Wednesday, August 5, 2020

TEQSA's Nick Saunders has not explained special treatment afforded CPC linked Zhu Minshen and his Top Education Group-How will TEQSA assist Australian universities subject to China bullying

by Ganesh Sahathevan



Nicholas Saunders TEQSA Chief Commissioner

Professor Nick Saunders AO (Chief Commissioner)
Australia's education sector putting money ahead of standards :


The SMH has reported: 


The Chinese Communist Party is harnessing an online cyber policing portal, accessible in Australia, to increase its international influence, as it encourages Chinese internet users to dob in acts that undermine Beijing's image.
Australian universities have been engulfed in a fresh row over academic freedom after co-ordinated protests from nationalist Chinese students forced UNSW to take down social media posts critical of the Chinese Communist Party's actions in Hong Kong. UNSW vice-chancellor Ian Jacobs on Wednesday apologised for the decision, telling staff there was "no excuse for our failure in this instance" and the social media posts should never have been removed.
"I apologise for this mistake and reaffirm unequivocally our previous commitment to freedom of expression and academic freedom," he said.A second Australian educational institution was embroiled in controversy on Wednesday after Charles Darwin University apologised following complaints from Chinese students. The students said an introduction to an assignment was racist after it stated that the coronavirus had originated in China.
Education Minister Dan Tehan encouraged any academics concerned about institutional integrity being compromised to contact the university regulator.
Meanwhile TEQSA and its chairman Nick Saunders hve refused to explain why Communist PArty China linked Zhu Minshen and his Top Group were afforded special treatment, especially in the approvals provided to issue law degrees.
TO BE READ WITH


Tuesday, September 17, 2019


TEQSA's Nicholas Saunders granted Zhu Minshen's Top Group self accreditation rights despite Zhu granting academic credits for defying an AFP directive

by Ganesh Sahathevan



Nicholas Saunders TEQSA Chief Commissioner

Professor Nick Saunders AO (Chief Commissioner)
Australia's education sector putting money ahead of standards :



The following is an excerpt from Zhu Minshen's Top Education Group Ltd's ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANNUAL RESULTSFOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2018

Receive Self-Accreditation Authority 



The Company received a letter from TEQSA on 16 May 2018 in relation to its approval for partial self accreditation authority (‘‘SAA’’) in the broad field of education of Management and Commerce, as classified by the Australian Standard Classification of Education, which covers the Australian Qualification Framework from level 5 (diploma) to level 9 (master’s degree) Management and Commerce courses offered at TOP. By obtaining the SAA, TOP is able to determine by itself whether its Management and Commerce courses adequately comply with regulatory standards rather than applying through TEQSA. While maintaining high quality of the courses, the time required for course accreditation will hence be significantly reduced. Accordingly, the partial SAA status not only allows TOP to more efficiently respond to market demand in coursework, but also constitutes a necessary step towards eventually achieving university specialization status.


Following the approval of partial SAA status, TOP enjoys the SAA status with 11 other non-university higher education providers, and has become one of the three non-university higher education providers with the SAA status that offer Management and Commerce higher education courses, and is the only non-university for-profit higher education provider offering courses in Management and Commerce.


TEQSA, headed by its Chief Commissioner Nicholas Saunders granted SAA privileges  despite Zhu and Top's history of highly irregular assessment. As reported on this blog recently:



In his 2018 book "Silent Invasion" Professor Clive Hamilton reports that Top Education Group's Zhu Minshen organised students , including students from his Top Education Institute to protest against Tibetans at the 2008 rally , which counted towards the Top students’ assessment. Zhu’s Top Institution is “perhaps the only accredited degree program in Australia that counts agitating for a foreign power towards its qualifications.”
END 


SEE ALSO


Nick Saunder's TEQSA has granted Minshen Zhu's Top Group permission to open a branch campus in Hobart, and increase Sydney student numbers despite sharp fall in market cap;TEQSA approval can aid Top's cashflow

“It’s about time America showed it remained engaged in this region”:Philippine military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, about US inaction in the South China Sea

by Ganesh Sahathevan


Excerpt:

Pressure for action from U.S. allies in the region grew after China’s island-building became front-page news this year following the release of high-resolution satellite images that showed the scale of the work.

