Mastercard USA chairman implicated in Saudi prince's theft from Malaysian SWF 1 MDB

First published at Terror Finance Blog

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Richard Haythornthwaite, the chairman of Mastercard,  has been implicated in the money
laundering scheme involving Prince Turki Al-Saud previously reported here. As reported,
that scheme has involved the apparent theft of billions of dollars from
the Malaysian sovereign fund,1 MDB Bhd.

The investigate news site Sarawak Report in its latest edition of an ongoing investigation
into Turki's Petrosaudi has reported:

If I knew I wouldn’t tell Sarawak Report

Given the mounds of evidence now apparent about the collusion of PetroSaudi in the 
1MDB heist masterminded by Jho Low and this latest proof from Good Star’s own incorporation 
records, Sarawak Report wrote last week to the company’s President, the prominent British 
businessman Rick Haythornthwaite.

Haythornthwaite is also the Chairman of the UK energy giant Centrica.  We asked if he knew of 
PetroSaudi’s letter claiming that it owns Good Star and if he had authorised the company to make 
such a claim?

In his response to Sarawak Report 's editor Clare Rewcastle-Brown Haythornthwaite said among
other things:

Dear Mrs Rewcastle

Having now done some research into your background, it is clear that you are an active
campaigning blogger rather than an objective journalist with a desire to understand the true
facts behind this matter.
That your email to me contains fundamental factual errors – not least suggesting 
that I am, or have ever been, chairman of PetroSaudi International – reinforces my 
concerns about your credibility.

Therefore, even if I were to be in possession of information relevant to your query, 
I would be unwilling to assist you in your questionable activities.

Haythornthwaite's apparent denial is interesting  given this disclosure of his CV in  the
 Network Rail Infrastructure Limited  2012 Annual Report :

Rick Haythornthwaite Chairman

 Rick Haythornthwaite, 55, has been the Company’s Non-Executive Chairman since July 2009
 having joined the Board in March 2009 as a Non-Executive Director. He was Chief Executive of
Invensys plc, from 2001 to 2005. He was also previously Group Chief Executive of Blue Circle
Industries and spent 18 years with BP in various senior roles. He is currently
Non-Executive Chairman of MasterCard Inc, a Senior Advisor to STAR Capital Partners and 
President of PetroSaudi International (UK) Ltd. His previous non-executive roles
included Board membership of ICI, Land Securities and Lafarge. In the voluntary sector,
he is Chairman of the Southbank Centre and Chairman of the World Wide Web Foundation.
Rick will retire from the Board at the Company’s annual general meeting (AGM) on 19 July 2012.
Appointed 23 March 2009

While Haythornthwaite might get away with saying "  even if I were to be in 
possession of information relevant to your query, I would be unwilling to assist you
 in your questionable activities" to Rewcastle-Brown's Sarawak Report, it is not a 
position he can maintain with regards Mastercard, its shareholders, and the relevant 
authorities, in the US, UK and other jurisdictions that are investigating the 1 MDB matter.

END 

See also « Malaysia's Deputy PM Implicates Wells Fargo In a Money Dirtying Scheme | Main

Duncan Lewis must resign or be sacked if the rest of us are to remain safe

by Ganesh Sahathevan

ASIO chief and former national security advisor Duncan Lewis has proven yet again why he is unsuited to an intelligence role.This time, he has gone so far that his position has become untenable. 
In what appears to be another example of a former senior officer brushing up his CV for a vice-regal position Lewis has decided to point the finger at the rest of us for the local jihadi problem (see story below).
How that can be helpful, coming especially from a head of internal security, is hard to fathom.There are many reasons why security and intelligence chiefs eschew public pronouncements on anything but true to form, Lewis sees no appreciation of this rule.In this latest blunder in a series of blunders  Lewis seems intent on proving the case that he is not suited to an intelligence role. 

