Sunday, March 3, 2019

Is KWAP's RM 4 Billion seized by Singapore hostage to Malaysia-Singapore Water Agreement negotiations?

by Ganesh Sahathevan


This writer has previously reported that the Singapore-Malaysia water agreements are not sustainable (see story copied and pasted below).

In the past few weeks Singapore ministers have had much to say about the water agreements.For example the Straits Times reported:

Singapore will fully honour the terms of the 1962 Water Agreement with Malaysia, including the price of water stipulated in it, and expects Malaysia also to do so, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said on Monday (July 9).

Responding in Parliament to a question about bilateral relations with Malaysia, Dr Balakrishnan said the 1962 deal is "not an ordinary agreement".

"The 1962 Water Agreement was guaranteed by both Singapore and Malaysia in the 1965 Separation Agreement, which in turn was registered with the United Nations," he said.

"Any breach of the 1962 Water Agreement would call into question the Separation Agreement, which is the basis for Singapore's very existence as an independent sovereign state."

Water has been in the spotlight in recent weeks as an issue that could affect bilateral ties, after Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad criticised the water supply deal between Singapore and his country, saying the price at which water is sold to the Republic is "ridiculous".

An agreement signed between Singapore and Malaysia in 1962 allows Singapore to draw up to 250 million gallons of raw water from Johor daily at three sen (1.01 Singapore cents) per 1,000 gallons.

The Minister also said:

While Malaysia’s investigations into the 1MDB issue have intensified following its general election, Singapore has been thoroughly investigating 1MDB-related offences committed in Singapore since 2015, he noted.

Singapore has taken firm action against institutions and individuals, including criminal prosecutions, shut down two banks and fined others for regulatory breaches, and jailed and fined individuals convicted on 1MDB-linked charges.

“So far, we are the only jurisdiction to have done so. We have, in addition, cooperated fully with Malaysia’s official requests for information on 1MDB-related transactions,” he said.


However, Singapore has yet to say much about this very large billion dollar 1MDB issue:


In 2011, the former 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) subsidiary took a RM4.385 billion loan from KWAP at an interest rate of between 4.3% and 5.1% per year to fund strategic overseas investments in energy resources.

The total repayment period is 10 years, which would see interest servicing in the first five years of the loan, while the remaining five years would see the interest and principal paid up.

Last November, former second finance minister Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani admitted that SRC was in financial difficulty due to problems it faced in recovering money it had deposited in BSI Bank's branch in Singapore.
This came after Singapore authorities shut down the bank's operations for breaching money laundering regulations in a development allegedly linked to 1MDB.

The above raised the obvious question: Is Singapore using that billion or more as a  bargaining chip in the ongoing disagreement over the water agreements?


This would not be the first occasion in which Singapore has used money owed Malaysia and Malaysians as a bargaining chip.Readers may recall this issue from the 1990s:

Veteran observers on both sides of the Causeway view it as representing a psychological breakthrough in the way the two countries approach contentious issues between them. Malaysia had accepted the fact of Singapore’s sovereignty over the railway land while Singapore had acknowledged Malaysia’s entitlement to some economic value for the railway land and stations that KTM had to give up. The agreement to relocate the KTM Station to Woodlands within a year has opened up the possibility of a resolution to other outstanding issues, if approached with the same spirit. These include the price of water supply from Johor to Singapore and the withdrawal of CPF savings by Malaysian workers and use of Malaysian airspace by the Singapore Air Force.

END



















Thursday, February 11, 2016


Singapore ,1 MDB,a change of leadership & the water agreements: A public admission from Singapore that the water agreements are not sustainable


by Ganesh Sahathevan
In this post earlier in the week evidence was provided to show that the Singapore-Malaysia water agreements will need to reviewed, regardless of any arrangement the Government of Singapore may come to with  Najib Razak, the 65 year old  current prime minister of Malaysia.\:


It has since come to this writer's attention that the issues raised in the above post had in fact been aired via  the Government owned and controlled Straits Times ,where the public have been warned :

The heavy rain and subsequent floods in Johor Baru are in a different catchment area from the Linggiu Reservoir, which is further upstream. While there has been some rain in the Linggiu Reservoir catchment, the water levels remain largely the same, at around 43 per cent.
In photos posted last Friday( November 13,2015, on the Facebook page of Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli  )  the water level at the Linggiu Reservoir was shown to have dropped significantly. 

