At long last, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report on the mother of all scandals, the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ), has been tabled in Parliament, together with several tombs of documents, viz verbatim minutes of 13 PAC meetings on the subject from 11th June to 3rd September 2009, Price Waterhouse Coopers’ report on position review of PKFZ and its appendices.
The PAC report has confirmed and vindicated my statements and allegations about the PKFZ not only as “a can of worms” but a “swamp of crocodiles” that I have made in Parliament since the last session, and raises the question why no action had been taken very much earlier to avoid the rotten state of the PKFZ scandal today.
The PAC report has confirmed that RM645.87 million would have been saved if the PKFZ land had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1960, for then it would have cost only RM442.13 million and not RM1.088 billion before interest.
PAC recommended that former Transport Minister Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy be investigated by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Police for unlawfully issuing three Letters of Support which has landed the country with the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, citing the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 14(1) of the Financial Procedure Act 1957 read together with Section 409B Penal Code.
I commend PAC for taking such a clear stand but I cannot wonder what is the use of such a reference to the MACC, when the MACC and previously the Anti-Corruption Agency had been aware of these facts as I had spoken about them many times in Parliament in the past three years.
This is from the verbatim report of the PAC meeting of 23rd June 2009 in the exchange between PAC member and DAP MP for Petaling Jaya Utara Tony Pua and the MACC Director of Investigations Datuk Haji Mohd Shukri bin Abdull:
Pua Kiam Wee : Akan tetapi, sebelum ini, sebelum 2007 pun isu-isu salah guna kuasa telah pun dikemukakan dengan jelas terutamanya mengenai isu letter of support yang telah ditandatangani oleh pihak Menteri pada masa itu telah pun jelas dan telah pun diakui oleh ramai termasuk pihak-pihak daripada kerajaan bahawa seseorang Menteri Pengangkutan tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk memberikan apa-apa jaminan kewangan kepada pihak sesiapa dan apakah tindakan yang diambil pada masa itu? Kenapa pada masa itu tiada siasatan diambil untuk menyiasat sekiranya ada unsur-unsur salah guna kuasa. Sekurang-kurangnya salah guna kuasa dan boleh jadi isu penyelewengan pada masa itu.
Datuk Haji Mohd Shukri bin Abdull : Okey, Tuan Pengerusi dan Yang Berhormat, Letter of Support yang dikatakan dikeluarkan oleh Menteri kepada OSK untuk pinjam kepada Kuala Dimensi juga merupakan salah satu isu yang kita siasat dan kita complete siasatan itu dan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya berpendapat bahawa tiada kesalahan salah guna kuasa berlaku. Itu pendapat yang dikeluarkan oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya. Itu satu isu yang kita siasat Tuan Pengerusi.
From the above verbatim record, it is crystal clear that the fact of Chan Kong Choy having abused his powers as Transport Minister and committed breach of trust in unlawfully issuing the three letters of support were not new information to the MACC, as it had investigated them and found that no offence had been committed.
What purpose can be served by PAC recommending that SPRM should further investigate into Chan Kong Choy for the offence of criminal breach of trust when it had already investigated and cleared him of having committed any such offence?
What is urgently needed is a Royal Commission of Inquiry to build on the PAC findings as well as to investigate why the MACC, the Attorney-General and other key institutions and important officials had failed to discharge their duties in allowing the PKFZ scandal to reach the present astronomical scale.
Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail had appeared before the PAC to reiterate that Chan had unlawfully given an implicit government guarantee in the three Letters of Support which he had no power to give as Transport Minister. The question is why the Attorney-General had failed to take action against Chan for abuse of power or criminal breach of trust in illegally issuing three Letters of Support landing the country with the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal.
Gani Patail should resign as Attorney-General if he cannot give a satisfactory explanation.
Parliament should have a special debate on the PAC report on the PKFZ scandal, but the first step is for MPs to go through the tomb of PKFZ documents tabled in Parliament today.
#1 by All For The Road on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 1:11 pm
What more is there to say?
