Thursday, June 8, 2017

Are former NSA James Clapper and Dennis Richardson working to weaken the US-Australia alliance in favour of China?Recent statements and Rchardson's handling of the Darwin Port sale raise suspicion

by Ganesh Sahathevan
Department of Defence secretary Dennis Richardson said it was an "oversight" to keep the US in the dark over Darwin ...


Department of Defence secretary Dennis Richardson said it was an "oversight" to keep the US in the dark over Darwin Port's lease to China's Landbridge.


A key issue for the future of the Asia-Pacific is how China will employ its growing economic muscle.
Still, I consider China more benignly than I do Russia. China's economy is more inextricably linked with America's, and with Australia's. Despite all the challenges China poses, I believe this fact will serve to moderate China's behaviour.
Australia, in my view, should engage China with both cautiousness and confidence, weighing its strategic and economic interests, never forgetting the importance of its democratic institutions and values shared with the United States.
As Dennis Richardson said, "friends with both, allies with one".

Predictably, local left leaning media picked up on that theme,and counted his statements as one more reason for Australia to move away from the US alliance and into some kind of arrangement with China. That he quotes Dennis Richardson, the recently retired Secretary ,Department of Defence, is interesting given RIchardson's record:


DEPARTMENT of Foreign Affairs and Trade secretary Dennis Richardson yesterday rejected claims of a conflict of interest with Chinese telco Huawei, sparking some of the most lively exchanges this week in Senate estimates.
Opposition Senate leader Eric Abetz asked Mr Richardson whether his government role clashed with being a director of the Canberra Raiders after the NRL club signed a sponsorship deal in March worth a reported $1.7 million with Huawei.
The Chinese telco was banned earlier this year by the government from tendering for the National Broadband Network over cyber security concerns.
"Would you agree that Huawei is in the vanguard of Chinese economic diplomacy by entering into emerging markets around the world?"asked Senator Abetz.
Mr Richardson quickly rejected the charge.
"I'm not going to get involved in what I may or may not think in respect of Huawei and China's economic diplomacy or anything of that kind," he said.
Senator Abetz pressed on, demanding to know how Mr Richardson balanced his knowledge of Huawei's sponsorship deal with discussion of the company's exclusion from the NBN tender when the matter came before the National Security Committee of Cabinet.
"Senator, you are so far off track, I'm amazed," Mr Richardson replied. "I'm an employee of the commonwealth government, and if a foreign government discusses with me a matter relating to government decision making I'm paid by the taxpayer to explain, defend and prosecute the decisions taken by the Australian government.
"I take that responsibility seriously, and don't do a bad job of it."
Unfazed, Senator Abetz pushed Mr Richardson to reveal any concerns about Huawei's decision to sponsor a football team in the national capital. "Given that they, the players, have had their photographs taken with a new Huawei logo in front of the Australian parliament house, does that give you any indication or flavour that there may have been foreign affairs matters involved in Huawei's sponsorship?"
Mr Richardson sent his reply straight back over the net.
"The Canberra Raiders have been around since 1982 and that's not the first time the Canberra Raiders or the Brumbies (Canberra rugby team) for that matter have been photographed in front of Parliament House," said the DFAT boss.
Mr Richardson challenged Senator Abetz to file a formal complaint if he felt so strongly about a conflict of interest.


Defence Department secretary Dennis Richardson has taken the blame for not telling the United States in advance that the Port of Darwin – which is used by US military forces – would be sold to a Chinese company with alleged links to the Chinese military.
Mr Richardson hit back at suggestions the deal was not properly considered by his department, and suggested the US Embassy in Canberra should have been paying more attention to developments around the port's privitisation.
The Australian Financial Review reported that US officials were not consulted, and only heard about the deal last month as they were returning from the annual Australia-US consultations on foreign affairs and defence.
US President Barack Obama then chided Mr Turnbull over the matter in November, asking him to "keep them in the loop" next time, a move independent Senator NIck Xenophon said illustrates the "failures" in the current foreign investment system.
Mr Richardson said it was an oversight not to let the US know the Northern Territory government was leasing the port to Landbridge, but the US Embassy in Australia should have been aware that the port was likely to be privatised.