In photos posted last Friday, the water level at the Linggiu Reservoir was shown to have dropped significantly.


The water level at the reservoir is at its lowest due to low rainfall and this in turn impacts how much Singapore can draw from the Johor River. Singapore can tap 250 million gallons of water a day from the river, which can meet up to 60 per cent of the country's needs.

PUB said that from January to last month, there were about 100 times when Singapore was temporarily unable to withdraw water from the river .


Last week, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli said if the situation does not improve, more may have to be done to conserve water. This includes restricting, for the first time, the use of water for non-essential activities such as washing cars and operating water fountains.


(See full story below).


The probability that Singapore is trying to do what it can to ignore the 1 MDB scandal in order to secure its future supply of water via some agreement with Najib Razak, as foolhardy as that may seem, is greater given this admission.Readers are reminded that the Government of Singapore has for more than a decade boasted that it is self-sufficient with regards its need for water.
This Straits Times headline from 2014 is but one example:

Saying goodbye to water woes-Treated used water is helping Singapore achieve near self-sufficiency


END 






Monday's two-hour downpour which caused massive floods in parts of Johor Baru has done little to raise historically low water levels in the Linggiu Reservoir - a key cog in Singapore's water supply.
National water agency PUB said it will continue to monitor the situation closely, and Singaporeans will be told early if there is a need to restrict water use here.
"The heavy rain and subsequent floods in JB are in a different catchment area from the Linggiu Reservoir, which is further upstream," a PUB spokesman told The Straits Times yesterday. "While there has been some rain in the Linggiu Reservoir catchment, the water levels remain largely the same, at around 43 per cent."
The water level at the reservoir is at its lowest due to low rainfall and this in turn impacts how much Singapore can draw from the Johor River. Singapore can tap 250 million gallons of water a day from the river, which can meet up to 60 per cent of the country's needs.
PUB said that from January to last month, there were about 100 times when Singapore was temporarily unable to withdraw water from the river .

In photos posted last Friday, the water level at the Linggiu Reservoir was shown to have dropped significantly.
In photos posted last Friday, the water level at the Linggiu Reservoir was shown to have dropped significantly. FACEBOOK PAGE OF MASAGOS ZULKIFLI
LITTLE RAIN IN CATCHMENT
The heavy rain and subsequent floods in Johor Baru are in a different catchment area from the Linggiu Reservoir, which is further upstream. While there has been some rain in the Linggiu Reservoir catchment, the water levels remain largely the same, at around 43 per cent.
PUB SPOKESMAN
Last week, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli said if the situation does not improve, more may have to be done to conserve water. This includes restricting, for the first time, the use of water for non-essential activities such as washing cars and operating water fountains.
Senior research fellow Cecilia Tortajada, from the Institute of Water Policy at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, said that if the reservoir water levels do not improve by next month despite the north-east monsoon, which is expected to set in then, such restrictions may have to kick in.
"It would send a clear message to the population that there is a limit to how much water is available and that it needs to be conserved, even after the monsoon season starts," she said, pointing out that many cities around the world enforce water restrictions during the dry season.
The reservoir was built in 1994 by Singapore. It keeps sea water out of the Johor River by releasing water into it. This ensures that the river water is not too salty to be treated by the Singapore-run treatment plant there.
PUB has been running desalination and Newater plants at high capacity to keep local reservoir stocks healthy. Currently, Singapore's four Newater plants can meet up to 30 per cent of the nation's water needs. PUB hopes to expand this to 55 per cent by 2060. PUB also aims to build two more desalination plants. Currently, desalination or treated sea water can meet up to 25 per cent of Singapore's needs.
Professor Asit Biswas, distinguished visiting professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, said Singapore needs to think seriously about developing a long-term, drought-resistance plan.
With climate change and multi-year droughts in countries like Australia, there is a very high probability that the region may be hit by a prolonged multi-year drought within the next two to four decades, and not just one lasting a few months, he said.
He also added that Singaporeans may have taken a reliable water supply for granted, pointing out that water-rationing last took place here from April 1963 to February 1964.
Prof Biswas said: "More than a generation has now grown up without having faced a serious drought needing water-rationing."

