The Australian High Commissioner to Malaysia, Andrew Goledzinowski and his Department Of Foreign Affairs And Trade (DFAT), probably though this photo which includes Malaysia's top judges with Australian barrister Arthur Moses SC who had at the same event delivered a speech attacking PM Mahathir (see story below) and Christopher Leong, the former Bar Council president who questioned Mahathir at the "Lingam Tape" RCI ,was a brilliant manner of conveying in one image Australia's commitment to judicial reform in Malaysia
Caption: Chris Leong, Past President, Bar Council of Malaysia, Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Richard Malanjum, Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Malaysia, Arthur Moses SC, President, Law Council of Australia, Elizabeth Espinosa, President, Law Society of New South Wales, Datuk Seri Panglima David Wong Dak Wah, Chief Judge of The High Court of Sabah and Sarawak, and Andrew Goledzinowski AM, Australian High Commissioner in Malaysia.
Unfortunately ,Mahathir has at least one matter that is on appeal before the Federal Court, and the photo above can give rise to a perception of bias on the part of the Chief Justice, and his subordinate judges.
The photograph above was taken in mid-to late January 2019 .Law Council of Australia President, Arthur Moses SC, travelled to Malaysia and Hong Kong for his first official engagements to open the legal year.In Kuala Lumpur Mr Moses was "invited to give an address at the Australian High Commission, attended by members of Malaysia’s judiciary, including Chief Justice Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Richard Malanjum, members of the Malaysian Bar Association, and High Commissioner to Malaysia, Andrew Goledzinowski AM."
In his speech Mr Moses decided to re-visit the 1988 dismissal of then Chief Justice Tun Salleh Abbas:He said:
It has been 30 years since the 1988 Judicial Crisis, which saw the Lord President of the Supreme Court of Malaysia, Tun Salleh Abas, dismissed for “judicial misbehaviour”. His crime – speaking out publicly in defence of the judiciary. The crisis saw two other Supreme Court Judges also removed from the bench. Two decades on, in 2008, an Eminent Persons Panel convened on the initiative of the Malaysian Bar found all three had been improperly removed from office, and that Prime Minister Mahathir’s involvement in the crisis had been "unmistakably a direct unabashed attack on the rule of law with intent to subdue, if not subvert, the independence of the judiciary". Though what happened in 1988 was unacceptable, it has steeled Malaysia’s legal fraternity with an unrivalled strength and determination.
This direct attack on Mahathir is intriguing, given that he has been recently re-elected prime minister (despite it seems the disapproval of Mr Moses, the Australian Government, and the Australian legal fraternity), and given that over the the past 31 years much has been said by the key players in that incident, including the formerAttorney General Abu Talib Othman who in January 2018 is reported to have said:
“However, he (Mahathir) was acting on the command of the then Yang di-Pertuan Agung Sultan Iskandar Sultan Ismail,” he said referring to the former Sultan of Johor.
Abu Talib said that he had seen the note – written and signed by the King – that was given to the PM commanding him to remove Salleh as Lord President and to replace Salleh with Abdul Hamid Omar.
“I went to see the PM and told him that neither he nor the King can remove a sitting Lord President, as that was against the constitution.
“It was a very challenging moment as the PM then asked, ‘can you ignore the command of the King?’. However, I advised and reminded him of the oath of office he took as PM to protect and defend the constitution,” he said.
Abu Talib said that Mahathir advised him to inform the King personally and he did that, going to Johor for the meeting.
“The King insisted that action be taken, despite me saying that neither him nor the PM could remove a sitting Lord President.
“He (the King) instead suggested that it be done in accordance with the constitution. So, I went back to the PM, and informed that any action taken must be done in compliance with the constitution......”
It is important to recall that Talib Othman made these public statements in January 2018 when almost everyone believed that then PM Najib Razak would be re-elected, despite Mahathir's determined (and eventually successful) challenge to Najib and his party's control of the Malaysian Government. Malay politics dictate that punishment must follow any show of support for the opposition against the ruling chieftain, and Talib would have understood that.
All this seems to have escaped DFAT and Mr Moses, who was probably in Kuala Lumpur promoting Australian legal services. The President of the NSW Law Society Ms Elizabeth Espinosa was also present at that event at the Australian High Commission (see photo above). As this writer has noted before, DFAT has not hidden its preference for Anwar Ibrahim as prime minister. Nevertheless, promoting a trade mission based on that sentiment does not seem a winning strategy. END
Readers of this blog and its related Realpolitikasia blog will recall that a Department Of Justice NSW,Australia, document considers this article to be credible:
Ganesh Sahathevan, RPK, Clare Brown, Ginny Stein and the blood money trail. The story by one Raggie Jessy Rithaudeen states that all the above named and others at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation were paid by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad millions of dollars to fabricate stories about the 1MDB theft by former PM Najib Razak.