Then in speaking ,he reveals how poorly he understand the dangers. Australia has had  a jihadi problem going back  to the 90s ,long before 9/11,and long before anyone took any notice of Muslims,despite their best efforts to be heard. It took the Muslim community to educate us on what a hijab,niqab or burka was and frankly, I would not be surprised if the majority of Australian equated them with G-strings, as some kind of fashion trend. And, as with all fashion trends, it did not bother anyone ,not until the Muslim community made it a point of discrimination. Blaming the rest of us of being the cause of  heightened jihadi violence  is disingenuous at best,ignorant at worse.

To make his point Lewis went so far as to say:
“I don’t buy the notion that the issue of Islamic extremism is in some way fostered or sponsored or supported by the Muslim ­religion. I don’t buy that at all. I think it’s blasphemous to the extent that I can comment on someone else’s religion.’’

When even Muslim governments in this region, like Malaysia and Indonesia, have for decades closely monitored and where necessary acted using police and the armed forces against Muslim groups within their borders for reasons of national security , Lewis's comment is idiotic.

When one considers that the governments of Malaysia and Indonesia have done so even while using the religion to further their national interests, the extent of his idiocy becomes even more apparent.

That he seems unaware that Singapore has effectively secularized its significant Muslim minority suggests an intellectual incapacity which cannot be tolerated in anyone charged with national security , let alone the chief of ASIO. This man must go if the rest of us are to be kept safe. As he put it:
"But we need to be smart.’

END 

Terror alert: Australia’s top spy chief warns rift with Muslims could weaken national security

December 13, 2015 12:00am

Samantha MaidenNational Political EditorThe Sunday Telegraph

AUSTRALIA’S top spy chief Duncan Lewis has warned that fuelling a backlash against Muslims is a “dangerous’’ threat to­ ­national security and weakens his organisation’s ability to stop terrorist attacks.

Frustrated intelligence chiefs and police are going public for the first time after delivering months of private advice that Muslim-bashing rhetoric could impact on the agency’s vital work with ­Islamic communities.

“I think it behoves Australia and Australians to recognise that the backlash is something that is very, very dangerous,’’ Mr Lewis, a former SAS officer who commanded Australia’s Special Forces in Afghanistan, said.

ASIO director general Duncan Lewis says we should not be fuelling backlash against Muslims.

“The level of co-operation we have is very good. We are well connected with the Islamic community in Sydney and Melbourne. We are to a great extent very dependent on the information that flows from them.

“That the estrangement, should it occur with the Muslim community here, would be very, very unfortunate for our operations. It impacts negatively on what we are trying to do.

“We need to be very temperate. And we need to be smart as a community. This problem is solvable. But we need to be smart.’’

He said his officers would be working over Christmas “while the rest of Australia is on the beach”.

Police will be working around the clock these holidays as terror alert is probable. Picture: Stephen Cooper

“We are working very closely with the Islamic community and we need to, to secure the outcome we want which is the security of the country,” he said.

“I don’t buy the notion that the issue of Islamic extremism is in some way fostered or sponsored or supported by the Muslim ­religion. I don’t buy that at all. I think it’s blasphemous to the extent that I can comment on someone else’s religion.’’

His comments follow those of former prime minister Tony ­Abbott, who has called for a “religious revolution” inside Islam, declaring “all cultures are not equal” and that “we can’t remain in denial about the massive problem within Islam.’’

Mr Lewis also said that “the jury was out’’ on sending Western troops to fight Islamic State in Syria.

“It’s too complex an issue just to say we need to put more troops into it. The view among Western nations is that a large scale Western intervention there is judged unlikely to be successful in the long run. But it’s not my lane right now.

“The jury is out. What I would say is that the collapse of the so- called caliphate will be a necessary part of the complete solution.”

Originally published as Spy chief warns of rift with Muslims

Zaid Hamidi clarification in the matter of Najib's US$ 681 million raises issue of money dirtying

This article was first published on the Terror Finance Blog. Readers of this blog may want to read it together with the earlier story copied and pasted below.

Malaysia's Deputy PM Implicates Wells Fargo In a Money Dirtying Scheme

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Having previously said that a sum of US$681 million found in Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak's personal account  was only part of what a  Saudi benefactor had provided Muslim groups throughout the region, including Muslim separatists in Thailand and the Philippines who have been waging guerrilla warfare against the majority in those countries, Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi now says that the money was contributed by a number of different donors.