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

PwC and 1MDB: The Southern Bank takeover suggests PwC does not have the skills for this job;and has itself caught in (another) conflict of interest



Faiz is 1MDB exco chairman, part of PwC services to the company


Interesting to see that PwC has broken a cardinal rule -you cannot audit yourself-in the search for fees.The Edge reported:

1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) said yesterday Datuk Mohammad Faiz Azmi’s appointment as its executive committee (exco) chairman forms part of services provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Sdn Bhd (PwC) to 1MDB.

“Pursuant to the announcement made on the appointment of the exco members on June 25, 2018, the board of directors is pleased to clarify that Datuk Mohammad Faiz Azmi’s appointment as the chairman of the exco is part of the scope and services provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Sdn Bhd to 1MDB.

“PwC is assisting the board and the exco in recovering 1MDB’s assets and in managing the company’s debt,” 1MDB said in a statement.

On June 25, 1MDB announced Mohammad Faiz’s appointment to the exco that was entrusted with managing the day-to-day running of the company.

Besides Mohammad Faiz, other members of the exco are Datin Rashidah Mohd Sies and Datuk Wan Mohd Fadzmi Wan Othman.


Unfortunately,  that is not all. Faiz is also believed to have advised Bumiputra-Commerce Holdings Bhd on its takeover of Southern Bank Bhd. He missed some gaping holes in Southern Bank's balance sheet ,which then became ,at least in part , too big to hide by 2000 when BCHB got (you guessed it) PwC to audit the audited accounts. The RM 160 Million overstatement of accounts was quite likely an understatement.



Compared to the 1MDB losses, the Southern Bank losses were all local and easily proven. Faiz and PwC could not uncover that loss;it is hard to see how they will unravel the 1MDB mess.

END

Reference 



Analysts: Overstatement of SBB’s assets no impact on BCHB
By Gan Yen Kuan
553 words
4 June 2007
THEDGE
English
(c) 2007 The Edge Communications Sdn Bhd
Southern Bank Bhd’s (SBB) “inappropriate accounting treatment” that resulted in an overstatement of RM160 million in its net assets as at Dec 31, 2005 (FY05) will not have a significant impact on Bumiputra-Commerce Holdings Bhd (BCHB), said analysts.
MIMB Investment Bank Bhd research head Pong Teng Siew said the overstatement, representing 2.4% of the RM6.7 billion BCHB paid for SBB, would possibly be treated as goodwill, thus the only impact on BCHB’s book would be the increase in goodwill.
“It’s not something that is really significant. Accounting treatment issues are always contentious. It’s not as major as to the Transmile case,” he told The Edge Financial Daily.
Another analyst said BCHB would just need to restate the amended figure in its FY05 results report.
“It’ll be just standardising the financial reporting (of SBB) to follow BCHB’s standards including provision policy. It will not affect its earnings,” he added.
The Edge weekly reported on May 21, quoting sources, that BCHB hired PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to determine if SBB’s FY05 financial statement reflected a “true and fair disclosure” of its financial position then. Deloitte KassimChan audited SBB’s FY05 financial statement.
The issue was relevant in so far as it was not known to what extent BCHB had relied on the 2005 financial statements when pricing SBB.
Following the news report, BCHB told Bursa Malaysia last Friday that PwC’s review of SBB’s FY05 audited financial statements revealed there were indeed “inappropriate accounting treatments” of certain transactions.
It said these accounting treatments related to “inappropriately valuing certain derivative financial instruments entered into by SBB, not writing down in full the collateral value and wrongly writing back specific provisions made on certain foreclosed properties relating to non-performing loans aged seven years and above, and non-expensing of certain costs incurred.”
BCHB added that these accounting treatments had been corrected in its book as at June 30, 2006, and that no further amendments or corrections were required.
Asked what might have led to the “inappropriate accounting treatment”, Pong said the management might have practised “earnings management”.
“All companies are trying hard to show a smoother earnings growth. It’s a matter of interpretation (of the financial reporting standards). If this (earnings management) is wrong, then almost all companies are guilty,” he said.
BCHB had also said it would deliberate further on possible courses of action to enhance corporate governance and professional standards.
Commenting on these courses of action, Pong said that would likely mean internal control rather than legal action towards those accountable for the incident.
“I doubt so (legal actions). It will be more of ensuring that all staff adhere to accounting standards,” he said.
However, another analyst said directors were always held accountable for such fraud, and BCHB’s so-called courses of action may possibly mean bringing the case to civil court.
“Of course, (they will take legal action) if they want to. There can be arguments over what ‘inappropriate’ means. Is it just inappropriate according to their standards, or an utterly illegal practice?” he said.
Meanwhile, BCHB group chief executive Datuk Nazir Razak told The Edge Financial Daily that “the announcement is comprehensive enough”. He declined to elaborate.
The Edge Communications Sdn Bhd.
Document THEDGE0020071101e364000ko

