lkt-56,

Re what Godfather said in #8 -”When the bondholders and their lawyers asked for clarification as to whether the letters of support were valid and binding on the government, the MOF with the approval of the AG’s Chambers issued a letter to the rating agency to confirm that the letters of support were valid and binding and were issued with the knowledge of the MOF. Gani’s assertion that the letters were unlawfully issued was disingenous because whatever “defects” these letters had were obviously rectified or waived by the letter issued by the MOF to the rating agency.”

That statement made by Godfather (if true) is basically correct because the AG cannot on one breath say the letters were unlawfully issued by CKC and yet have the government/MOF subsequently confirm they were issued “with the knowledge of the MOF”. The second part (“with the knowledge of the MOF”) vitiates and negates the first part of what AG said (on the letters being “unlawfully issued”).

What the inconsistency suggests is a kind of cover-up/damage control.

However bear in mind, that what I explained above and argued with Godfather is idependent of and has nothing to do with issues of the need for public accountability for a mega scandal like PKFZ or whether there is cover up/damage (of whioch we can all make educated guesses).

My arguments are centered on the comparison between guarantees and support letters, both are used by commerce and people dealing with govt agencies but that there are real distinctions between them. Whether CKC’s letters are really guarantees or support letters as described does not depend on their description but their substance or content as properly construed. Now you & I can construe them if made available to us. So can the AG; so can the PAC – and so too can CKC’s Queen Counsel. Ultimately it depends on Courts whether you think them fair or not. However if on proper construction they are actually letters of support and not guarantees in their proper sense – and I have pointed to many of their differences – then CKC is off the hook on allegations of contravening FPA that only covers guarantees and nothing more having regard to the wordings of FPA’s section 14.

This raises public issues of great importance. This is because CKC was not first or last minister issuing such support letters not tantmounting to guarantee requiring MOF’s approval in FPA sense.

There will be more in the future. How else can they get deals done by govt agencies/GLC with the market if ministers of relevant ministry don’t issue letters of support?

But if the government (out of necessity to facilitate its agencies doing deals in the market) going to honour on moral ground every letter of support issued by minister (that is not a guarantee requiring MOF’s approval) the net effect is that the check and balance in section 14 of FPA will be circumvented and public finances depleted by deals like PKFZ. That is why section 14 of FPA has to be amended as I suggested. Otherwise there is nothing to say in section 14 that letters of support (not tantamounting to guarantee) requires MOF’s approval and a minister issuing it like CKC can do it without being held liable for breaking the law. As the section stands now, CKC’s QC has a good case to exonerate CKC from allegations of violating FPA – independent of the other development (if what Godfather pointed out is true) that the AG has come out to say that what CKC did was with MOF’s approval, thereby exonerating him!

///Only criminals need to run away even though they are not in pursuit, but those who are righteous stand firm as a lion/// – Undertaker 888.

It is well said : just like your quotation of an old saying: “In order to win, sometimes we need to lose. He who covers over an offense promotes love, but whoever repeats the matter separates friends. He that has knowledge use sparingly his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.
Even a fool, when he hold his peace, is counted wise: and he that shuts his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”~Proverbs 17:9,27,28.

There is, I agree, much truth and wisdom in that proverb – not a word added or subtracted – and thats the way a wiseman conducts or ought to conduct himself in life (in general).

If that proverb were directed at me (as criticism) I will not defend myself. I don’t mind being counted as a man of no wisdom or understanding, or instead of making friends make enemies.

It is not that these are not important but something else is more – and that is we pursue discourse/discussions rationally, objectively and dispassionately, free from emotions, on issues raised in this space.

If people want to be offensive/uncivil or obfuscate/confuse/distort issues just because matters discussed objectively are not in accord with their sentiments, they deserve every reciprocation and repayment, never mind the costs implicated in the other saying ie “Never argue with a fool. Anyone watching might not be able to tell the difference” and also in an tit for tat recriminations no one gets persuaded by any logic since by itself it creates a downward communication spiral.

For no one is seeking popularity or wisdom stakes here, least of all me : what is more important in a forum like this is pursuit of the objective truth, whether it hurts or not, and wherever the chips fall, and people should not say uncivil and rude remarks as substitute for rational/fair rebuttal just so to shut another up and to disrupt this process just because they are not happy about what’s being said. Be damned to such people!

jamalmalikslumdog – what you say is true, ultimately the effects of reliance by 3rd parties and govt paying on it are same.

Which is why I ask the 1st basic question if 2 documents – (1) a normal guarantee where I promise to pay if the debtor does not pay and (2) a letter of support as you described above are compared, does the similar practical EFFECTS of both make their NATURES he same?

I said, in the case of (1) the 3rd parties relying on guarantee has legal basis by legal process to make a direct legal claim on the govt which liability is grounded on law. In the other case of support letters, the 3rd party will make a claim and if the government pays it it is grounded on moral/practical consiferations of ensuring that bank/financial market continues dealing with govt agencies. It also means if for some unpractical reason the govt refuses vto pay, does the 3rd party have legal basis to pin on the govt a legal liability by due process of law? If your answer to that question is “no” then this is the big distinction between the “natures” of guarantee and support leters though both may end up with same “effects”.

That being so, if CKC issued letters which ultimately are construed as mere support leters and not guarantee in the strict sense of the word, will CKC be guilty of contravening Finance Procedure Act (FPA) for issuing a document that is not a guarantee when the FPA only talks of “guarantee” (and nothing else wider) needing MOF’s approval? That is the issue.

However its also true that if short, they are likelier to run lagi amok out of greater confusion.

I have that line before. We are however no more in the class. Beyond in the world outside there are bigger nerds who calumniate others opinions as convenient therapy for their own demons or just because the opinions not resonate with their sentiments. They need to be whipped on every occasion.