In the Philippines, civilian and military leaders publicly welcomed Tuesday’s patrol.

But one Philippine military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, added: “It’s about time America showed it remained engaged in this region.”



See full article below, and do pay attention to the date:

As Obama weighed patrol to counter China, Pentagon urged faster action
OCTOBER 29, 2015

Andrea Shalal, Matt Spetalnick, David Brunnstrom


9 MIN READ






WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. naval challenge to China’s territorial assertiveness in the South China Sea this week came after months of frustration within the Pentagon at what some defense officials saw as unnecessary delays by the White House and State Department in approving the mission.



USS Lassen (DDG 82), (R) transits in formation with ROKS Sokcho (PCC 778) during exercise Foal Eagle 2015, in waters east of the Korean Peninsula, in this March 12, 2015, handout photo provided by the U.S. Navy. REUTERS/U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Martin Wright/Handout via Reuters

As early as mid-May, the Pentagon was considering sending military aircraft and ships to assert the principle of freedom of navigation around China’s artificial islands in the Spratly archipelago after Defense Secretary Ash Carter requested options to respond to their rapid construction.

That patrol eventually took place on Tuesday when the USS Lassen, a guided-missile destroyer, sailed within 12 nautical miles of Subi Reef, triggering an angry rebuke from China and threatening to ratchet up tensions between the world’s two biggest economies.

An intense, prolonged internal U.S. debate over the patrol revealed by Reuters’ reporting appears to contradict Washington’s insistence that it was simply another routine freedom-of-navigation operation.

The months leading up to the patrol allowed Beijing to harden its stance and, according to some U.S. officials and security experts, blew the operation out of proportion.

Washington’s caution also caused disquiet among some military officials in Japan and the Philippines, both U.S. security allies, feeding concerns that China’s ambitions in the South China Sea would go unchecked.

The Pentagon and U.S. military officials had been ready for months to carry out patrols, but ran into “repeated stalling” from the White House and State Department, said one U.S. defense official, who requested anonymity.

Both wanted to avoid giving the appearance that any operation was in response to other events, the official said, such as the breach of 21 million U.S. personnel records that has been linked to hackers in China. China has denied involvement in the attack.

“The concern was that, if we looked like we were responding to something the Chinese had done, it would undermine our assertion that this is a matter of international law, and our rights to navigate the seas,” said the official.

The State Department did not respond officially to queries on why the mission took so long. The White House declined official comment on the criticism.

Pressure for action was growing at a sensitive time in U.S.-China relations, as major powers moved closer to agreeing a nuclear deal with Iran and as Washington prepared for a state visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping in September.

By late September, a consensus had been reached to go ahead with the patrol, despite Xi’s assertion in Washington that China had “no intention” to militarize the islands.





Obama, who has sought to avoid confrontations with U.S. rivals and reduce direct U.S. involvement in wars, had to carefully weigh the need to take action with the risks of sparking an unintentional armed conflict that could have severe diplomatic and economic consequences.

Under his “pivot” to Asia, 60 percent of the U.S. Navy’s assets will be deployed in the Pacific region by 2020, in a challenge to China’s rapidly growing maritime power and ambitions.

Another U.S. official said a key reason for the lengthy internal deliberations was to be sure that every possible measure was being taken to minimize the risk of a U.S.-China military confrontation at sea. Having Obama and other senior U.S. officials publicly telegraph the likelihood of a naval patrol in the area was part of a “no surprises” strategy toward the Chinese, the official said.

A senior Obama administration official said the government had gone through a “rigorous inter-agency process” to come up with options for the president.