Readers are reminded that Darwin Port is also used by the Australian and US navies, and that US Marines are stationed there.
END

Reference
Financial Review 


  • Updated Nov 18 2015 at 8:50 AM



  • Chineseogle Plus

    Richard Armitage, a former United States Deputy Secretary of State, said he was "stunned" that Australia blindsided the US on a decision to allow a Chinese company with alleged links to the People's Liberation Army to lease the Port of Darwin.
    "I couldn't believe the Australian defence ministry went along with this," Mr Armitage told The Australian Financial Review in an interview.
    "And I was further stunned to find out that apparently this did not come up in the A-US talks [Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations]."
    Mr Armitage's comments come amid growing controversy about the $506 million deal between the Northern Territory Government and the Chinese Company, Landbridge Corporation to lease the Port of Darwin for 99 years. The furore comes ahead of final bids being lodged for the $9 billion purchase of the NSW electricity grid, which also includes the purchase of sensitive optic fibre cables used by the defence establishment.
    Treasurer Scott Morrison has conceded that processes were not in place for the Darwin port deal to be properly scrutinised by the Foreign Investment Review Board.
    The Department of Defence has publicly said it has no security concerns about the deal, but numerous sources say there is considerable alarm about the deal behind closed doors.
    Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has written to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull asking for a full briefing on what processes were undertaken by Canberra to assess the deal and its national security implications.
    The US navy, which recently conducted a freedom of navigation exercise to challenge Beijing's territorial claims in the South China Sea, has about 1200 marines stationed at Darwin and plans to increase the quota to 2500.
    "If the United States and Australia agreed to have more naval activities, the Darwin port would be the natural jumping off place," Mr Armitage said.
    "Not to mention we've got marines and exercises nearby."
    The tension underlines the growing challenge for Australia in managing relations with its closest security ally, the United States, and rising economic partner, China.
    Mr Armitage, who served as a top diplomat in the George W Bush administration and earlier as a senior defence official for Asia, said he understood the Americans were "very much surprised" to learn of the Darwin port lease to the Chinese and that it hadn't been discussed in advance at a senior inter-government level. Mr Armitage is a Republican, but remains active in Pentagon and think tank circles in Washington. 
    China's massive land reclamation on reefs and rocks in dispute territory in the South China Sea was a key point of discussions, including US navy plans - since executed - to test China's claims within 12 nautical miles of the artificial islands.
    The Financial Review reported this week that the Darwin Port issue was not raised by Australia and US officials only heard about the deal upon returning from the annual AUSMIN talks, according to intelligence officials.
    US Defense Department spokesman, Commander Bill Urban, on Monday would not specifically comment on whether Australia had adequately consulted the Pentagon, saying the US and Australia "discuss a wide range of topics".
    "Australia alone determines its criteria for foreign investment projects related to its infrastructure," he said.
    John Lee, a defence expert at the Hudson Institute in Washington and Australian National University, said Landbridge operates in the port logistics and petro-chemicals, two sectors considered by Beijing to be "important" to national interest.
    "This means that there is not just intimate government supervision of all major Chinese companies in these sectors, but also collaboration if and when Beijing sees it in the national interest to do so," Dr Lee said. 
    In the US, Dubai Ports World in 2006 was forced to sell American ports it had acquired just months earlier, after a political backlash over a lack of scrutiny of the potential security risks associated with the Arab-owned company.
    The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an inter-department group led by Treasury and including intelligence agencies, has the power to review and block foreign investment, including on national security grounds.
    The Bush administration in 2008 blocked China's Huawei Technologies to purchase a stake in 3Com, a US maker of internet router and networking equipment. 
    Huawei is banned from bidding for US government contracts because of concerns over espionage and was blocked in Australia for competing for National Broadband Network work, a decision that then communications minister Malcolm Turnbull expressed reservations about.



    Monday, June 5, 2017

    Malaysian lawyer Shafee Abdullah may have acquired properties in Australia with money stolen from 1MDB-Funds sent by Najib via ANZ/AMBank

    by Ganesh Sahathevan


    Shafee, Scivetti and another joint foreign client on drugs charges
    Shafee Abdullah, Tania Scivetti( his legal 
    The investigate news site Sarawak Report has published details of payments totalling RM 9.5 Million (AUD 3 Million) to a Malaysian lawyer ,Shafee Abdullah, financed by monies stolen from the sovereign wealth fund, 1MDB. The payments were made out of PM Najib Razak's private accounts at AMBank, which is effectively managed by ANZ of Australia.

    Shafee is understood to have made investments in Perth ,Australia. His Australian links, both commercial and private, need to be investigated with regards the 1MDB matter, which Australian authorities are still trying hard to ignore.