This revelation ,given the fact that the sender on record is a BVI company since liquidated named Tanore Finance, suggests that there was a scheme to gather and distribute funds using Wells Fargo as a conduit. The quantum and the structure of the payment suggests that Wells Fargo has at the very least questions to answer with regards basic know your customer (KYC) rules.

END 

Wells Fargo in the middle of a Malaysian money laundering scandal

by Ganesh Sahathevan Having recently payed about a million and a half in fines for AML/CTF breaches, Wells Fargo is now implicated in a money laundering scandal that rivals the drug cartel business that its wholly-owned subsidiary Wachovia had once transacted. At the heart of the scandal is the apparent theft of some $ 10 billion from a Malaysian sovereign wealth fund, 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1 MDB). Part of the funds said to be stolen is said to have found its way to the personal accounts of the Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak. In his defence he has said that a Saudi family had 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" hasplaced on-line the relevant documents. No one is buying the story, and to make matters worse Najib's deputy Ahmad Zaid Hamidi and other ministers have said that the money was only part of what the Saudi benefactor had provided Muslim groups throughout the region, including Muslim separatist in Thailand and the Philippines who have been waging guerrilla warfare against the majority in those countries. 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" hasplaced 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.
A PDF copy of the documents may be sighted at :
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2158723/1mdb-documents.pdf

END

Najib vs Datuk Harun Idris: Affection of a Saudi donor does not make Najib less culpable;innocence must be proven in court

by Ganesh Sahathevan 

" Section 50 of the MACC Act deems a corrupt intent of the giving or receiving of gratification unless the contrary is proven"

Bernama has reported that  Prime Minister Najib Razak has again justified some USD 681 million  discovered in his personal account  as being a donation from an unnamed Arab, which he used to further the interests of  UMNO,the party which he heads:

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has stressed that the donation of RM2.6 billion deposited into his account is neither from a public fund nor the government's strategic investment company, 1MDB.

He said the matter had already been verified by the MACC which had also found the donors.

"I have not committed any offence or malpractice, this has been explained at the Parliament by the deputy prime minister (Ahmad Zahid Hamidi).

"The donors have been verified and found by the MACC and the commission has also obtained their statements," he said in an interview with TV3 tonight in conjunction with the Umno AGM.

Asked why the funds were deposited into his account, the prime minister explained that it was the donor's wish and the donation was made in a personal capacity.

He said that the Bank Negara was notified when the account was created.

"So, there is no intention at all to cheat or to commit an offence because Bank Negara had been notified about the existence of this account.

"But do not be confused. The account is in my name, but it is not like a personal account. And I am sure that once the investigation is completed, the truth will prevail," he said.

The MACC today confirmed sending its officials to the Middle-East to meet with the RM2.6 billion donor.

Unfortunately for Najib the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (“MACC Act”) defines gratification very broadly and includes donations.An explanatory note published by  the prominent Malaysian law from Skrine & Co ( whose founding partners  included his uncle, former Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn, and of which his cousin and current Minister for Defence Hishamuddin Hussein Onn  was also a partner) puts the matter of donations as gratification quite clearly:

Donations to political parties

In recent times, there has been increasing practice of companies providing donations to political parties in Malaysia. Although political donations are not specifically covered by any law in Malaysia, particular care must be taken in ensuring that such donations are not construed as an inducement or a reward for doing or forbearing to do any act as this would fall within the general prohibitions of the MACC Act. Further, Section 50 of the MACC Act deems a corrupt intent of the giving or receiving of gratification unless the contrary is proven.

That deeming provision and the matter of Datuk Harun Idris which was decided almost 40 years ago ,taken together, means the "donation" explanation can provide little if any defence. Even if it is a defence, the MACC Act provided that it is a mater that must be proven in ocurt. Explanations in private, via the media, or in any other forum, including the UMNO General Assembly, do not matter. The MACC has no choice but to lay charges.After all , Najib and the MACC agree that the facts of the matter are not in dispute.