A ‘swamp of crocodiles’ swims together!
God saves Malaysia!
#2 by a-malaysian on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 1:13 pm
Good job YB, keep the pressure on. It clearly shows that all corruptions among umno/bn leaders need the clearance from the top leader before any action can be taken by MACC or the AG. This AG is a robot by taking instructions to act or not to act but become super human when a slight tremor hits any opposition he will hail and wail to take immediate action.
Malaysia For All
GE 13 – Change The Federal Government No matter what, we must ensure that racist umno bn do not regain the power like they had for over the past fifty two years.
#3 by OrangRojak on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 1:22 pm
“tombs of documents”
Nice one! I can just imagine some infamous Mlaaysian figures lying in rest, surrounded by walls of damning paper evidence. No need to change it to ‘tomes’, I think ‘tombs’ is better!
#4 by Winston on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 1:41 pm
Uncle Lim, you’re doing a very good job, not only in revealing the true character of the UMNO/BN top echelon but also keeping us reminded about the continuous scams and scandals going among them.
As one erstwhile PM was all too aware that Malaysians have a very short memory span and used it to his good advantage for more than two decades.
You can be sure that UMNO/BN will just ignore everything hoping that just by being thick skinned, they’ll get away with it!
#5 by tenaciousB on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 3:53 pm
if this country was truly democratic and the citiizens are aware of their rights, they would all march to the streets this very minute and demand the resolution of parliament and dismantle Barisan National for being the reason behind the mother of all scams in this country!
#6 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 3:55 pm
Kit:
“….several tombs of documents….” ? Who were they trying to bury ? The culprits or the deal itself ?
#7 by undertaker888 on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 4:00 pm
//if this country was truly democratic and the citiizens are aware of their rights…tenacious
We live here long enough to know that all aspects of government are corrupted to the core. But before, people are afraid of PAS because of their fundamentalism thanks to MSM. That is why we have young people, aunties and uncles voting BN although they know they suck too big time. But what choice do we have back then.
So it is our job to steer these uncles, aunties, brothers and sisters to read more of LKS, MT..etc. They need to swallow the red pills sooner or later…if not the poison pill will kill the country,,,,
#8 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 4:03 pm
Like I said in previous postings, there is no chance of Chan Kong Choy being prosecuted because the AG’s Chambers and the Ministry of Finance were involved in the cover-up. 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.
The PKFZ scam was not an exclusive MCA affair. The task before the government now is to make sure that the no other arms of government are to be implicated. They must also ensure that UMNO is not implicated despite the clear and active participation of UMNO Selangor and also the then UMNO Treasurer.
#9 by Cinapek on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 4:12 pm
The unlimited power granted to the AG to decide whether to prosecute a case or not is at the root of all these scandals. It is the “fixed deposit” for the UMNO/BN Govt to get out of every sticky case that could seriously embarass them. Take the Lingam tape case as another example. It is so easy just to declare “not enough evidence” and close the case. What are the provisions to challenge the AG’s decision?
That is why UMNO/BN Govt insist on having the AG’s post recommended by the PM so that the AG will forever be in debt to the PM. Until the day we have this position vetted by Parliament, Malaysians will have to suffer such manipulations.
#10 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 4:13 pm
///PAC recommended that former Transport Minister Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy (“CKC”) be investigated by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Police for unlawfully issuing three Letters of Support which has landed the country with the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, citing the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 14(1) of the Financial Procedure Act (“FPA”)1957 read together with Section 409B Penal Code/// – YB Kit
Section 14. (1) of FPA says that “no guarantee involving a financial liability shall be
binding upon the Federal Government, unless it is entered into
with the written authority of the Treasury or in accordance with
federal law”.
Chan Kong Choy (“CKC)’s QC will in his defence contend that “Letters of Support” issued are not “guarantees” and therefore their issuance were not in contravention of section 14(1) of FPA.