    END



    Najib Paid Anwar's Prosecutor RM9.5 Million From 1MDB Slush Fund WHY? EXCLUSIVE REPORT

    Najib Paid Anwar's Prosecutor RM9.5 Million From 1MDB Slush Fund WHY? EXCLUSIVE REPORT

    According to the documents obtained by Sarawak Report, the controversial lawyer Muhammed Shafee Abdullah was one of the biggest individual recipients of money from Najib’s 1MDB slush fund accounts.
    Shaffee, who is known to be an extremely close confidante of Najib and who was controversially appointed as the public prosecutor during the appeal against the acquittal of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on sodomy charges in 2014, received two payments.
    Screen Shot 2017-05-31 at 17.17.47 copy Screen Shot 2017-05-31 at 17.15.14 copy
    11th September 2013 Najib paid him RM4,300,000 from his AmBank account no 2112022011906 and again on 17th February 2014 he received RM5,200,000 from the same account.  This account has been identified as having been funded by money stolen by the Prime Minister from the 1MDB subsidiary SRC, which had borrowed some RM4 billion from the civil service pension fund KWAP.
    AG Apandi inadvertently confirmed that finding by waving MACC investigation papers showing the money trail into Account no 2112022011906 in January 2016, at the very press conference during which he announced that no wrong-doings had been committed and he was closing down investigations into 1MDB.
    Acc no 2112022011906 as highlighted in the MACC money trail held up by AG Apandi
    Acc no 2112022011906 as highlighted in the MACC money trail held up by AG Apandi
    Later Apandi acknowledged the money had come from SRC, but chose to exonerate the Prime Minister because Najib had explained he hadn’t realised that this was where the millions had appeared from in his accounts.  No one has ever asked Najib (or recipients such as Shafee) for this public pension money to be returned.

    What were the payments for?

    Anwar Ibrahim - jailed after Shafee lead a bizarre appeal against his earlier acquittal
    Anwar Ibrahim – jailed after Shafee lead a bizarre appeal against his earlier acquittal
    These payments came at extremely sensitive moments relating to Shafee and Najib and provoke immediate questions about why the Prime Minister was paying this particular lawyer such very large sums of illegitimate money?
    Quite apart from the illegality of the source there are also potential glaring conflicts of interest.
    The RM5,200,000 received in February 2014 came just a fortnight before the Appeal Court overturned an earlier acquittal of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on charges of alleged sodomy. Shafee Abdullah, a private lawyer, had been controversially appointed to a one-off role as the public prosecutor for this extraordinary appeal.
    In the first place, for the prosecution to appeal an acquittal in a criminal case breaches all normal court practice and it should never have happened.  However, the involvement of Shafee in this untoward and plainly politically-motivated move against Najib’s most dangerous political opponent represented even further abuses of judicial process.
    As Anwar’s defence team pointed out, to place someone from outside of the normal prosecution service into this high profile role at this point in the case is against established procedure. It also represented a clear conflict of interest, since Shafee himself is a known confidant of Najib.
    And the conflict was worse than that, Anwar’s lawyers pointed out, because Shafee was himself a material witness, pivotal to the case for the defence, which was that Anwar was the victim of a conspiracy.

    Why Shafee was considered a material witness

    Two days before the alleged victim of Anwar, Mohd Saiful, pressed charges, the student was identified as having visited the home of Najib himself to discuss the entire matter.
    Najib at first denied this fact. However, when photographs were produced he admitted meeting the student, but only to discuss his ‘career plans’.  Only after the alleged victim then broke under questioning and confessed he had discussed his allegations against Anwar with Najib did the Prime Minister admit that the discussion had taken place.
    Shafee Abdullah has been proven to have been at Najib’s house at the same time.  However, the lawyer claims he was not part of the meeting between the Prime Minister and the student – a meeting where legal advice might be considered an obvious priority. Shafee said he was doing something else, somewhere else in the house. Anwar’s legal team contended that to the contrary he was advising the prime minister on handling the student, who went ahead to denounce Anwar two days later (after a further secret meeting with the Deputy Head of Police).
    So, why was Najib paying Shafee such a huge sum of money in February 2014, at a time that this lawyer was supposedly contracted into a public role as a special prosecutor in by far the most high profile legal case of the period – a case in which Najib had a very strong interest in the outcome and in which Shafee himself was a material witness?
    The Australian barrister Mark Trowell, who acted as an observer at the trial and then wrote a book about the case, has described the entire prosecution as a gross miscarriage of justice full of “glaring anomalies”. Shafee was at the centre of it, so why was Najib paying him over RM5.2 million?
    March 7th 2014 a three man Appeal Court panel found Anwar guilty, overturning the judgement of the High Court the previous year in an astounding perversion of justice (normally an acquittal can never be appealed or reversed except in exceptional cases and through a complete re-trial).