END 

END 

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Najib vs Datuk Harun Idris-40 years on which way will it swing.

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The prime minister and Umno president was reported as saying that he had taken the money on behalf of the party, and that it was not used for personal gain
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/…/najib-says-macc-cleare…
But then see:
Public Prosecutor v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris (No 2) [1977] 1 MLJ 15 High Court, Kuala Lumpur (Raja Azlan Shah J).
Summary :

The accused was charged with three charges of corruption. It was alleged that the accused as Mentri Besar, Selangor: (a) solicited the sum of RM250,000 for UMNO as an inducement to obtain the approval of the Executive Council in respect of an application for a piece of state land; (b) being a member of a public body accepted for UMNO the sum of RM25,000 as an inducement to obtain such approval; (c) accepted for UMNO the sum of RM225,000 as an inducement to obtain such approval. It was also alleged that the accused was a member of a public body, namely, the government of Selangor, or alternatively, that he was an agent of the Ruler of the State of Selangor.
Holding :
Held: (1) the accused as Menteri Besar was a member of a public body, that is, the government of Selangor; (2) on the facts of this case, the accused did solicit for UMNO a gratification of RM250,000; (3) the circumstances in which the gratification was solicited gave rise to the inference that it was solicited corruptly; (4) the accused solicited the gratification as an inducement to obtain the approval of the Executive Council in respect of the application for the land; (5) the facts showed that the accused accepted a gratification from the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank of RM25,000 through Haji Ahmad Razali at the airport on or about 16 August 1972 and that he on or about 27 March 1973 accepted from the Hongkong and Shanghai Corp a gratification of RM225,000 in his office in Kuala Lumpur; (6) the accused accepted the gratification of RM25,000 and RM225,000 as an inducement to do an official act in connection with the bank's application for alienation of the land; (7) on the evidence, the prosecution had proved its case in relation to all three principal charges, which if unrebutted, would warrant the conviction of the accused; (8) the accused did not rebut the evidence for the prosecution and on all the evidence considered as a whole, the charges against the accused have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Digest :
Public Prosecutor v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris (No 2) [1977] 1 MLJ 15 High Court, Kuala Lumpur (Raja Azlan Shah J).

NSC Bill: Agong requires agreement of brother rulers to give Royal Assent.

by Ganesh Sahathevan 

The very nature of the NSC Bill requires that the Agong seek the agreement or consent of his brother rulers , individually,  and collectively in the Conference Of Rulers, for he is being asked to agree to an abrogation of powers conferred upon them and their successors  by the Federal Constitution (see article below).

The Agong holds office for a finite tern of 5 years after being elected to the position by his brother rulers, the nine sultans of the sultanates of Malaysia that comprise a significant part of the Federation of Malaysia. It cannot therefore be the case that  while in office he can agree to anything that might adversely affect his brother rulers and their successors. An abrogation of powers without mutual agreement clearly could not have been in the contemplation of the sultans who agreed to the creation of the institution of the office of Agong of the Federation. It should be remembered that there is provision  for the removal of the Agong  by the decision of the Conference ofRulers.

END

For reference see also THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW FEDERATIONIN MALAYA by SIr Zelman  Cowen

These excerpts  from his  article published in 1958 are provided below:

On August 31, 1957, the Federation of Malaya became an independent state. It elected to remain within the British Commonwealth, though with a unique status within that association. The constitution provides for the election of a Supreme Head of the Federation, the Yang-di-Pertuan Agong, who is elected for a five-year period by the Conference of Rulers from among their number. The Conference of Rulers for the purpose consists of the nine native rulers of the Malay States. 

The executive authority of the Federation is vested in the Yang diPertuan Agong, the Supreme Head of the Federation, though Parliament is authorised to confer executive functions on other persons. The constitutional machinery for the election of the Supreme Head is designed to rotate the office among the rulers of the Malay states, and the third schedule to the constitution ordains the procedure to be followed by the Conference of Rulers in making an election. The election is for a five-year term, and a deputy Supreme Head is also elected to serve during any vacancy of office or while the Supreme Head is absent from the Federation or is otherwise unable to act. During his term of office the Supreme Head may not exercise his functions as a State Ruler, other than those of Head of the Muslim religion. Provision is made for the removal of the Supreme Head by the decision of the Conference of Rulers. 