“Our aim was to ensure we made smart decisions to advance our strategic objectives in the Asia-Pacific region, including on maritime issues,” the official said.
NOT SO ROUTINE

Pentagon officials say the United States regularly conducts freedom-of-navigation operations around the world to challenge excessive maritime claims. China claims most of the South China Sea. Other claimants are Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan.

Under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, 12-nautical mile limits cannot be set around man-made islands built on previously submerged reefs. Four of the seven reefs China has reclaimed over the last two years, including Subi, were submerged at high tide before construction began, legal scholars say.

Another source familiar with the matter said the administration’s determination to keep the issue focused on the 12-mile territorial limits and avoid any sense the patrols were aimed at challenging Chinese sovereignty had delayed the process. While it insists on freedom of navigation through the waterway, Washington takes no position on the various sovereignty claims.

Apparently attempting to avoid further stoking Chinese anger, the White House stuck to its plan to keep its comments relatively low-key in the aftermath of the patrol, portraying it as a routine “freedom of navigation operation” that did not assert any “special specific U.S. rights”.

But the hold-up subverted the initial intent to make the patrols a routine part of operating in one of the world’s busiest sea lanes, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year, the source said.

“Delaying the patrols actually made it into a bigger deal,” said the source. “This may have diminished the initial strategy that these patrols should be a regular, ordinary matter.”


ADVERTISEMENT


Bonnie Glaser a security expert at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the mission was complicated by the fact it took so long.

“All of this attention that has been given to it has undermined the effectiveness of freedom of navigation operations,” she said.

PRESSURE FROM ASIAN ALLIES

One former senior U.S. official said there had been concern within the administration, dating back to last year, that China might have drawn the “wrong lesson” from the Western response to Russia’s seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea region in early 2014 as well as Obama’s avoidance of direct military action in Syria.

Since China’s land reclamation began in December 2013, it had reclaimed more than 2,900 acres (1,170 hectares) of land as of June, the Pentagon said in a recent report. China had reclaimed 17 times more land than the other claimants combined over the past 40 years, it added.

Pressure for action from U.S. allies in the region grew after China’s island-building became front-page news this year following the release of high-resolution satellite images that showed the scale of the work.


In the Philippines, civilian and military leaders publicly welcomed Tuesday’s patrol.

But one Philippine military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, added: “It’s about time America showed it remained engaged in this region.”

Tokyo also said it supported the mission, although one commentator said there had been some scepticism in Japan over whether it would go ahead.

“I think many serious people must have been relieved to hear that the United States did what they said (they would do), unlike in similar incidents in Syria,” said Kunihiko Miyake, a former Japanese diplomat.

None of America’s allies in Asia have run freedom of navigation patrols past China’s islands.

The U.S. administration has long been aware that patrols alone will not be enough to deter China’s island-building but believed it was still important to more directly challenge China’s territorial claims, a source close to the matter said ahead of the operation.


ADVERTISEMENT


Not all experts pointed the finger at the White House and the State Department for not acting sooner.

Doug Paal, director of the Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he believed the U.S. Navy had been internally conflicted for a few years over whether to go ahead with the patrol.

“Now both Beijing and Washington have to show their people they are tough and will not be pushed around, without actually triggering an entirely purposeless conflict,” added Paal.

A senior Navy official denied there had been any internal Navy tension over the patrol, adding that such decisions had to be made by the defense secretary and the president.


Additional reporting by Phil Stewart in Washington; Linda Sieg, Tim Kelly and Nobuhiro Kubo in Tokyo and Manuel Mogato in Manila. Writing by Dean Yates; editing by Stuart Grudgings.
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Tuesday, August 4, 2020

Commonwealth & Greg Hunt could have spent $320 Million funding research into a UK type rapid COVID test, instead of bailing out China's BGI ; BGI share price has risen 30% since that gift from the Australian taxpayer

by Ganesh Sahathevan



BGI Genomics Co Ltd
SHE: 300676

Follow

171.60 CNY −1.40 
5 Aug, 1:26 pm GMT+8 · Disclaimer


Open170.00
High177.99
Low167.00
Mkt cap68.74B
P/E ratio215.67
Div yield0.059%
Prev close173.00
52-wk high199.40
52-wk low55.69

Readers are reminded that the Australian Government bailed-out China's BGI by purchasing test kits worth AUD320 Million, which  is equal to approximately 60% of BGI's last audited annual revenue (see story below. That cash injection has seen BGI's share price and market capitalisation rise by almost 30%. 