    Najib’s legal fixer

    Anwar naturally appealed the shocking and irregular overturn by the Appeal Court of his earlier acquittal and once again Shafee was used to prosecute the case for the government through the Federal Court.  In a short hearing in early 2015 those Federal judges upheld the Appeal Court judgement, causing no surprise in Malaysia.
    What did surprise even Shafee’s colleagues was what this legal eagle did next.  He embarked on a road show justifying the conduct of the shameful trial process and continuing to villify Anwar, now in jail. Shafee even went so far as to regail his listeners with details of intimate allegations that had specifically been barred from the court itself, thereby breaking the rules again in the poorest of taste.
    Shafee then sued lawyers who censured this conduct through the Bar Council for defamation, but lost his case.
    Such enthusiastic support for Najib, which so plainly goes beyond the objectivity of a supposedly neutral observer betrays what has in fact been a long association between the two men.
    Texts which were released on line many years ago between the two men and which have never been denied show that Shafee offered his services to the beleaguered then Deputy PM in the aftermath of the discovery of his translator Altantuya’s body and the arrest of Najib’s bodyguards and his advisor and proxy Razak Baginda for her murder.
    Shafee closely represented Najib as they worked to get Baginda off the hook and put all the blame for the crime on the two bodyguards, excluding all discussion of motive from the case.  So, no wonder his bias against Anwar was raised by his lawyers, since Shafee is widely regarded as Najib’s prime legal fixer in opposition circles.
    The court dismissed such concerns.  However, the glaring question as to why Najib paid Shafee nearly RM10 million in the few months and weeks before that verdict remains.

    Wednesday, May 31, 2017

    Singapore money laundering penalties show IPIC -1MDB settlement based on false ,fraudulent valuation of relevant assets

    by Ganesh Sahathevan

    May 30, 2017: MAS serves notice of intention to issue a six-year prohibition order each against Kelvin Ang Wee Keng and Lee Chee Waiy, former NRA Capital head of research; and a three-year ban against Kevin Scully, CEO of NRA Capital. Lee was found to have applied inappropriate methodology and assumptions in the valatiuon of Saudi oil company PetroSaudi Oil Services. Scully failed to ensure that Lee exercised sufficient care, judgement and objectivity in the valuation of PetroSaudi, MAS said.
    That  PSOL be over-valued is relevant to the value of the so-called "Cayman units".As 1MDB stated:
    "In June 2012, the entire USD1.83 billion amount invested by 1MDB in murabaha notes (in the JV with PSI) was repaid, by way of conversion into shares of Petrosaudi Oil Services Limited, for a value of USD2.22 bil," it said.
    In September 2012, 1MDB sold its shares in PetroSaudi Oil Services Limited for US$2.318 billion and received fund units in a Cayman registered fund.
     
    The Cayman registered fund is managed by Bridge Partners, a Hong Kong-based fund manager. These fund units were owned by 1MDB via its 100% subsidiary, Brazen Sky, and held through BSI Bank Singapore as custodian.
    These same units are now to be part of the 1MDB-IPIC settlement but given that the base valuation was false, the value of  the "Cayman units" must also be considered to have been compromised. The reason is simple.The "Cayman units" are supposed to be units in a segregated portfolio fund .Being segregated the fund could only have been financed by the PSOL shares,either in cash (if the fund manager liquidated them) or in kind.Put in another way, this is ,in investment terms, a case of  garbage in, garbage out.
    In addition , as  this writer has demonstrated, the series of transactions that led to the acquisition of the Cayman units were entirely cashless(see articles below)

    JUN
    15
     

    REPOSTING:1 MDB confirms Cayman units transaction generated no cash-Analysis from 1 MDB 2013 AR at Sahathevan Blogspot confirmed by 1 MDB itself

    Just published by 1 MDB today,confirming what has been published on  Sahathevan Blog since March this year, based on an analysis of 1 MDB's 2013 financial statements:
     
    "In September 2012, 1MDB sold its shares in PetroSaudi Oil Services Limited for USD2.318 billion and received fund units in a Cayman registered fund.
    "The Cayman registered fund is managed by Bridge Partners, a Hong Kong-based fund manager.
    "These fund units were owned by 1MDB via its 100 percent subsidiary, Brazen Sky, and held through BSI Bank Singapore as custodian," it said in a statement today.

    Wednesday, April 22, 2015

    Confirmation : 1 MDB transaction generated no cash

    by Ganesh Sahathevan
     
    Sarawak Report has just reported   that 1 MDB  banker   "BSI Bank has dismissed documents supplied by 1MDB relating to its Brazen Sky Limited account in Singapore, saying they are false bank statements........ there is no actual cash in the relevant Brazen Sky Limited account."
     