Thursday, December 3, 2015

NSC Bill in breach of Federal Constitution, subverts authority of the Agong: Malays must decide if they will defend the man & the institution

by Ganesh Sahathevan 

In defending the National Security Bill 2015, which seeks to rob the Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Di-Pertuan Agong of his Constitutional right to declare a state of Emergency when he feels it  is in the best interest of his subjects, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim said:

“The prime minister is not declaring an emergency; he is declaring a security area. We are declaring specific security areas where there are threats to the public,” 

The Malay Mail reported elaborating Shahidan's statement said:

Shahidan insisted that the provisions for declaring an emergency under the Federal Constitution deals with a large-scale crises, while the Bill deals with specific instances of threats to security in specific areas. 

However, Article 150 of the Constitution of Malaysia clearly contemplates "specific instances" for it states:
Article 150
(1) If the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation or any part thereof is threatened, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency making therein a declaration to that effect.
(2) A Proclamation of Emergency under Clause (1) may be issued before the actual occurrence of the event which threatens the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation or any part thereof if the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied that there is imminent danger of the occurrence of such event.

The phrase "Federation or any part thereof" clearly demonstrates that the founding fathers and/or writers of the Constitution  of the Federation of Malaysia  had contemplated instances where the threat might be localized but of sufficient gravity to require a  Proclamation of Emergency.

Even if the phrase "any part thereof" had not been included, assuming that the constitutional provisions with regards Emergency powers applied only to "large-scale crises" and not "specific instances"  would be  to insult ,at  the highest order,  the intelligence and common sense of  those who formulated the Constitution.Indeed such an assumption is an insult to any  thinking human being.

In fact, Section 150 (2A) contemplates that there would be a variety of circumstances that might require  the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to proclaim a state of Emergency,and to proclaim it in a manner suited to the cirucumstances:


Article 150
(2A) The power conferred on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by this Article shall include the power to issue different Proclamations on different grounds or in different circumstances, whether or not there is a Proclamation or Proclamations already issued by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Clause (1) and such Proclamation or Proclamations are in operation.


The above analysis is within the capability of  a failed first year law student. That the Prime Minsister Dato Seri Najib Razak , Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim, UMNO and Barisan Nasional MPs would dare put such an act forward, let alone vote it in,  is an obvious affront to the authority of the  Agong, as a man ,and his office.  It is for Malays for whom  the Agong is the primary protector of their identity as Malays.  Muslims and Bumiputeras, to defend him and his office from parliamentarians who have obviously lost all regard for the man , office and those he represents. It is a matter of practicality , given the realities of modern Malaysia, that the non-Malay  races can only support but never lead any effort to defend the Agong. The horrific consequences of not doing anything are beyond contemplation. 

END 

NSC Bill in breach of Federal Constitution, subverts authority of the Agong: Malays must decide if they will defend the man & the institution

by Ganesh Sahathevan 

In defending the National Security Bill 2015, which seeks to rob the Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Di-Pertuan Agong of his Constitutional right to declare a state of Emergency when he feels it  is in the best interest of his subjects, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim said:

“The prime minister is not declaring an emergency; he is declaring a security area. We are declaring specific security areas where there are threats to the public,” 

The Malay Mail reported elaborating Shahidan's statement said:

Shahidan insisted that the provisions for declaring an emergency under the Federal Constitution deals with a large-scale crises, while the Bill deals with specific instances of threats to security in specific areas. 

However, Article 150 of the Constitution of Malaysia clearly contemplates "specific instances" for it states:
Article 150
(1) If the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation or any part thereof is threatened, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency making therein a declaration to that effect.
(2) A Proclamation of Emergency under Clause (1) may be issued before the actual occurrence of the event which threatens the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation or any part thereof if the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied that there is imminent danger of the occurrence of such event.

