Actually, if the ministry’s officials behave responsibly, direct negotiation too would not be a problem. A clear guideline must be drawn to assist them in their determination of the following (as mentioned above) (1) financial means; (2) relevant knowledge; (3) experience; and (4) track record. Unsuitable contractors could be weeded out by direct negotiation too and they should be weeded out. But of course the umno gobermen happily abused the process. This is a known fact. In fact so well known that umnoputras became quite blatant and open about it. And now they even claim the process to be their exclusive privilege and therefore unquestionable by the rest of us. That being the case open tender is the way forward.

Back to the financial means issue. Because of abuse a 2dollar company may be awarded multi-billion dollar project. It has happened before. That simply means doing mega-big business with zero capital – an impossibility anywhere else except in the land of umnoputras. Not just that. That 2dollar company and all its members and directors may know next to nothing about the project they were entrusted to carry out.

Without money nothing moves of course. The two dollar company would be in desperate need of financing. Without no track record etc that company is not going to get the money it requires. Here comes the letter of support. Who gives the support? The Ministry concerned, clearly. So what the heck would the ministry be supporting? That the 2dollar company can re-pay the loan? (This cannot be for obvious reason) That the 2dollar company can do the job? (This too is ridiculous for the company has no experience and track record). The question then is why should banks listen to such support letters? There are really no reason for banks to give any consideration or weight to such letters. Unless the letter is good for saying that if the contractor should bungle up the job the ministry will take over its responsibilities including its financial liabilities? In other words, it is a guarantee worded in a clumsy manner. The clumsiness of the document is intended for no guarantee was expressly given but the effect of the letter is nevertheless clear to the recepient.

So LKS is right to insist that support letters be done away with completely. If they are not able to finance a project they should not be awarded the job. The government must not provide them with a means to bridge their inability.

It cannot be an offense for any individual to obtain a support letter for special consideration for tenders, contracts, land applications, scholarships etc, but the decision making bodies must show transparency by strictly ignoring or disregard the support letters whether it’s from a Minister or politician or any one for the matter, when making a decision.

However, everyone must remember that support letters issued with any gratification payments either before or after the successful approval of whatever the support letter were used for is an offense under the MACC Act 2009. Likewise, anyone who demand or receive any gratification to issue a support letter for any matter is also committing an offense under the same act. This has been made clear by the MACC in their press release.

Anyone who come to know any gratification demands or payments for a support letter must go forward to lodge a report so that MACC investigate and bring the culprits to court.

I think the One Malaysia concept if properly adhered then there will be no need for the use of support letters to obtain any special consideration.

Let’s all go against the use of support letters.

Believe me. I can sense this coming!

How queer. Captcha generated these words for me: “world hegemony”

On 08-12-2009, I was given a letter (written by a government department) dated 24-09-2007 addressed to a company that did not exist at the time of the letter but only in existence on 02-04-2008 by the department. Besides, there are other flaws found in the letter. Since I had lodged the allegation against the company with the department, I believe that its motive is to undermine and discredit my allegation.

IF I HAD NOT DONE A COMPANY SEARCH ON 16-10-2009, I WOULD HAVE TAKEN FOR GRANTED THAT THE COMPANY EXISTED AT THAT MATERIAL TIME AND “NO CASE FILE CLOSED”. But as of today, I am still waiting for the department’s reply.

k1980 :
A new, small, unheard-of company with RM2 paid-up capital gets a contract over a big, capable one with RM2million paid-up capital and an excellent track record. Where can this happen?
A. Heaven
B. Bolehland
C. The moon
D. Dante’s Purgatory

E. Pandora

Public listed companies doing multi million contract overseas but finds it difficult to get govt. projects here and have to be a sub-con to rm2 inexperience companies. how you like that?

For instance, a garbage and toilet cleaning company which is formed by a group of poor and unemployed citizens can be deemed to have much better commitment, manpower resources, and the technical capability to deliver the satisfactory services of cleaning up the public toilets than a public listed company which owns multi-million Ringgit of paid-up-capital but is already debt-ridden with negative tangible asset!

A. Heaven
B. Bolehland
C. The moon
D. Dante’s Purgatory