If those letters of support signed by CKC on half of the govt were expressed in clear and unambiguous wordings such that these letters clearly stated that the government will assume the legal and contractual obligation to be answerable for and pay the debt of Port Klang Authority (“PKA”) to third parties (whether turnkey contract Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (“KDSB”) or, further down the line, the financial creditors or bondholders of KDSB (“Financial/Bonds Market”) – with the intent that KDSB or Financial/Bonds Market, as parties guaranteed can directly sue the govt. on these Letters of Support for PKA’s non payment of its debt (which though are described as Letters of Support are in fact by substance and content of their wordings, guarantees), then only CKC will be in contravention of FPA. And even in such a contravention which makes the Letters of Support aka guarantees void and of no legal effect for being ultra vires the FPA, it is not at all certain at all that – and a different question altogether – whether the person issuing them (ie CKC), exceeding his powers permitted by FPA will necessarily fall under the definition of “criminal breach of trust”.
If however those letters of support signed by CKC on half of the govt were expressed in clear and unambiguous wordings such that these letters are NOT meant to assume on behalf of the government the obligations of a guarantee in the sense of the government directly and legally being answerable to pay KDSB the debt owed by PKA to KDSB if PKA defaults in payment or, as may be applicable in the other case, to pay Financial/Bonds Market the debt owed by KDSB to it (if KDSB defaults in payment) KDSB (paying clearly stated that the government – and that all those letters of support were meant to provide moral support only, in the sense of assuring KDSB, and by extension Financial/Bonds Market not to be worried when dealing with PKA because PKA being a govt agency under Ministry of Transport (MOT), will always have government/MOT’s managerial guidance and financial support in the sense that PKA will always be placed in fund and moneys for PKA to (on its own) discharge its financial obligations whether to KDSB or the Financial/Bonds, then these letters of support are, as their titles suggest, mere leters of support and not “Guarantees” within meaning of Section 14. (1) of FPA Market for CKC to be in breach.
The fact that the government subsequently assumes the financial obligation on behalf of PKA to pay on its behalf KDSB or to pay the Financial/Bonds Market relying on these support letters (in the interest of protecting credibility of government agencies like PKA when dealing with others in the commercial world) does not change the character of letters of support to become guarantee. For in this case, the government’s assumption of obligation to pay is based on moral obligation and practical need to retain confidence of the market when dealing with govt agencies and such a moral obligation is distinct and apart from a legal obligation assumed under a Guarantee! In such a case CKC will be let off the hook. So will the MACC for not investigating him or the AG for not charging him. What PAC recommends is not necessarily the actual legal position. Only the Courts are supposed to determine that. What are the chances they will do so?
#11 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 4:25 pm
Re-posting 2nd last para for clarity :-
‘If however those letters of support signed by CKC on half of the govt were expressed in clear and unambiguous wordings such that these letters are NOT meant to assume on behalf of the government the legal obligations of a guarantee – in the sense of the government directly and legally being answerable to pay KDSB the debt owed by PKA to KDSB if PKA defaults in payment or, as may be applicable, in the other case, to pay Financial/Bonds Market the debt owed by KDSB to it (if KDSB defaults in payment) – and that all those letters of support were meant to provide is moral support only, in the sense of assuring KDSB, and by extension Financial/Bonds Market not to be worried when dealing with PKA because PKA being a govt agency under Ministry of Transport (MOT), will always have government/MOT’s managerial guidance and financial support in the sense that PKA will always be placed in fund and moneys for PKA to (on its own) discharge its financial obligations whether to KDSB or the Financial/Bonds – then these letters of support are, as their titles suggest, mere letters of support and not “guarantees” within meaning of Section 14. (1) of FPA Market for CKC to be in any breach.’
#12 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 4:31 pm
What gobbledegook is our lawyer talking now ?
“…..all those letters of support were meant to provide is moral support only, in the sense of assuring KDSB, and by extension Financial/Bonds Market not to be worried when dealing with PKA because PKA being a govt agency under Ministry of Transport (MOT), will always have government/MOT’s managerial guidance and financial support in the sense that PKA will always be placed in fund and moneys for PKA to (on its own) discharge its financial obligations…..”