The phrase "Federation or any part thereof" clearly demonstrates that the founding fathers and/or writers of the Constitution  of the Federation of Malaysia  had contemplated instances where the threat might be localized but of sufficient gravity to require a  Proclamation of Emergency.

Even if the phrase "any part thereof" had not been included, assuming that the constitutional provisions with regards Emergency powers applied only to "large-scale crises" and not "specific instances"  would be  to insult ,at  the highest order,  the intelligence and common sense of  those who formulated the Constitution.Indeed such an assumption is an insult to any  thinking human being.

In fact, Section 150 (2A) contemplates that there would be a variety of circumstances that might require  the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to proclaim a state of Emergency,and to proclaim it in a manner suited to the cirucumstances:


Article 150
(2A) The power conferred on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by this Article shall include the power to issue different Proclamations on different grounds or in different circumstances, whether or not there is a Proclamation or Proclamations already issued by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Clause (1) and such Proclamation or Proclamations are in operation.


The above analysis is within the capability of  a failed first year law student. That the Prime Minsister Dato Seri Najib Razak , Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim, UMNO and Barisan Nasional MPs would dare put such an act forward, let alone vote it in,  is an obvious affront to the authority of the  Agong, as a man ,and his office.  It is for Malays for whom  the Agong is the primary protector of their identity as Malays.  Muslims and Bumiputeras, to defend him and his office from parliamentarians who have obviously lost all regard for the man , office and those he represents. It is a matter of practicality , given the realities of modern Malaysia, that the non-Malay  races can only support but never lead any effort to defend the Agong. The horrific consequences of not doing anything are beyond contemplation. 

END 

What will the ADF's Strategic Adviser on Islamic Cultural Affairs advice when Australian national interests are threatened by Islamic forces?

by Ganesh Sahathevan


Captain Mona Shindy, RAN, is the Royal Australian Navy's Strategic Adviser on Islamic Cultural Affairs. The RAN statement announcing her appointment stated: 

As part of her role as Strategic Adviser on Islamic Cultural Affairs, Captain Shindy works to help create a better understanding among Defence members of the Islamic faith, traditions and cultural sensitivities. Captain Shindy explained how this work helps to improve Defence capability.‘It gives our people, particularly when working with our close Muslim-allied navies, a better understanding and appreciation of serving Muslims, their needs and how they view the world’, she said.

Why the Australian Navy and other arms of the ADF now require advice on how to deal with "Muslim-allied navies" is a mystery. Her superiors would be  aware that navy and other defence force personnel from Muslim countries in this region have enjoyed good relations with their ANZAC and British counterparts going back more than 60 years. They would also be aware that much of that relationship was built of a good supply of "haram" alcohol at their respective officers' mess. Given the existing relationship it is hard to see what might be gained by  the interjection  of a severe looking  hijabed matron.

Nevertheless, it is noted that the  Strategic Adviser on Islamic Cultural Affairs has a rather broad and imprecise brief, It does appear as if the role will include advice on say the management of threats to Australian national interests  from regional Muslim groups. Often these are militant groups who are well funded and who have the backing of regional governments and of the international Muslim community. The threat can only be met with force,for these are not groups who are interested in negotiation. Given her public statements it is hard to believe that Capt Shindy would advice any armed response that will harm fellow Muslims.

The Moro Islamic Libertaion Front is an example of this type of force:

In 1973, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) began a massive military operation to quell the Moro separatists, including the MNLF. After the MNLF suffered major defeats in conventional battles against the AFP, military advisors from Libya and Malaysia helped the group turn to guerrilla tactics, which it effectively used against government forces. Simultaneously with the AFP’s offensive, the MNLF solidified its organizational structure.

It is not inconceivable that Australian national interest could be threatened by these types of armed Muslim groups and that an armed response would be required. One fears that the Strategic Adviser on Islamic Cultural Affairs is unlikely to see it that way, her loyalty to her coreligionist taking priority over her loyalty to Queen and country.Anticipating a likely response, I should end by stating that an argument about "peaceful alternatives", and "Australian foreign policy" and/or "local Muslim sensitivities" cannot be considered seriously.
 

END