Last Friday PM Mahathir told reporters in Malaysia: “Raja Petra Kamarudin is a liar and you still believe him......”
The Department Of Justice NSW, and its Minister, the Attorney General NSW Mark Speakman SC have refused to retract their reliance on the Malaysia-Today/Thirdforce article, despite the obviously false claims in the article, which also claims that Mahathir's payments to the ABC are part of a conspiracy which involves Tony Blair, Donald Rumsfeld, George Soros and he.
Mahathir calling RPK a liar sets the Department,its minister the AG NSW,and the Federal Government on a diplomatic collision course with the Malaysian Government.
Not a bad effort for a state government department whose minister is MP for a constituency better known for its surf.
Australia’s famously prickly relationship with former Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohamad might not be less tempestuous a second time around with the 92-year-old now seeking re-election as the opposition candidate, and flagging concerns over Canberra’s “Pacific solution” for asylum-seekers and warning “I am not a nice person”.
Only weeks from a likely election battle, Dr Mahathir conceded bilateral relations with Australia are better under current Prime Minister Najib Razak — whose scandal-plagued government is accused of trying to secure re-election through unfair boundary realignments and voter incentives — than they were during his 22 years as leader.
Dr Mahathir, who frequently sparred with Australian journalists and was memorably branded a “recalcitrant” by Paul Keating for boycotting the 1993 APEC summit because he favoured an exclusively Asian caucus, said Malaysia would continue to enjoy good relations with Australia if he was re-elected leader.
But, he said: “It would depend on the situation. I don’t like the way some new immigrants are being treated, the way some boatpeople are being sent to the Pacific Islands, kept there and actually imprisoned there.
“Does it mean I should not say it? I would speak the truth. I don’t try to win support by being very nice. I am not a nice person,” he said with a smile.
On the question of Australia joining ASEAN, which arose before last weekend’s Sydney summit when Indonesian President Joko Widodo said he would welcome their membership, Dr Mahathir, 92, said that while “geographically” it made sense for Australia to join the 10-nation group it might not be a good cultural fit. “In terms of sentiment, culture, there is a need to understand East Asian culture on the part of Australia. Some Australian leaders are quite insensitive.”
Dr Mahathir quit Malaysia’s ruling UMNO party in 2016 after speaking out over the alleged misappropriation of more than $US4.5 billion from 1MDB, a state development fund chaired by Mr Najib that the US Department of Justice has described as the worst case of kleptocracy it has seen.
In January he announced a previously inconceivable alliance with the opposition coalition led by his one-time deputy and political nemesis Anwar Ibrahim, who is serving a second prison term on politically motivated sodomy charges and is due to be released in June. Both men have said the alliance was driven by an urgent need to topple Mr Najib and UMNO, the party that has formed every Malaysian government since 1957.
Under the partnership, Dr Mahathir will stand as prime ministerial candidate for the opposition Pakatan Harapan and if elected, seek a royal pardon for Dr Anwar on his release so that he may take over the premiership.
“I will not be a passive seat warmer,’’ he said. “The reason why they (opposition) chose me is because of my past experience. I know what to do in the first 100 days of becoming prime minister. I have to democratise the country again. I have to limit the powers of the prime minister’s office, restore the rule of law.
“All these things I can do in a short time. The big problem comes with the money (Najib) has borrowed, money the country can never repay. The central bank says the debt is more than 800 billion ringgit ($264bn). That will be difficult to tackle but I know where some of the money is.”
While his promises to restore democracy have raised some eyebrows in Malaysia, including among opposition politicians jailed for civil dissent during his premiership, Dr Mahathir insisted yesterday: “I am not a dictator.
“When I was in government I did not exercise the kinds of powers that Najib does. He does not respect the rule of law at all or the constitution,’’ he said.
Amanda Hodge is The Australian’s South East Asia correspondent. Based in Jakarta, she has covered war, refugees, terror attacks, natural disasters and social and political upheaval from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka... Read more
The New Anatolian of Turkey reported on February 23 2007: Inspectors Hamza Kacar and Galip Sabuncu wrote a report in which they claimed that they had uncovered significant evidence of money movements linked to Yasin el Kadi (SDGT Sheik Yassin Al-Kadi) in Turkey, but added that their probe was blocked by certain bureaucrats and politicians. The inspectors said that el Kadi's money movements were concentrated on Albaraka Turk, an Islamic finance institution….Kacar sent a letter to the Albaraka Turk on Nov. 5, 2003, asking the institution to whom el Kadi was making money transfers via the bank. The inspector also asked the meaning of two-letter codes in account abstracts of numerous companies of which al Kadi was a shareholder. Albaraka rejected the request and Finance Minister Kemal Unakitan forced the inspectors in early 2004 to complete their report in ten days. ( http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-23456.html )
The report read in context of other information in the public domain links together a number of persons whose names have featured prominently in the counter-terrorism financing literature.