     
    This confirms the conclusion reached by this writer in an earlier posting about 1 MDB and its financial affairs,titled:

    1 MDB audit: AG must &  will find that loss of RM 7 billion in cash was in accordance with proper procedures,accepted accounting practise

     
    In that article 1 MDB's audited 2013 financial statements were presented ,and it was concluded that the transactions 1 MDB's management and directors strenuously  asserted had generated about two billion US dollars in cash, which they said  was eventually placed under 1 MDB subsidiary Brazen Sky Ltd,were  " nothing more than a series of book entries" which 
     
    generated no cash.
     
    In that article it was shown how,despite 1 MDB
     
    management's assertions, the audited  financial
     
    statements actually showed that no cash was generated.
     
    The Sarawak Report story seems to have confirmed the
     
    conclusion.
     
    END
     
     
    posted by Ganesh Sahathevan @ 4:39 AM 0 comments



    The Najib MO1-Baumgardner affair: Any settlement with the DOJ is now tainted by at least a perception of bias,impropriety

     
    However, this is the Najib Administration and one has learnt to expect more,like this  report by Sarawak Report  about Najib attempting to use a US lobbyist to make the DOJ investigation go away,which includes this paragraph:
     
    Healy later elaborates in the form: “The 45 Group will assist the Republic of Malaysia via the Godfrey Group Ltd with arranging meetings between U.S. government officials and Malaysian officials in support of strengthening relations between the U.S. and the Republic of Malaysia. The 45 Group will also assist the Republic of Malaysia via the Godfrey Group Ltd with coordinating public relations outreach in support of such efforts”.
    See full story below)
     
    Given the above, any settlement that the DOJ might come to with Riza Aziz, Najib;s step-son,  or any other party involved in the DOJ's 1MDB asset seizure, which lets Najib off the hook, will be tainted by bias at best, impropriety at worst.
    END
     
     
    Najib Claims Trump's Pal Lied!

    Najib Claims Trump's Pal Lied!

    Healey reportedly trades off her continuing good relations with the Trump administration.
    If you are desperately trying to curry favour with America, in order to get off corruption charges, ‘dissing’ the President’s pal would appear not to be the way to go about it.
    However, yesterday Prime Minister Najib Razak effectively branded Trump’s former advisor turned lobbyist, Healy Baumgardner-Nardone, a liar.
    Press secretary, Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad, issued this statement in response to the revelation that Baumgardner had registered her interest under FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Unit), which is a strict requirement of all lobbyists working in the United States:
    “Contrary to recent media reports and a registration statement, neither the Prime Minister’s Office nor government of Malaysia has instructed, appointed or contracted in any form with the Godfrey Group Ltd, the 45 Group or Healy Baumgardner-Nardone”
    That is a comprehensive black and white denial, which implies that Baumgardner falsely registered receiving $250,000 within a series of complex and mysterious lies.
    Over several documents, available for free online under FARA’s ‘quick search’ of Active Registrants, Baumgardner’s company, The 45 Group, makes clear and repeated references to the PR job she has netted from the Government of Malaysia, specifically naming Najib Razak and the Prime Minister’s Office in the process.
    Has she been hoodwinked?  Is she really supposed to be promoting somebody else entirely?

    US Official Documents 

    Let’s examine the points that the Prime Minsiter claims are untrue.
    In her basic Short Form Registration Statement, registered on 19th May, Healy describes herself as having one foreign client, which she calls ‘The Republic of Malaysia’.  She states that she has been hired via the Godfrey Group Ltd., which turns out to be a BVI company but with an address in Taman Molek, Johor Bahru, as established by opposition MP Rafizi Ramli, who outed the whole affair.
    What for? “The 45 Group will assist the Republic of Malaysia via the Godfrey Group Ltd with government relations and public relations services”.  
    Healy later elaborates in the form: “The 45 Group will assist the Republic of Malaysia via the Godfrey Group Ltd with arranging meetings between U.S. government officials and Malaysian officials in support of strengthening relations between the U.S. and the Republic of Malaysia. The 45 Group will also assist the Republic of Malaysia via the Godfrey Group Ltd with coordinating public relations outreach in support of such efforts”.
    'The Republic of Malaysia'
    Malaysians might wonder why it is that they maintain an expensive Embassy in Washington, which is officially tasked with just these duties, if Healy is now to be hired as well?  Except, of course, few will have failed to have developed a suspicion that this is more about boosting the image of the Prime Minister and arguing his case with the US Department of Justice, which is at this very moment examining money laundering offences committed by himself and his son Riza in the United States.
    This assumption is strengthened by a second Document, the full Registration Statement, which cites the Office of The Prime Minister as her principal client via the shadowy Godfrey Group with the purpose of “strengthening the U.S. – Malaysian relationship”.
    For performing these “Government Relations Services” Healy goes on to state on the same form that she received a payment on May 9th of $250,000 from the Godfrey Group
    Has Healy simply dreamed all this up?
    Registration form
    No mean payment of over a million ringgit on behalf of GOM -
    Proceed to Exhibit A in her registration, where she again states the Government of Malaysia and the Office of the Prime Minister as being her clients ‘via the Godfrey Group’ and then goes on to name Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Razak as the “Official with whom the registrant deals”:
    Najib named as the official with whom Healey deals!
    Later in the same form Healy again repeats on a number of occasions the very same information about the aim of strengthening Malaysian – US relations and then goes on to be even more specific.  She will be “arranging meetings between US government officials and Malaysian officials and advocating on strengthening relations between the US and the ‘Republic of Malaysia”.
    Arranging meetings....
    Does Najib and his press team really think that they can convince Malaysians that all this documentation registered by Healy Baumgardner is a series of big fat lies?
    Which leads one to question why the Prime Minister is so anxious not to be caught out blatantly hiring an access monger so closely linked to President Trump? Did Najib imagine that by hiring Healy via a BVI company he could somehow circumvent the requirement for her to state her ultimate client and the person on whose behalf she would be lobbying in Washington DC?
    This would seem to be the obvious conclusion to make, in which case Najib was badly advised and badly advised also to keep on digging himself into a deeper hole by denying it all now.