PwC is Goldman Sachs' auditor,;PwC appointed by the Malaysian Govt to examine Goldman Sachs 1MDB transactions

by Ganesh Sahathevan






From Goldman Sachs 2017 Annual Report:


We were appointed by the directors on August 10, 1982 to audit the financial statements for the period ended November 25, 1983 and subsequent financial periods. The period of total uninterrupted engagement is 35 years, covering the periods ended November 25, 1983 to December 31, 2017. 


Nick Morrison (Senior Statutory Auditor) for and on behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Chartered Accountants and Statutory Auditors London March 29, 2018


Despite that history, Malaysia's new government and Minister for Finance announced last year:


Newly appointed auditor for 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has completed its preliminary report and the Government plans to make the final report public, according to Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng.
In a press conference at Parliament today, Lim said the preliminary report gathered that 1MDB did not comply with basic corporate governance or management principles.
“From what we gathered in PWC's preliminary report, basic good corporate governance or management principles were not complied with. We want to make this public — people have the right to know — but let us get it done properly first, it is a preliminary report,” he said.

The Minister's confidence in PwC's work is touching, but one must ask why this obvious, blatant conflict has not been made better known to the Malaysian public.

Also, it is no excuse to say that PwC is the only auditor in Malaysia untainted by 1MDB.There are other firms who can, and are better known  in the business of forensic audits and investigations.
END
References


