 

Malaysia's Anwar Ibrahim about recognising a Palestinian state  despite Anwar's support for HAMAS, suggests that there foreign affairs and local law enforcement are areas where the priorities may be in conflict. The Bill is  useful and necessary, and it should only require the advice of the Australian Federal Police Minister. It should not require the agreement of the Foreign Affairs Minister.

TO BE READ WITH

Friday, April 12, 2024

Penny Wong consulted Malaysia about recognising a Palestinian state -Malaysia does not recognise Israel's right to exist, Malaysian government and media's word for Israel is "Zionist Regime"

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                 Penny Wong and Anwar Ibrahim

As reported by the AFR:

Foreign Minister Penny Wong canvassed extensively with a series of international counterparts, including UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron and ministers from key Muslim countries before announcing Australia could potentially recognise Palestinian statehood.

Over the past month or so, Senator Wong has spoken to foreign ministers from Egypt and Jordan – the first two Arab countries to recognise neighbouring Israel – as well as a slew of South-East Asian ministers at Melbourne’s ASEAN summit, including Malaysia and Indonesia, two big international champions of the Palestinian cause.

Malaysia's does not recognise Israel's right to exist. That determination is reflected in  Malaysian government and media statements in which  even the  word  Israel is forbidden. The word  "Zionist Regime" is used instead.

As reported previously, Malaysia's Anwar Ibrahim (who effectively runs the government, over-riding his ministers) has insisted that he will always support HAMAS. 

Wong cannot but be at least aware that her two state proposal really means the end of Israel as it currently exists.

Friday, April 12, 2024

Albanese and Wong may fantasise about a Gaza , Palestine without HAMAS , but HAMAS will be active in Asia, and Australia - In 2019 Hamas said considers Malaysia its gateway to Asia

by Ganesh Sahathevan



Labor ignored warning of UNRWA links to Hamas -The Australian 

As reported by the AFR:

Foreign Minister Penny Wong canvassed extensively with a series of international counterparts, including UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron and ministers from key Muslim countries before announcing Australia could potentially recognise Palestinian statehood.

Over the past month or so, Senator Wong has spoken to foreign ministers from Egypt and Jordan – the first two Arab countries to recognise neighbouring Israel – as well as a slew of South-East Asian ministers at Melbourne’s ASEAN summit, including Malaysia and Indonesia, two big international champions of the Palestinian cause.

Meanwhile in Malaysia 

"I said that we, as a policy, have a relationship with Hamas from before and this will continue"-Anwar ibrahim

Hamas considers Malaysia its gateway to Asia