    Healy Baumgardner

    Healy Baumgardner had a career PR before joining the Tump campaign as a Senior Press Representative, a post from which she resigned in September 2016.  Her greatest claim to fame in that position was a car crash TV appearance, in which she found herself unable to defend Tump, who had appeared to praise North Korea’s Kim Jong-un for “taking out” (arbitrarily executing) various members of his family and administration.

    Now that Healy has taken on the equally tough job of defending a world class kleptocrat behind the scenes, she should be just as wary of the dangers. Has she, for example, checked the origin of the money with which she is being paid by the shadowy and mysterious Godfrey Group from the BVI?
    Frank White faced similar denials and pulled out!
    And has she done any homework at all on the background of immense scandal surrounding 1MDB and the criminal investigations currently on-going into her client and his family in ‘The Republic of Malaysia’?
    For information she might do worse than pick up the phone to a predecessor linked to the Obama administration, who likewise got caught up in the blandishments and big money offers by Malaysia’s PM, Frank White.
    Frank White also registered a FARA relationship with Najib Razak and 1MDB and on that occasion also Najib denied it. Within weeks of Sarawak Report exposing his role back in 2014 White had prudently severed all relations and closed down a half billion dollar investment fund also linked to Malaysia, Aabar and 1MDB.  His consolation appears to have been that he kept a $69 million managment fee in the process.

    The problem of Sirul Azhar-ICC president de Gurmendi suggests that Australia should refer the matter of Atlantuyaa Shaariibuu to the ICC

    by Ganesh Sahathevan
    Speaking recently in Malaysia International Criminal Court president Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi suggested that the  murder of North Korean Kim Jong-nam  could be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
    She made the suggestion despite the fact that Malaysia is not a signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but noted however that it was still possible for the United Nations Security Council to refer the case to the ICC even if Malaysia was not a signatory to the treaty.
    Meanwhile,in Australia, the  matter of Sirul Azhar drags on,with the Australian Government still clueless as to what to do with a man who can look forward to spending the rest of his life at the Villawood Detention Centre.
    Australia needs to do something,  for it cannot keep Sirul detained indefinitely. On the other hand,freeing him into the local community is not an option. Could that something be a referral to International Criminal Court in Rome? While the murder Sirul Azhar has been convicted to hang for was committed in Malaysia Malaysia is not a signatory to tthe Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court., but Australia is.
    Sirul is now in Australian custody and he is claiming that he is innocent of the charge. Australia will not return him to Malaysia because of popular objection to the death penalty,so Australia has effectively taken complete responsibility for him. Re-trying Sirul in Australia is not practical ,but however the ICC may have the physical and legal resources to do so. ICC intervention,based on a referral from Australia,  may be the only practical way of resolving the impasse.
    The ICC investigates crimes against humanity and while it does not usually investigate and hear matters involving the murder of individuals, the matter of Sirul does raise questions of  whether there is in existence in Malaysia a systematic attempt to eliminate those considered a threat to the current leadership.This suspicion arises from the fact that Sirul continues to imply in his defence that he carried out the execution of the Mongolian subject to  so some standing order.In fact, his conviction was distinguished by  the fact that the Malaysian courts which convicted him insisted that in his case, motive for the murder was irrelevant. 
    END
    References
     
    A. Referrals, analyses and investigations
    Any State Party to the Rome Statute can request the Office of the Prosecutor to carry out an investigation. A State not party to the Statute can also accept the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to crimes committed in its territory or by one of its nationals, and request the Office of the Prosecutor to carry out an investigation. The United Nations Security Council may also refer a situation to the Court.