Don't Ask Us! - KPMG Global's Astonishing Response on 1MDB

Don't Ask Us! - KPMG Global's Astonishing Response on 1MDB

1MDB is not anything to do with us - Global Chief of KPMG, John Ve
1MDB is not anything to do with us – Global Chief of KPMG, John Veihmeyer
For weeks the mantra of the chairman of 1MDB’s governing Advisory Board (Malaysia’s Prime Minister) has been that the management of the fund has been ‘cleared’, because the accounts were ‘forensically’ audited by international accountancy firms of global standing.
The firms who have given 1MDB clean bills of health have been the Malaysia branches of the accountancy giants Deloitte and KPMG.
Malaysia's top team at KPMG - no accountability to HQ?
Malaysia’s top team at KPMG – no accountability to HQ?
However, last week Sarawak Report demonstrated evidence pointing to a series of sharp practices on the part of KPMG during the audit process for the year ending March 2010.
These enabled 1MDB to conceal the loss of USD$700 million, which was the sum siphoned out of its joint venture with the little known oil company PetroSaudi.
Following this expose, the Sydney-based Malaysian investigative financial journalist, Ganesh Sahathevan, directly challenged the Global Chairman of the company, John Veihmeyer, to give his response to the allegations.
Sahathevan asked whether KPMG Global had been aware of any of the transactions relating to 1MDB outlined in the expose?  He added that:
“much of what has been reported was in the public domain since at least 2014, and hence there is also the question of why the Global Board took no action despite that fact?”
KPMG's international image - a massive global firm
KPMG’s international image – a massive global firm
The rapid response Sahathevan received from KPMG merits reading in full, because it puts paid to any assumptions that a local branch of this ‘global network’ of accountancy firms can be relied upon to maintain any sort of acceptable standard laid down by a central authority.
The General Counsel (top lawyer) for Mr Veihmeyer states that the corporate headquarters has no involvement in the matter, because the KPMG network represents nothing more than a ‘Swiss Cooperative’ of happy Helvetic brand sharers.
In short, he explains, no one at HQ is responsible for what their fellow franchise holders get up to. They are just there to help and advise when required.
Dear Mr Sahathevan
I refer to your email below addressed to Mr John Veihmeyer, Global Chairman, KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International).
I am the General Counsel of KPMG International and am responding on behalf of Mr Veihmeyer.
KPMG International is a Swiss Cooperative. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to bind or obligate any member firm.
KPMG International does not have any relationship with, or connection to, 1MDB”.
Yours faithfully
Tom Wethered
Malaysians and others, who had assumed that accreditation by KPMG represented some form of guarantee of high standards; quality control; centralised monitoring and disciplinary process to ensure high standards of accountancy practice must therefore stand disappointed.
According to KPMG’s top legal eagle, theirs is a form of franchise that has its cake and eats it at the same time.
Name bearers get to carry the brand, but without any form of accountability whatsoever:
“nor does KPMG International have any such authority to bind or obligate any member firm” [Tom Wethered]

Franchise without accountability?

If a Malaysian were to find dog meat in his McDonald’s burger in KL, he would expect to receive some response from the company HQ from under its golden arches in California – and doubtless he would.
By contrast, if KPMG Malaysia assists in the cover-up of a billion dollar heist of public money, it turns out that their global HQ in Amsterdam merely refers you to the cantons of Switzerland and their company’s new corporate structure, which is accountability free.

Having their cake and eating it 

Mr Wethered’s response that “KPMG International does not have any relationship with, or connection to, 1MDB”  represents a stark contrast, however, with the firm’s own publicity material.
The KPMG website and numerous articles make reference instead to the guarantee of quality that their brand lends to its affiliates across the world.
KPMG’s own website, under the banner line “Acting With Integrity”, declares:
“KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing Audit, Tax and Advisory services. We have more than 155,000 outstanding professionals working together to deliver value in 155 countries worldwide.”
On the other hand, scrutiny of this KPMG website soon makes plain that behind the fine words and sentiments there is indeed what appears to be a significant dearth of actual governance in this corporate structure:

ABOVE ALL, WE ACT WITH INTEGRITY

We are constantly striving to uphold the highest professional standards, provide sound advice and rigorously maintain our independence….
The KPMG Global website concedes that its Head Officers provide policies, even regulations. But, there is no mention of enforcement.
The Global Board is the principal governance and oversight body. The key responsibilities of the Board include approving long-term strategy, protecting and enhancing the KPMG brand, and approving policies and regulations
There is no single line of accountability within the organisation.

Leadership

Internationally, the affairs of KPMG are the responsibility of several bodies.

Aspirations, but can they be enforced?
Aspirations, but can they be enforced?
The controls that would lead the third party readers of its audit reports to feel comforted that quality control is enforced, appear to be missing, as indicated by the letter sent by KMPG’s top counsel.
Although there is a deluge of information about the values and quality that this network of affiliated firms is “striving to achieve”, there seems to be a lack of clear accountability within the structure of the organisation.
Without accountability and enforcement structures the high values and claims of integrity that pack out KPMG’s corporate messaging are surely effectively meaningless?
What better example than this latest abdication of responsibility over the scandal of 1MDB?