In his book "Desperately Seeking Paradise" Zianuddin Sardar ,(usually described as a London based Muslim moderate), gives an account of how somewhere around the time the first Gulf War was about to or had commenced, he was persuaded to fly to Saudi Arabia at the invitation of certain wealthy Saudis to receive a grant of USD 5 million that was to enable him to set-up a think tank that would put forward the Arab view.
Sardar was then in Malaysia, had reservations about making the trip, but was persuaded to go by Anwar Ibrahim, who was then Minister for Education but about to appointed Minister for Finance.
Sardar writes that Anwar told him to accept their invitation, for the Saudis had been on the phone to him rather often about the matter of the gift to Sardar. Sardar flew to Saudi Arabia,and went on to meet Sheikh Saleh Kamel,founder of the Al Baraka investment group.Also present at that meeting was Anwar Ibarhim, who Sardar says had flown out separately in a Malaysian government jet.
In September 1990 The Malaysian Ministry of Finance sold a 17.5 % stake in Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd , Malaysia's first Islamic bank, to JAMI Malaysia Sdn Bhd . Its shareholders were the New York-based Saar Corporation, the Saudi-based Al Rajhi,Banking and Investment Corporation (ARABIC) and Salah Kamel's Al Baraka Group. The minister for finance at that point of time was Daim Zainuddin.
Bank Islam appears to have been involved in laundering funds belonging to the Third World Relief Agency; I have written about this previously in an article located at http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2006/11/jamal_barzinji_.html
Anwar Ibahim replaced Daim Zainuddin as Minister for Finance sometime in 1991.
The company listed on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange in 1992 .
In May 1994 the Ministry of Finance Inc (Anwar Ibrahim) disposed of its entire 21.14m shares in Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd to Lembaga Urusan dan Tabung Haji and Jami Malaysia Sdn Bhd, and ceased to be a substantial shareholder. A total of 18.46m shares were sold to Lembaga Urusan dan Tabung Haji bringing its stake in Bank Islam to 35.70m shares, or 26.76%. The remaining 2.89m shares were sold to Jami Malaysia, which was at that time the registered holder of 5.27m shares.
Jamal Barzinji, who heads the SAFA Trust which is part of the SAAR Foundation,and who together with Anwar and others founded the International Institute of Islamic Thought (he was at that time,as he is now ,like Anwar a director of the IIIT)was appointed a director of the bank and appears to have remained as one until sometime in 2003(for further details see http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2006/11/jamal_barzinji_.html)
Later in 2002 it would be revealed in the affidavits of David Kane that the IIIT also was funded by the SAAR Corporation and the SAFA Trust. That is, Anwar 's IIIT received funding from the SAAR Foundation at the same time that he sold the SAAR Foundation the MOF's shares in Bank Islam.
Then, in May 2006, Salah Kamel decided to float his banking assets on the Bahrain Stock Exchange. The now listed vehicle for the exercise, Al-Baraka Banking Group, (ABG) raised some US$ 580 million in what was termed one of the biggest IPO's in the Middle East.
Anwar Ibrahim was appointed and remains a member of the ABG board.( see http://www.abg.bh/English/aboutboarddirectors.htm )
In 1991, SDGT Sheik Yassin Al-Kadi and two of Anwar Ibrahim 's closest associates, Drs Wan Hasni Wan Sulaiman and Rahim Ghouse, formed Abrar Inc, a fund management company. This business was to take many shapes and forms, particularly after its base of operations was moved to Malaysia. These matters have been written about extensively on this site. The most recent article can be sighted at http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/20
In September 2005, shortly after his release from prison , Anwar Ibrahim visited Turkey, at the invitation of Erdogan's Justice and Development Party, for meetings with amongst others, Erdogan and an adviser, Dr Ahmet Davutoglu.
The following has been said of Davutoglu: Davutoglu has spent time in Malaysia and speaks highly of that country's supposedly dynamic and rather unique combination of Islam, capitalism, and democracy. It is no surprise, then, that in recent months Erdogan has reached out to some unsavory characters in Turkey's neighborhood, visiting President Bashar Assad in Syria earlier this year and traveling to Tehran to meet the Iranian mullahs.
(Gerard Baker, Let's Not Talk Turkey ,The Weekly Standard,29 August 2005) AKP politician Ahmet Davutoglu, previously a professor at the International Islamic University in Malaysia, and now an advisor to both Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, argues that Turkey can remain powerful only if it utilizes the "strategic depth" of its neighborhood, developing better ties with those Muslim neighbors with whom it shares cultural affinity. The world is composed of cultural blocs, he writes, and Turkey falls into the "Muslim bloc."