    'Flannel' From Australia's Immigration Department

    'Flannel' From Australia's Immigration Department

    Sarawak Report suggests that striving to tell the truth, rather than sticking to what is convenient, should be a golden rule for public servants and their political masters. Not only because it is right, but because it is awfully embarrassing to be caught in a cover-up.
    The Australian Department of Immigration and Border Controls has just proved the point, having exposed itself to ridicule and disappointment in Malaysia, which will reflect on its reputation in Australia also.
    This is because it has just issued a nonsensical statement to the ABC programme Four Corners, for no apparent good reason, except to perhaps protect certain individuals, who may have assisted in the making of a series of videos featuring Sirul Azhar Umar, which was plainly recorded within the Villawood detention centre earlier this year.
    Protestors at Villawood - normally dressed like Sirul
    The statement from the Department persists in claiming that, contrary to all the evidence, it was “not possible” for the video to have been recorded while Sirul was in detention.
    This, says the department, is because of the ‘flannel’ behind him and the clothes he is wearing, which could not possibly have been smuggled into the centre.
    So, what is so significant about Sirul’s perfectly ordinary attire and his sarong hanging up behind him in front of the window that he could not possibly have had these possessions in his room?
    Detainees wear everyday clothes at Villawood, not striped pyjamas or orange jumpsuits – so have the officials of the Department of Immigration seriously investigated all of Sirul’s clothing of the past year, in order to definitively rule out this particular set of shirt and slacks?
    And did they not recognise a classic Malay sarong when they saw one, thinking it to be a  ‘flannel backdrop’ instead?

    Get a better translation

    Minister Peter Dutton, why the dogged denials?
    However, it is Sirul’s own words spoken in Malay, which confirm without doubt that the video was recent.
    He referred directly to a ‘recent’ press statement given by his two UMNO lawyers in KL, Kamarul Kamaruddin and Hasnal Merican, who had updated the media on his immigration status several months after his detention.
    That statement was given in December 2015 and there had been no equivalent earlier press statement given by these two layers in KL in the period before his arrest in Australia, discussing his immigration requests or anything else.
    Neither had Sirul hired a legal and immigration team to pursue this immigration request prior to his arrest.
    Below is a translation of what Sirul plainly said in the video and it places the timing straight after the press statement the two lawyers gave on December 31st:
    “I wish to clarify and further comment with respect to the media statement made by Datuk Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin and Hasnal Rezua Merican in Kuala Lumpur recently.
    Immediately after the statements were made, a few days after that, there are still a number of certain parties who have taken the opportunity to contact me here.
    I would like to clarify here that I am not interested at all to make any further statements after this.
    As we all know, Datuk Kamarul himself has announced that certain processes, including the Immigration process, the legal process that continue to take place here that requires me to devote.  So, I am devoting the whole of my time, my energy to settle here as per my application process to settle here..”
    Yet, in the face of this, the communications team representing Immigration & Borders Minister Peter Dutton claim that they have had two Malay translators examine the material, who have assured them that Sirul’s references were of a “generalised nature.. including references to immigration and legal processes [which] are consistent with those underway immediately prior to the detainee’s entry to detention”.
    They should get a third, more accurate translator and further explain how Sirul was pursuing an immigration case before his arrest, when his immigration and legal advisors only started off the process after his detention?
    The facts of the matter are that Sirul was detained on 20th January 2015 after he failed to gain an extension to his tourist visa. It was only on the day he was detained that he first made a verbal request for a protection visa, which he is now attempting to achieve.
    He did not obtain lawyers until later, when the UMNO team was sent from KL and hired local representation on his behalf, using sources of money which have yet to be explained. Therefore, Sirul could not have referred to lawyers speaking publicly about his immigration issues before being arrested and detained – there were no lawyers at that time and no case underway.

    ‘Conspiracy to topple Najib’

    A further point has been widely made about this series of video episodes (released very much in the telling genre of a classic Ramesh Rao disinformation campaign), which is that the substance focuses entirely on the perception of a “plot” against the Prime Minister, a concept which did not emerge until after the exposes over 1MDB, which happened several weeks after Sirul had been detained.
    “I mean what is the importance for some interested people to want to topple a person?
    Sirul announces in the 3rd ‘episode’, prompting many to question how Sirul acquired such foresight about a debate that would only be raging months after his arrest and, if so, why he waited so long to release his supportive comments of the boss he once attacked for making him a scapegoat?

