Ask who is Kathy Chung (EOP) and why in 2015 is she giving a “treasure trove” of intelligence (phone no’s) to Hunter & Redacted. Any foreign power would love to have this information!!!
Quote Tweet
Mollie
@MZHemingway
·
British media with many more details about major scandal that is being censored by US media because of their firm belief it will hurt their preferred candidate. "Strangely, the story got little traction in the US media. Stranger still, ..." https://mol.im/a/8901193
There were a number of problems with that program. First, it did not have the approval of the Malaysian Qualification Agency. It is not listed on the Malaysian Qualifications Register.
Additionally The Bar Council itself was not at the time of promotion, and still is not, approved by the Ministry Of Education to provide tertiary courses of any kind,
The program is referred to in the past tense for it seems to have vanished, just after launch , as has the College Of Law's director in Malaysia, Peter Tritt. Its office in Malaysia has been closed, and the phone numbers provided in the LLM brochure are no longer answered by anyone from or representing the College Of Law (see story below).
KUALA LUMPUR, July 19 – The Malaysian Bar Council launched its first education venture, a LLM in Malaysian Legal Practise (LLM), last year in collaboration with the College Of Law Australia.
The LLM does not seem to have the approval of Malaysia’s Legal Professional Qualifying Board (LPQB) but the website for the course, which is hosted in Australia, prominently displays the Bar Council crest.
The crest has not been used before to promote a course of study, and queries put to Bar Council President Fareed Gafoor about the use of the crest have been acknowledged but remain unanswered.
NMT has however sighted an email from Fareed dated Friday, May 24, 2019 with regards the LLM and the use of the crest where he states:
Dear Rajen,
We can’t remain silent on this.
Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor
Sent from my iPad
It is understood that “Rajen” refers to Rajen Devaraj, Chief Executive Officer of the Bar Council Secretariat in Kuala Lumpur.
The Bar has remained silent for nearly 2 months since.
Key person suddenly retired during extensive query
The College of Law used to be represented in Malaysia by its Director, Peter Tritt. Tritt have been queried extensively about the LLM and about the College’s business in Malaysia but has refused to provide answers. Tritt has been based in Kuala Lumpur since 2017 but announced on Friday that he had “retired” from the College on 30 June 2019.
It is understood that Tritt has forwarded queries sent him to his head office in Sydney and hence it appears that Tritt is under orders from his Chief Executive, Neville Carter, to remain silent.
Questionable advertising claims?
In advertising on the College’s website Carter has claimed that he had established a Professional Legal Training course for Malaysian Law students seeking admission to practise in Malaysia. There seems to be no evidence of such a course, or of any national level training course for the existing Certificate of Legal Practise.
Carter has also claimed to have produced the “inaugural” Handbook in Legal Practise for Malaysia, in the late 80s. A search of the main law libraries in Malaysia directed by the Chief Registrar, Federal Court Malaysia, has not found any such handbook.
He has also claimed to have, during that time to have identified and addressed “gaps” in Malaysian legal practise, but not even those in practice during that period and since have ever heard of him. Nor are senior practitioners aware of “gaps” that needed that to be addressed by external consultants.
As CEO of the College Carter has ultimate responsibility for the College’s Malaysian operation headed by Tritt and variously named the “College Of Law Asia Pacific” and the “College Of Law Asia”. A search by NMT has not revealed any entities registered under those names in Malaysia or in Australia, not even a foreign entities registered to conduct business in Malaysia.
Meanwhile the College, in collaboration with the Bar Council continues to sell its LLM and other courses in Malaysia, deriving a fee income from Malaysian courses.
Own brother lodges 2 police reports against VK Lingam. Electrician Thirunama Karasu a/l Kandar Velluppillai, 50, is the brother of V.K Lingam, the lawyer in the controversial video clip that Anwar Ibrahim showed the world in September.
In March, six months before the video, he had lodged two police reports with two police stations against his brother. The first report was lodged with the Kelana Jaya police station on 16 March 2007 and the second with the Brickfields police station three days later, on 19 March 2007.
Lawyer-politician Wee Choo Keong made public the police reports for the first time at a lunchtime media conference today. The revelation has thrown even more dirt on the country's beleaguered judiciary and is expected to pile on the pressure for sweeping reforms.
Juicy details contained in the two police reports include:
1) allegations of corruption involving Lingam and several judges, including former CJ Eusoff Chin, former AG Mohtar Abdullah, former IGP Rahim Noor, and judges Mohtar Sidin, Low Hop Bing, and K.L Rekraj.
2) a dinner hosted by Lingam at his home for some judges and their wives and children
3) gifts and cheques allegedly for some judges
4) the former IGP's phone bills
5) claims of huge transfers of money to accounts in London following a tip-off of an ACA raid
6) alleged visits to the former Chief Justice's home
Wee: "The allegations contained in the Kelana Jaya Police Report No: 002187/07 dated 19-03-2007 by Mr Karasu were extremely serious by any standard one would like to set. I am most surprised that almost 8 months have elapsed after the said police report has been lodged and there was no positive action taken ...."