KPMG’s Positive PR

The legal counsel of KPMG seems therefore to be entirely correct in his statement that the global headquarters can wash its hands entirely of this little fracas over in Malaysia.
Star Interview with former Global Head Michael Andrew presented a very different state of affairs.
Star Interview with former Global Head Michael Andrew presented a very different state of affairs.
Yet, as Mr Sahathevan and others suggest, this is not the public face of the company.
Certainly, the ‘Swiss Cooperative’s’ corporate PR does not accurately represent this state of affairs and basic lack of governance.
Take for example the recent ‘Up Close And Personal’ article by Malaysia’s Star Newspaper about the role of the recently retired Global Chairman of KPMG.
In his interview Mr Andrew told the Star that clients in KL had the right to expect the same level of service as in Europe.
He also said that the company upheld its “duty to the broader community”:
KPMG’s brand, Andrew says, is all about being independent and objective because the firm and its employees has a public interest of responsibility to the broader community.
“We have to ensure that we uphold the governance standards in every country for our multi-national clients. They expect the same standards in Kuala Lumpur as they do in Johannesburg, Frankfurt or New York,” he says.
He adds that corporate governance defines the KPMG brand. “If we don’t meet the governance standards, then people won’t have confidence in our business. Integrity is at the heart of everything we do.
“This is ensuring that we understand that our duty is to the broader community than just to any particular client or particular transaction. Because if we do some work, which turns out to be incorrect, it’ll affect our global brand,” he says.
Every three months, KPMG employees are required to sign a declaration to maintain their independence around their audit clients. [The Star Online 10th Aug 2013]
However, despite that commitment to the broader community, in the case of 1MDB the public was never informed about the siphoning of $700 million in public funds out of the fund, thanks to KPMG Malaysia’s accountancy practices.
And now it turns out that KPMG Global regards itself as having no responsibility at all in the matter.
Were it to be more widely recognised that KPMG Global exerts so little quality control over its branches, the reputation on which this ‘cooperative’ relies might very well lose a lot of its lustre.

Friday, February 15, 2019

Now would be a good time for Yang Ariff Daryl Goon to explain his endorsement of the Malaysian Applied Law LLM

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Yang Ariff Goon has yet to provide answers.


Saturday, August 18, 2018

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

by Ganesh Sahathevan


MASTER OF LAWS (APPLIED LAW) IN MALAYSIAN LEGAL PRACTICE


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

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

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

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

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

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

END





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

e
Circular No 147/2017
Dated 11 July 2017n 
To Members of the Malaysian Bar
Providing Assistance to The College of Law, Australia | Development of Localised Master
of Laws Programme
The Bar Council Malaysia has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with The College of
Law, Australia and New Zealand in order to create further legal education and training platforms
for the benefit of Members of the Bar.
In this regard, The College of Law is interested to localise the content of its existing Australian
Master of Laws (“LLM”) in Applied Law programme for Malaysia, and is interested in working
with Members of the Bar who have relevant legal research and writing, and practical legal
experience. This is to be carried out on a project basis, and the Members will be remunerated.
The first six subjects in this new LLM programme are near completion and will be offered in
September 2017 as part of a new LLM (Applied Law) with a major in Malaysian Legal Practice.
The next 11 LLM subjects that The College of Law is interested in localising are listed below:
(1)
Advocacy;
(2)
Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice;
(3)
Arbitration.
(4)
Banking and Finance;
(5)
Family Law Practice;
(6)
Intellectual Property Practice;
(7)
Islamic Banking and Finance;
(8)
Mediation;
(9)
Mergers and Acquisitions Practice;
(10) Negotiation; and
(11) Wills, Estates and Trusts.
If you are interested in pursuing this opportunity, please send your expression of interest together
with your detailed resume and any queries, directly to:
Peter Tritt
Director | Asia-Pacific
The College of Law Australia and New Zealand
Level 23, Nu Tower 2
Jalan Tun Sambanthan,
50470 Kuala Lumpur
Mobile: +6013 305 7660
Thank you.
Roger Chan Weng Keng
Secretary
Malaysian Bar