    No rules against making prison videos

    Altogether it seems entirely idiotic, therefore, for the Department of Immigration to be sticking doggedly to a nonsensical argument, for no apparent good reason beyond the fact that officials plainly still believe they can stone wall further examination.
    This is not least because in a separate statement to Australia’s 60 Minutes programme, who are also on the story, officials from the very same department made clear that there is no rule preventing Sirul making such a recording if he wants to:
    “In another letter to 60 Minutes, the Australian Border Force said immigration detainees are free to contact any media representative.
    “People in detention have access to computers, the internet, social media and telephones and there are no restrictions on who they may contact,” [Malaysiakini]
    In which case, why all the fuss and denial by the Australian authorities?
    To anyone looking at these video offerings, it seems evident that Sirul set himself on a chair in front of a window with a sarong across to block out the light and then spoke looking down into a camera on an open computer in front of him, as in a typical Skype call.
    The Ramesh Rao team with Lester - another paid video episode confession maker
    All Malaysia has concluded that this was just another Ramesh Rao production, using a paid confession-maker reciting from a pre-prepared script, with the sole purpose of exonerating Rao’s hero Najib Razak.
    The same technique of chopping the ‘confessions’ into episodes is also familiar to those who have already laughed at the ‘Lester Melanyi files’… even up to the failure to deliver on promised final bombshell episodes, such as the missing ‘part 4″ of the Sirul production, which the makers have evidently bottled out of releasing.
    The same Ramesh line up - this time the confession maker was Selvi Bala
    So, why are the Australian authorities working so hard to box themselves into a corner to deny that these videos were filmed with Sirul in detention, once the UMNO legal team had moved in to control and pay off Sirul, when they themselves have admitted that he was perfectly entitled to make such a video if he wanted to?
    Is it because the Department does not want to open up and address the wider concerns about the blatant and illicit Malaysian political interference in the handling of Sirul’s legal affairs in Australia?
    Altantuya was murdered by Sirul - who originally attempted to blackmail Najib before changing his tune in jail
    Or, is it also because certain quarters in Australia still cling to working with Najib, despite this inappropriate and illegal interference in a troubling murder case, in order to achieve their separate deportation objectives?
    These, of course, involve sending other asylum seekers over to indefinite detention in Malaysia, where Najib has kindly agreed to take them off Australia’s hands.
    BN has an appalling recent record on people trafficking; it has been widely admonished also for its failures to observe UN refugee guidelines and for widespread abuse of foreign workers.
    Nevertheless, it appears that some in Australia remain willing to join the ranks of opportunists ready to bend the rules over Najib Razak, in return for favours rendered.


    AUG
    19

    Sirul Azhar Umar has become hot property: Evidence that Jho Low may have created the market

    by Ganesh Sahathevan
    Evidence is emerging that someone in Taipei, Taiwan, has been informed of this writer's queries concerning the matter of Sirul.The emergence of this evidence coincides with Sarawak Report's revelation that Low Taek Jho, aka Jho Low, has sought 
    refuge in Taiwan.   Given that Jho Low has been "tied to the 1 MDB inquiry"  a link between 1 MDB and and the matter of Sirul Azhar Umar may soon become apparent.
    While in detention Sirul's ability to receive any significant amount of cash  is non-existent.It is highly unlikely that he even has a bank account in Australia.The same can be said for his teenage son who remains in Australia. Even if released any receipt of funds on their part will be very closely scrutinized.
    Consequently all this money or promise of money swirling around Sirul is indicative only of a presumed right to keep him silent.For so long as he remains in detention others can lay claim to that right,and trade it with anyone who is willing to pay. It appears that Jho Low created the market but it is unclear if he still has the finances to keep that market liquid. With accounts being frozen in Singapore and Malaysia it is likely that the market has dried up.Nevertheless, some may be living in hope.
    While Sirul Azhar Umar   remains unrepresented those who have laid claim over him, or who have been reported to be his legal advisors   have refused to say who pays or has promised to pay for their services.
    Nevertheless whatever is or was   on offer to guide  Sirul  through his troubles must be significant, for how else does one explain this fiercely possessive  reaction from  Christopher Levingston, an immigration lawyer who was asked to clarify his position vis a vis Sirul:
    You have no standing nor do you have any legitimate interest in this matter.
    Your attempts to interpose yourself and your strategy of “divide and rule” is not only unprofessional but also unethical.
    END
    Posted 19th August 2015 by Ganesh Sahathevan