He said he will be writing to the Police to ask about the status of investigation, if any, into the reports. He will also submit copies of the reports to the Bar Council and the Acting Chief of Justice.
Over 30 journalists and bloggers covered the media conference.
Ms Berejiklian on Friday gave a written answer to a question on notice from One Nation leader Mark Latham, who asked during Thursday's question time why she "did not make mention of the fact that Daryl Maguire had a key to her north shore home?"
The Premier wrote in response: "It would be inappropriate to comment on these matter while an ICAC investigation is underway."
Mr Maguire is being investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption for using his position as the member for Wagga Wagga for his own financial benefit between 2012 and 2018. The commission has heard revelationsMr Maguire was in a secret relationship with the Premierwhile he was brokering property deals.
Her tactics may help avoid any adverse finding by ICAC, and any possible breach of any relevant laws.
However, as premier Berejiklian has to maintain a high (if not the highest) level security clearance. Being granted and then maintaining that clearance requires a level of disclosure that is often obscured by the rules of evidence applicable in Australian courts and other quasi-judicial bodies.
The above adds to information in the public domain which would justify withdrawing Berejiklian's security clearance. She cannot be premier without that high level clearance.
VK Lingam's appeal against the Malaysian Bar Council's decision to disbar is understood to be heard soon. The appeal provides an important avenue for the eradication from the Malaysian justice. system of the Lingam satellites, primarily the network of law firms and lawyers who did his work. The decisions of former Sessions Courts judge Saufee Afandi is a good place to start.
Saufee passed away in 2015 but never protested anything this writer had to say about his less than glorious career.
TO BE READ WITH
Lawyer banned over ‘fixing judges’ phone call appeals to return to practice
VK Lingam made headlines in 2007 after a leaked video showing him fixing judicial appointments in a phone call with a senior judge.
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has fixed Nov 5 to hear an appeal by former lawyer VK Lingam to return to practice after he was barred for fixing judicial appointments.
Lawyer R Thayalan said the date was agreed upon today following case management before deputy registrar Nik Serene Nik Hashim.
“A new date was decided after an earlier scheduled appeal hearing on March 10 was vacated when a judge disqualified herself,” he told FMT.
On May 22, 2018, then High Court judge Kamaludin Md Said dismissed Lingam’s appeal against a 2015 decision by the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board to strike off his name from the roll.
Lingam was implicated in a judicial fixing scandal by a 2007 royal commission of inquiry (RCI), following the release of a widely circulated video clip featuring him purportedly discussing promotions and factionalism among senior judges with then chief justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.
The RCI panel had recommended that action for misconduct be taken against him, Ahmad Fairuz, former chief justice Eusoff Chin, tycoon Vincent Tan, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and former minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor.
The board had earlier affirmed a committee’s decision in finding Lingam guilty of involvement in judicial fixing, and barred him from practising law.
In his appeal, Lingam claimed the video evidence used against him during the inquiry was not authentic and might have been taken out of context.
Lingam has been out of Malaysia for more than eight years and is currently believed to be in the United States.
In 2017, he was sentenced to jail six months in absentia by the Federal Court for contempt, for claiming that a Federal Court bench had plagiarised its written grounds in delivering judgment on a civil case eight years earlier.
In that case, another lawyer, TC Nayagam, and 24 family members and directors of Kian Joo Can Factory Bhd pleaded guilty to showing disrespect to the court and were fined a total of RM2.15 million
Australia's proposed "adult cyber abuse" laws will allow the Commonwealth ESafety Commissioner to order platforms such as Facebook to remove postings that are deemed to be "unsafe". The Federal cyber safety minister Paul Fletcher says he must do to ensure that the Internet is "safe" for adults.
However, given the example of say Section 18C of the Anti-Discrimination Act and other laws that are intended to keep citizens "safe" these proposed laws are more likely than not to be used to censor and avoid scrutiny.
Malaysia will investigate NSW AG and LPAB oversight of the College Of Law: College's Malaysian business removes protective mantle; likely to further expose LPAB Annual report exclusions
by Ganesh Sahathevan
by Ganesh Sahathevan
The story below was published by the well connected Malaysian investigative new site New Malaysia Times. An investigation by all the relevant Malaysian authorities can be expected, and that will involve a forensic examination of the College Of Law Sydney.
Questions about the College's activities in Malaysia have been put by this writer to the two parties ultimately responsible for regulating the College's activities , the Attorney General NSW Mark Speakman and the Legal Professional Admission Board NSW.
The queries have been met with accusations, by the LPAB and the AG of harassment , threat and intimidation by this writer of the College's management.They have gone so far as to object to the Attorney General Malaysia being informed about the College's activities in Malaysia They have also excluded from the LPAB's 2018 and earlier Annual Reports , which the AG tables in the NSW Parliament complaints against the College and its management; and in particular statements on the official record that they have made in support of the College.
All the above is now likely to be investigated in Malaysia.
END
KUALA LUMPUR, July 19 – The Malaysian Bar Council launched its first education venture, a LLM in Malaysian Legal Practise (LLM), last year in collaboration with the College Of Law Australia.
The LLM does not seem to have the approval of Malaysia’s Legal Professional Qualifying Board (LPQB) but the website for the course, which is hosted in Australia, prominently displays the Bar Council crest.
The crest has not been used before to promote a course of study, and queries put to Bar Council President Fareed Gafoor about the use of the crest have been acknowledged but remain unanswered.
NMT has however sighted an email from Fareed dated Friday, May 24, 2019 with regards the LLM and the use of the crest where he states:
Dear Rajen,
We can’t remain silent on this.
Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor
Sent from my iPad
It is understood that “Rajen” refers to Rajen Devaraj, Chief Executive Officer of the Bar Council Secretariat in Kuala Lumpur.
The Bar has remained silent for nearly 2 months since.
Key person suddenly retired during extensive query
The College of Law used to be represented in Malaysia by its Director, Peter Tritt. Tritt have been queried extensively about the LLM and about the College’s business in Malaysia but has refused to provide answers. Tritt has been based in Kuala Lumpur since 2017 but announced on Friday that he had “retired” from the College on 30 June 2019.
It is understood that Tritt has forwarded queries sent him to his head office in Sydney and hence it appears that Tritt is under orders from his Chief Executive, Neville Carter, to remain silent.
Questionable advertising claims?
In advertising on the College’s website Carter has claimed that he had established a Professional Legal Training course for Malaysian Law students seeking admission to practise in Malaysia. There seems to be no evidence of such a course, or of any national level training course for the existing Certificate of Legal Practise.
Carter has also claimed to have produced the “inaugural” Handbook in Legal Practise for Malaysia, in the late 80s. A search of the main law libraries in Malaysia directed by the Chief Registrar, Federal Court Malaysia, has not found any such handbook.
He has also claimed to have, during that time to have identified and addressed “gaps” in Malaysian legal practise, but not even those in practice during that period and since have ever heard of him. Nor are senior practitioners aware of “gaps” that needed that to be addressed by external consultants.
As CEO of the College Carter has ultimate responsibility for the College’s Malaysian operation headed by Tritt and variously named the “College Of Law Asia Pacific” and the “College Of Law Asia”. A search by NMT has not revealed any entities registered under those names in Malaysia or in Australia, not even a foreign entities registered to conduct business in Malaysia.
Meanwhile the College, in collaboration with the Bar Council continues to sell its LLM and other courses in Malaysia, deriving a fee income from Malaysian courses.
The Australian's Nicola Berkovic has reported that "journalists could be jailed for articles found to undermine public confidence in the courts or interfere with a person’s right to a fair trial, under new contempt of court laws proposed in Victoria." Contempt of court laws were formulated at a time when judges understood that they must remain aloof of the people they judge, and their debates. This is no longer the case, and as Tim Blair described not too long ago, even chief justices are not able to restrain themselves (see story below). The problem is endemic. Given the circumstances journalists can never be sure when something said or written might be considered to have undermined public confidence in some judicial officer and his or her court. Todays judges seem not likely to want to confine themselves to their courts and judgements. Hence in keeping with these progressive times contempt laws are best diluted, not affirmed, and eventually forgotten.
TO BE READ WITH
Chief Justice Tom Bathurst will save us from ourselves
Judges know best. They are more knowledgeable and caring than politicians. They are also more knowledgeable and caring than the voters who elect those politicians.
We know this because the state’s leading judge, Tom Bathurst, says so.
In a speech to the Opening of Law Term dinner, Chief Justice Bathurst declared it was the judiciary and not the government who can be relied upon to promote fairness and equality. Left to our own devices, and without the soothing touch of all-wise judges, Australians would apparently descend into rampant racism.
“It should give us pause that one of the most serious threats to the rule of law in Australia was grounded in xenophobia,” Chief Justice Bathurst said, much in the manner of his predecessor Jim Spigelman.
The chief justice’s speech will no doubt please that sector of our community which is essentially suspicious of and distrusting towards the majority of Australians. Bathurst reinforced this notion with a line about promoting equality, fairness and the rule of law “in spite of popular sentiment”.
Poor old popular sentiment always cops a bashing from the we-know-better brigade. This is frequently ill-considered. After all, popular sentiment led to stopping the people smuggling trade in our region – and therefore ending a murderous practice that cost around 1200 lives at sea during Labor’s six years of power.
Interestingly, the legal fraternity – those promoters of fairness and equality – even now forms a large part of the movement dedicated to ending Australia’s life-saving border security operations.
Chief Justice Bathurst reached all the way back to 1888 for one example of the judiciary’s wisdom over popular opinion. During that year the NSW Government ordered police to stop Chinese passengers getting off a ship which had docked in Sydney Harbour, only for the government to be eventually overruled.
The chief justice sees parallels between the events of 1888 and Australia’s current mood, at least in terms of then-NSW premier Sir Henry Parkes’s comments at the time.
Sir Henry is presently unable to respond, having been dead for more than 100 years, but we would submit that Australia has changed a great deal during the intervening period. We are now a multicultural, tolerant, educated and thoughtful people who are quite capable of seeking fair outcomes without being bossed into them.
If Chief Justice Bathurst would like to have more of a say in the state’s affairs, he is welcome to run for elected office.