(Soner Cagaptay, ANKARA DISPATCH,Eastern Heading; TNR Online | Post date 09.08.04)
However, as reported on this blog. the confusion and concern was unnecessary and could have been easily addressed with legal instruments that have already been employed by countries such as Australia. It has taken a person or persons of exceptional stupidity to allow matters to come to this. Those responsible ought to resign immediately for they have failed the Rulers, the Prime Minister,and his Cabinet, and shamed the nation. END See also
TMJ & rulers are right to be concerned, and Wisma Putra is fudging-Malaysia ratifying Rome Statute can have consequences for the rulers;even Australia has sought to strictly define and limit the operation of the Rome.Statute of The ICC.
Yes. Kedudukan Raja-Raja Melayu mungkin tidak relevan lagi selepas ini dan kedaulatan Raja-Raja akan pasti tergugat. Sekaligus ini akan memberi impak kepada status orang Melayu dan agama Islam di Malaysia.
Wisma Putra has assured that the position of the monarchy will not be threatened after Malaysia acceded to the Rome Statute, a treaty governing the International Criminal Court (ICC).
This came after Johor crown prince Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim claimed that the Malay rulers may no longer be relevant after Malaysia acceded to the treaty.
"Prior to joining the Rome Statute, the government had conducted an in-depth study on various aspects.
"The government is confident that the decision will not affect the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's position and immunity," Wisma Putra said in a statement today.
On Friday, Tunku Ismail was asked by the "Friends of Johor" Twitter account if the Rome Statute would threaten the monarchy.
He replied: "Yes, the position of the Malay rulers may no longer be relevant after this and the sovereignty of the rulers will surely be threatened. As a result, it will impact the status of Malays and Islam in Malaysia."
Australia's instrument of ratification includes a declaration affirming the primacy of Australia's criminal jurisdiction in relation to crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. It outlines the conditions under which a person in Australian custody or control would be surrendered to the Court and clarifies Australia's interpretation of the crimes within the Statute. The declaration has full effect in Australian law and is not a reservation. It reinforces safeguards already built into the Statute to preserve Australian sovereignty over our criminal jurisdiction.
While there can be argument as to the legal effect of the declarations, for practical purposes these statements by then Australian Prime Minister John Howard are instructive, and show how Wisma Putra and its legal advisers have been careless,in the context of Malaysia's unique religious and social framework:
The World Today Archive - Thursday, 20 June , 2002 00:00:00
Reporter:
ELEANOR HALL: The Prime Minister has just emerged from the party room meeting we heard about a moment ago to speak to the media about the International Criminal Court.
Here's part of what he had to say:
JOHN HOWARD: I'm here with my colleagues to announce that the Government has decided to proceed to ratification of the International Criminal Court Statute. The decision has been reached after a very lengthy but beneficial and widespread consultation within the Government parties.
The decision to proceed to ratification will be accompanied by a number of very important and firm stipulations. At the time of ratification, Australia will deposit a declaration, which states a number of things, and I'll be releasing with my formal press statement a copy of this declaration.
The declaration will reaffirm the primacy of Australian law and the Australian legal system in relation to the prosecution of offences under the legislation giving affect to the statute. It will be declared that no person can be arrested on a warrant issued by the court, or surrendered to the court without the prior consent of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth.
It will also declare Australia's understanding that the offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes under the International Criminal Court Statute will be interpreted in accordance with Australian law. The matters in the declaration will be incorporated in the legislation, implementing our obligations under the International Criminal Court Statute. In other words, they will not be bear pious declarations, they will in fact become part of Australian law and therefore they will govern all behaviour in relation to Australian residence, or people in Australia, all within the control of Australia, such as example, our Defence Forces serving overseas, will remain completely subject to Australian law.
There's a further important stipulation that will be put in the enabling legislation and that is that no prosecution within Australia can be launched without prior consent of the Attorney General and indeed it must be launched in his or her name. That means effectively that the capacity for frivolous or vexatious private prosecution or interest prosecution can be stymied by the Attorney General taking them over and filing a no bill, according to his or her determination, of course of the merits of such prosecution. We believe that the International Criminal Court will make a valuable further addition to the efforts of the world to bring to justice people who perpetrate atrocious crimes, and it's in that spirit that Australia has decided to ratify.
REPORTER: Do you expect any of your colleagues to cross the floor?
JOHN HOWARD: Look, that's ultimately a matter for them. Let me put it this way – I was greatly encouraged, even warmed, by the response in the party room this morning. There are a number of my colleagues, as happens on a lot of things, will retain reservations about the Government's decision. But having seen an exhaustive and very democratic process of consultation used will support the decision.
No comments: