Australia's 1MDB position explained: Turnbull wants a deal with Najib

by Ganesh Sahathevan



The matter of Australia's regulatory authorities refusing to act against ANZ Bank and other Australian entities directly involved in the 1MDB theft and money laundering scandal even as their counterparts in the UK, US, Singapore ,Switzerland and even Hong Kong do so has been reported at length by this writer.

Now comes news via Australian media which explains the reason:

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will today announce a deal with the US to resettle hundreds of refugees, with talks under way for other ­nations, including Malaysia.

Any deal with Malaysia will require Malaysian PM Najib's personal approval, even as the US Department of Justice and other enforcement agencies pursue and prosecute  his associates for a range of offences which led to this transaction ,which is particularly embarrassing  for one of  the Australian financial system's  Four Pillars  , ANZ Bank

The Turnbull-Najib deal also explains why the ANZ and its CEO Shayne Elliot have been allowed to get away with misleading Parliament. See :

The issue was,and remains ,ANZ client and "ally" Najib Razak, not 1MDB:Another example of how ANZ and Shayne Elliot misled parliament.

END 

Dump compromised DCNS Barracudas, lease US Virginias: A simple commercial arrangement that will keep Trump engaged in the defence of this region

by Ganesh Sahathevan


"I think Hillary will win, and win easily, and I think that will be the best outcome for Australia because she does support free trade."She does support the United States being deeply engaged in our Asian region, which is critical to us.

These were the words of Christopher Pyne, the minister effectively in charge of the AUD 50 billion Barracuda submarine project, when asked who he preferred as US president.

The reality, now, for Pyne and a number of his Cabinet colleagues is a Trump presidency.

Trump has shown himself throughout his campaign to be true to his commercial antecedents, selling the electorate what it wanted. Consequently, it is obvious that in order to ensure his incoming administration remains "deeply engaged in our Asian region", good commercial reasons must prevail.


The simplest way of doing so given Australia's defence needs and US concerns about growing and unsustainable defence and military spending is to immediately scrap the AUD 50 Billion DCNS Barracuda A1 project ,and instead lease US Virginia Class submarines. This alternative has the advantage of being at least 40-50% cheaper, and at a fixed cost.Of course, it also has the advantage of immediate or very near term delivery.The income stream to the US Government from the leases would justify continued US engagement.

The DCNS proposal has already been compromised, so tearing up whatever agreement the Commonwealth may have with DCNS without penalty should be relatively easy.


END
For the reasons why Australia needs technologically advanced nuclear submarines now, and not in 20 years time see:

Predicting Chinese submarine technology using Russian technology as a proxy in a Dempster Shafer framework-Part 1

We'll be sunk if we don't choose the best submarine: Ross Babbage's advice from 2012 rings ever more true given humiliation by the Russian fleet

Malaysia's RM 55 B East Coast Railway of no relevance to China's One Road-One Belt plans-China's HKTDC says so

by Ganesh Sahathevan

This is what China has to say about the One Belt-One Road imitative, on its HKTDC One Road-One Belt website:

Conceptual Framework

The Belt and Road Initiative aims to connect Asia, Europe and Africa along five routes. The Silk Road Economic Belt focusses on: (1) linking China to Europe through Central Asia and Russia; (2) connecting China with the Middle East through Central Asia; and (3) bringing together China and Southeast Asia, South Asia and the Indian Ocean. The 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, meanwhile, focusses on using Chinese coastal ports to: (4) link China with Europe through the South China Sea and Indian Ocean; and (5) connect China with the South Pacific Ocean through the South China Sea.

Focussing on the above five routes, the Belt and Road will take advantage of international transport routes as well as core cities and key ports to further strengthen collaboration and build six international economic co-operation corridors. These have been identified as the New Eurasia Land Bridge, China-Mongolia-Russia, China-Central Asia-West Asia, China-Indochina Peninsula, China-Pakistan, and Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar.

As one can readily see from the above, it has nothing to do with what Malaysia's RM 55 Billion East Coast Rail Line (ECRL) project. Clearly, the ECRL is not intended by the Chinese to be some sort of link that China will put traffic through, after it so generously "gifts" that project it to to Malaysia:

China to pour in billions for rail project

CHINA will provide RM55bil in soft loans to Malaysia for the construction of the planned East Coast Rail Line (ECRL) that is estimated to cost a similar amount, according to Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai.

In an exclusive interview in Beijing with The Star yesterday, Liow said this will be one of the 16 government-to-government memoranda of understanding to be signed when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak meets with Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang for bilateral talks today.

Apart from financing, the two countries will also sign an engineering-and-construction contract on the project.

This means China will carry out the detailed engineering and design of the ECRL, procure all materials and equipment, and deliver the facility to Malaysia.

“As far as I know, this is the biggest single deal Malaysia will be signing with China,” said Liow, who has worked very hard to obtain China’s investments in ports, aviation and railways since he took over the transport portfolio in June 2014.

On the terms of the soft loans to be given by China’s EXIM Bank, Liow said rates are very competitive and repayment is over 20 years.

“And in the first seven years Malaysia will not have to pay anything – interest and repayment.

Najib consigns the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) to the dustbin of history,and Malaysia with it.

by Ganesh Sahathevan




Najib asks West to stop 'lecturing' as Malaysia embraces China
Out of China comes news from Reuters  that Malaysia's PM Najib has formed a new defence alliance with China and in the process warned  "the West" and in particular former "colonial masters", to stop interfering in the affairs of their former client states.
Najib is reported to have said: 

“More generally, we believe it is incumbent upon larger countries to treat smaller ones fairly. And this includes former colonial powers. It is not for them to lecture countries they once exploited on how to conduct their own internal affairs today.

“Malaysia and China are united in agreeing on the need to defend the sovereignty of the nation state and in the belief that the individual histories, values and governance systems of different countries must be respected,”

This statement  is  at odds with reports from just six months ago about efforts by the Malaysian Defence Minister,Hishamuddin Onn (Najib's cousin) to "push back" China's intrusion into the South China Sea, with Australia's assistance:
"If the reports we've received from various sources regarding the build-up and placement of military assets in the Spratlys are true – this forces us in a pushback against China" 

Australia is a natural military ally,given the 1971  Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) between  Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, the UK (Malaysia's former colonial master) and New Zealand .

In June 2015 the UK Parliament was told: 

Under the Five Powers Defence Arrangements, the five powers (Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore and the UK) are to consult each other "immediately" in the event or threat of an armed attack on Malaysia or Singapore for the purpose of deciding what measures should be taken jointly or separately in response. There is no specific commitment to intervene militarily. The Five Powers Defence Arrangements do not refer to exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and the enforcement of a state's EEZ rights is a matter for that state; a state may request the assistance of other states in so doing.


Najib has effectively told the other parties to the FPDA that he will from here on go it alone with China .The Arrangements under the FPDA described below are rendered meaningless when one party to the Arrangement, in this case Malaysia, agrees to submit and succumb to China's intrusion into its and adjoining international waters, in defiance of international law. The FPDA is dead
In the process Najib has made Malaysia a strategically irrelevant  state.Other parties will have to be relied on by the international community to secure passage via the Strait of Malacca and the South China Sea.
END 

Five Power Defence Arrangements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Five Power Defence Arrangements member nations

The Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) are a series of defence relationships established by a series of multi-lateral agreements between the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore (all Commonwealthmembers) signed in 1971, whereby the five powers are to consult each other "immediately" in the event or threat of an armed attack on Malaysia or Singapore for the purpose of deciding what measures should be taken jointly or separately in response. There is no specific commitment to intervene militarily. The Five Powers Defence Arrangements do not refer to exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and the enforcement of a state's EEZ rights is a matter for that state; a state may request the assistance of other states in so doing.^[1]

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1Origins
• 240th Anniversary
• 3Personnel and facilities
• 4References
• 5External links

Origins[edit]

The FPDA was set up following the termination of the United Kingdom's defence guarantees of Malaysia and Singapore under the Anglo-Malayan Defence Agreement, as a result of the UK's decision in 1967 to withdraw its armed forces east of Suez. Under the Five Powers Defence Arrangements, the five powers (Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore and the UK) are to consult each other "immediately" in the event or threat of an armed attack on Malaysia or Singapore for the purpose of deciding what measures should be taken jointly or separately in response. There is no specific commitment to intervene militarily."^[2] The FPDA provides defence co-operation between the countries, establishing an Integrated Air Defence System (IADS) for Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore based at RMAF Butterworth under the command of an Australian Air Vice-Marshal (2-star). RMAF Butterworth, was under the control of the Royal Australian Air Force until 1988, and is now run by the Royal Malaysian Air Force but hosts rotating detachments of aircraft and personnel from all five countries.

In 1981, the five powers organised the first annual land and naval exercises. Since 1997, the naval and air exercises have been combined. In 2001, HQ IADS was redesignated Headquarters Integrated "Area" Defence System. It now has personnel from all three branches of the armed services, and co-ordinates the annual five-power naval and air exercises, while moving towards the fuller integration of land elements. An annual FPDA Defence Chiefs' Conference (FDCC) is hosted by either Malaysia or Singapore, and is the highest military professional forum of the FPDA and serves as an important platform for dialogue and exchange of views among the Defence Chiefs.^[3] There is also a Five Powers Defence Arrangements Ministerial Meeting (FDMM).^[4]

John Moore, then Minister of Defence of Australia said, "As an established multilateral security framework, the FPDA has a unique role in Asia. It is of strategic benefit to all member nations and, in Australia's view, to the wider Asia-Pacific region."^[5] Malaysia's CDF, former General (GEN) Tan Sri Dato' Sri Zulkifeli Bin Mohd Zin concurred: "We can help each other... and cooperate with one another."^[6]

In the latest New Zealand defence White Paper released in June 2016, it was outlined that given New Zealand was a longstanding member of the Five Power Defence Arrangements, it would, "meet its commitments should Malaysia or Singapore be subject to a military attack."^[7]

40th Anniversary[edit]

On 1 November 2011, Singapore hosted FPDA's 40th anniversary celebrations, with the defence ministers, aircraft and servicemen from all five signatory countries converging on Changi Air Base (East) to participate in the event. Later, a gala dinner was hosted by Singapore's defence minister - Dr Ng Eng Hen at Singapore's Istana whereupon they called on the Prime Minister of Singapore - Mr Lee Hsien Loong to discuss a multitude of issues. Codenamed Exercise Bersama Lima, the three days joint exercise is tested the readiness and co-operation between all participating countries and concluded on 4 November 2011.^[8]

Personnel and facilities[edit]

The UK has the following personnel and facilities based in Malaysia and Singapore in support of the FPDA: a small Naval facility at Sembawang in Singapore operated by Joint Forces Command and staff in the Integrated Area Defence System Headquarters (HQ IADS) at RMAF Butterworth in Penang, Malaysia. Staff at Sembawang total three Ministry of Defence civil servants, one Royal Engineer Warrant Officer , one Chief Petty Officer and one Petty officer (RN). The present UK Defence Adviser to Singapore as of 2015 is a Royal Navy Commander.^[9] In HQ IADS, it is one Wing Commander, one Squadron Leader, one Lieutenant Commander, one Major and one other rank.^[10]

References[edit]

Notes

Jump up^ "Malaysia: Military Alliances:Written question - 2257". Parliament of the United Kingdom. 11 June 2015. Retrieved 19 June 2015.
Jump up^ "Military Alliances: 4 Nov 2013: Hansard Written Answers". TheyWorkForYou. 4 November 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
Jump up^ "News - Singapore Hosts 15th FPDA Defence Chiefs' Conference (07 Nov 13)" (Press release). MINDEF. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
Jump up^ "Military Alliances: 5 Nov 2013: HansardHansard Written Answers". TheyWorkForYou. 5 November 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
Jump up^ "Media Release:Five Power Defence Meeting" (Press release). Defence Ministers & Parliamentary Secretary(Australia). 4 July 2000. Archived from the original on 2 February 2008. Retrieved 25 November 2007.
Jump up^ "Cyberpioneer - Five Power Defence Arrangements remain relevant (07 Nov 13)". Mindef.gov.sg. 7 November 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
Jump up^ "Defence White Paper 2016" (PDF). The New Zealand Ministry of Defence Manatū Kaupapa Waonga. June 2016. Retrieved 9 June 2016.
Jump up^ "Singapore Hosts FPDA 40th Anniversary Celebrations" (Press release). Singaporean Ministry of Defence (MINDEF). 1 November 2011. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
Jump up^ "Mission Locator". mfa.gov.sg. Retrieved 9 June 2016.
Jump up^ "House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 17 Jun 2013 (pt 0002)". Publications.parliament.uk. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
External links[edit]
Five Power Defence Arrangements
The Five Power Defence Arrangements: If It Ain't Broke...

Agong's "right and duty" to exercise his reserve powers "should never be in question"- Crt of Appeal & Federal Crt have explained why the Monarch can dismiss the PM

Comment
These relevant parts of the judgement of the Court of Appeal in the matter of Zambry v Nizar (the Perak Assembly case)  make clear that the Agong has the power to dismiss a sitting Prime Minitser:



As Blackstone defined it:- …The medieval King was doth Head of the Kingdom and feudal Lord. He had powers accounted for by the need to preserve the realm against external enemies and an undefined residual power which he might use for the public good…”.  Blackstone’s definition holds true too in (Malaysia).

The nine Rulers in the Malay States are indigenous Rulers and enjoyed their own prerogatives all along.....the traditional prerogatives of the Rulers remain and are buttressed by the Constitution of the respective States. In fact upon independence, our Constitution as drafted under the Chairmanship of Lord Reid, preserved and indeed enhanced the monarchy in Malaysia in several ways as seen in its provisions.
What is rarely displayed however, is the fact that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Rulers are seized with prerogative privileges and residual rights and powers. Some of which are expressed, others implied.

Unobtrusive as they may seem they are in fact omnipresent and their exercise may have far-reaching effect on the governance of the State. It must be stressed that the Royal Prerogative, discretionary and residual powers do not repose in the royal personages in vain. It is best expressed by Viscount Radcliffe
in Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75 page 113 where His Lordship observed:- “… The essence of a prerogative power if one follows Locke’s thought, is not merely to administer the existing law – there is no need for any prerogative to execute the law – but to act for the public good where there is no law, or even to dispense with or override the law where the ultimate preservation of society is in question.”

 And similarly in the Malaysian context, it was observed by Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Borneo) in Government of Malaysia v Mahan Singh [1975] 2 MLJ 155 that:- “… The King is the first person in the nation – being superior to both Houses in dignity and the only branch of the Legislative that has a separate existence and is capable of performing any act at a time when Parliament is not in being.”

Following from that, it has to be said that, it is not at any time or any situation that this discretionary or prerogative power can be invoked. The general acceptance is that it has to be exercised judiciously.
It is clear that the Crown has a right and duty to protect its realm and citizens in times of war and peace and can invoke its prerogative to that end. That should never be in question.  

The above analysis, handed down by Zainur Ali CA on behalf of the Court of Appeal,  was upheld when the matter went on appeal to the Federal Court.

END

Even PM Najib accepts that there is nothing in law that prevents the Agong from sacking a sitting PM

by Ganesh Sahathevan

These are  the words of PM Najib with regards the Citizens' Declaration presented the Agong:

“In the meeting His Highness took notice of the matter that was brought up by Mahathir. However, the Agong explained to Mahathir that he cannot be involved in what Bersatu is doing.

“This is as the declaration made by Bersatu was not in accordance with the constitution. Any action should be in line with accepted practices via the parliament and electoral system for the rakyat to make their decision,”

The statement is interesting in that Najib sights "accepted practices" and not the Constitution or any other relevant law.In addition , he incorrectly declares the Bersatu declaration "not in accordance with the constitution", when it should be obvious even to him that there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about anyone or group petitioning the Agong.

The matter of "accepted practices" or convention has been discussed before in a previous posting where it has been pointed out that convention in the Malay context demands that the limits of the Agong's powers be not questioned. Hence, Najib's reliance on convention rather than law in defence of his position is curious, to say the least.

END




Reference

Friday, October 7, 2016

Agong can sack a sitting PM, and Conference of Rulers can remove Agong when he fails to do so.

Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Given that Malaysia's Supreme Ruler or Yang DiPertuan Agong is elected every five years by the Conference of Rulers from among its members, it follows that it is the best interest of the sultans that no one person when elected as Agong act in any way that might be detrimental to their collective interest.

In fact, it does appear as if this right to protect , even defend, their collective interest is provided for in the Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia,which states in Article 38(6)(a):

The members of the Conference of Rulers may act in their discretion in any proceedings relating to the following functions, that is to say;
(a) the election or removal from office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the election of the Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong;

There does not appear to be any other provision in the Constitution that limits their discretion.

The 14th and current Yang di-Pertuan Agong , Sultan Abdul Halim of Kedah, faces a situation where the exercise of his Constitutional and reserve powers are under intense scrutiny given the 1MDB scandal that implicates his prime minister Najib Razak in theft, money laundering and various other criminal matters that are being investigated in a number of jurisdictions. At stake is the proper governance of his country, and he faces ongoing calls from his people to dismiss his prime minister who has entrenched himself using both political machinery and legislation.The latter has involved the introduction of the National Security Council Act ,which the Conference Of Rulers advised should not be passed without "refinement". In addition, the Agong has been presented with a petition containing 1.3 million signatures imploring him to act.It has been reported that he has refused to consider that petition.

The Agong's refusal has implications for future holders of that office and the Conference Of Rulers as a whole for he oversees both  an erosion of powers and a loss of confidence of  their subjects. 

That loss of confidence will lead to questions about the relevance of the institution of the sultanate ,and surely they must already realize that these questions are in fact being raised. The Conference Of Rulers is clearly in that situation where it has to consider removing the Agong, and perhaps his soon to be appointed successor should he persist  in his predecessor's behaviour, in order to preserve the institution of the sultanate, hereditary rule,and all the privileges that come with it. 

END 

See also 

Agong,Malay Rulers, And Their Powers To Dismiss A Sitting Prime Minister-More

NSC Act pits Chief Of Defence Forces against his Commander In Chief, The Agong-Might the Agong order the CDF be court-martialled?

Agong can sack a sitting PM, and Conference of Rulers can remove Agong when he fails to do so.

Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Given that Malaysia's Supreme Ruler or Yang DiPertuan Agong is elected every five years by the Conference of Rulers from among its members, it follows that it is the best interest of the sultans that no one person when elected as Agong act in any way that might be detrimental to their collective interest.

In fact, it does appear as if this right to protect , even defend, their collective interest is provided for in the Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia,which states in Article 38(6)(a):

The members of the Conference of Rulers may act in their discretion in any proceedings relating to the following functions, that is to say;
(a) the election or removal from office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the election of the Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong;

There does not appear to be any other provision in the Constitution that limits their discretion.

The 14th and current Yang di-Pertuan Agong , Sultan Abdul Halim of Kedah, faces a situation where the exercise of his Constitutional and reserve powers are under intense scrutiny given the 1MDB scandal that implicates his prime minister Najib Razak in theft, money laundering and various other criminal matters that are being investigated in a number of jurisdictions. At stake is the proper governance of his country, and he faces ongoing calls from his people to dismiss his prime minister who has entrenched himself using both political machinery and legislation.The latter has involved the introduction of the National Security Council Act ,which the Conference Of Rulers advised should not be passed without "refinement". In addition, the Agong has been presented with a petition containing 1.3 million signatures imploring him to act.It has been reported that he has refused to consider that petition.

The Agong's refusal has implications for future holders of that office and the Conference Of Rulers as a whole for he oversees both  an erosion of powers and a loss of confidence of  their subjects. 

That loss of confidence will lead to questions about the relevance of the institution of the sultanate ,and surely they must already realize that these questions are in fact being raised. The Conference Of Rulers is clearly in that situation where it has to consider removing the Agong, and perhaps his soon to be appointed successor should he persist  in his predecessor's behaviour, in order to preserve the institution of the sultanate, hereditary rule,and all the privileges that come with it. 

END 

See also 

Agong,Malay Rulers, And Their Powers To Dismiss A Sitting Prime Minister-More

NSC Act pits Chief Of Defence Forces against his Commander In Chief, The Agong-Might the Agong order the CDF be court-martialled?