Meanwhile the BBC has reported:

New 90-minute tests that can detect coronavirus and flu will be rolled out in (UK) hospitals and care homes from next week.
The "on-the-spot" swab and DNA tests will help distinguish between Covid-19 and other seasonal illnesses, the government said.The (UK) health secretary said this would be "hugely beneficial" over the winter.Currently, a third of tests take longer than 24 hours to process.


Readers can decide for themselves if that $320 Million could have been better spent in Australia, on Australian R&D, and in developing Australia's medical industry.

TO BE READ WITH



Thursday, June 11, 2020


Twiggy's BGI test kit "special deal" looking more and more like an Australian taxpayer funded bail-out of a failing Chinese Govt linked company

by Ganesh Sahathevan


BGI Genomics Co Ltd
SHE: 300676

Follow

133.70 CNY +1.14 
12 Jun, 10:14 am GMT+8 · Disclaimer



Open131.08
High136.10
Low130.48
Mkt cap50.01B
P/E ratio167.38

Div yield0.075%
Prev close132.56
52-wk high136.31
52-wk low54.47

BGI's share price dipped but has then been on an uptick from just before the Australian deal was announced on or about 30 April 2020

It has been previously reported on this blog that the Australian Government's AUD 320 Million acquisition of WuhanCOVID test kits supplied by BGI is equal to approximately 60% of BGI's last audited annual revenue.


The BGI test kits that Australia  acquired may well be of doubtful quality. Nevertheless Australians have been told that they are lucky that BGI has agreed to supply them; the kits may have gone elsewhere for a better price if not for a  special deal that Twiggy Forrest (via his Minderoo Foundation) secured for Australia on the strength of his relationship with China's BGI.

The Guardian has since revealed that "the take-up of the BGI tests has been patchy. Many state public pathology bodies said they had no need for the tests, contrary to prior government claims that they would be used by public health units throughout 2020."


Additionally :


Pathology Technology Australia, a peak industry body that represents manufacturers and suppliers of testing technology, says its members supply 90% of all pathology tests and associated technology used in Australia.

“We had completed and submitted a very detailed audit of the current technology already in Australian laboratories for this kind of testing, and we had determined there was more than enough technology already in the field to significantly ramp up testing.

“Where we lacked a little bit was that there was a tightness of supply of some of the crucial consumables … but that was being pretty well managed speaking frankly.”

The peak group, which has also made a submission to the inquiry into Australia’s Covid-19 response, said the entire purchase and implementation could have been far smoother if industry had been consulted.

This is beginning to look like a an Australian taxpayer funded bail-out of a Chinese Government linked company. As reported the stock price graph above shows, the share price collapsed just after listing.


TO BE READ WITH 

Saudi's will get 9 Million test kits plus six labs from BGI, subject to progress payments, for just 25% more than Twiggy Forrest's special deal: Australian National Audit Office scrutiny required before any money is handed over for test kits that may well be inaccurate;Australian deal equals 60% of BGI's last audited revenue

by Ganesh Sahathevan

 



SHE: 300676

Follow

104.95 CNY −5.02 
30 Apr, 10:19 am GMT+8 · Disclaimer



Open106.00
High107.50
Low103.56
Mkt cap43.39B
P/E ratio131.98

Div yield0.095%
Prev close109.97
52-wk high118.86
52-wk low54.32

Web results

BGI share price since listing in 2019