What is so ambigous here ? If PKA doesn’t have the money, the government will ensure that PKA has the money. These words may not constitute a guarantee under the FPA, but they constitute financial support where I know I won’t lose my money if I lend to PKA.
#13 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 4:37 pm
If AG admits that CKC had “given an implicit government guarantee in the three Letters of Support which he had no power to give as Transport Minister”, (which I am sure CKC will deny they are guarantees) then AG will be hard pressed to answer what he is doing about such a contravention of FPA – unless AG wiggles out to say that the “implicit guarantee” he mentioned to PAC is not guarantee in technical legal sense but in laymen’s language of the govt’s fulfilling a moral obligation to pay…. which in effect produces same results as a guarantee where the government can legally be compelled by the 3rd parties via legal processes to pay them.
#14 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 4:52 pm
These words may not constitute a guarantee under the FPA, but they constitute financial support : but does the FPA cover guarantee or also any other instrument like an ordinary letter of support, the effect of which, even on based on a moral obligation, ends the same in financial support by the govt? If one says no difference because end result the same, govt pays, then there’s no argument – from laymen’s point..From strict technical sense, if guarantee in section 14(1) of FPA means guarantee in legal restricted sense – and does not cover other instruments not strictly within definition of legal guarantee though they may cause the government to pay out of moral/practical reasons, then CKC will get out of the contravention of FPA because what he issued are not legal guarantees mentioned by it but some other instruments though ending in same result.
The same result is caused by the govt voluntarily assuming obligation to pay but that does not make the instrument a guarantee under FPA when one bears in mind the distinction – that if it were a legal guarantee (in strict legal sense), even if the government refuses to pay, it can be compelled by legal processes by the parties guaranteed, to pay. However if the instrument (ie support leter) were strictly guarantee, then if the government does not voluntarily assume obligation to pay, it cannot be compelled by legal processes by the parties guaranteed, to pay them.
I trust even a layman with a modicum of intelligence and no gobbledegook mental screen can understand this main distinction between a guarantee and another non guarantee instrument though both have end in same practical result of the govt paying (for different reasons, one based on legal obligation, the other, moral/practical reasons.
#15 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 4:55 pm
In 2nd para typo omission rectified – “However if the instrument (ie support letter) were strictly NOT guarantee (but support letters only), then if the government does not voluntarily assume obligation to pay, it cannot be compelled by legal processes by the parties guaranteed, to pay them.
#16 by rabbit on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 5:11 pm
hey guys… the show just about to start! lets see how MACC die this time, make sure Bro LKS tear off their ugly face. What a One Malaysia! haha… Oh.. how about other buaya? a helicopter n the submerine? those case should put on the table also!!! settle it b4 13 GE so eberyone know their real face
#17 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 5:14 pm
2 situations here:
1. Govt (or CKC/MOT on its behalf) signs a document telling KDSB if PKA does not pay you, Govt will pay; or to the Market, if KDSB does not pay you, Govt will pay. (This a Guarantee. If Govt does not pay, parties affected have legal basis to claim from Govt).
2. Govt (or CKC/MOT on its behalf) signs a document telling KDSB and Market – “don’t worry when dealing with PKA. Its a Govt agency. It has managerial support. It has financial support from govt. You can rely on PKA’s financial support from Govt when dealing with it. It will not be short of funds”.
This is a letter of support not amounting to guarantee under FPA. If PKA does pay, Govt pays to protect credibility of deals by 3rd parties with govt. agencies. If Govt does not pay, it is doubtful 3rd parties can by legal processes have a basis to claim from the govt. However 3rd parties will not deal with govt agencies anymore. Govt is afraid of that so it pays (on moral/practical ground) but not legal ground as the case of 1. above.
Both b1. and 2. end up in same result of govt’s paying. Does that make document in 1. the same as document in 2. based on both being a guarantee within definition of section 14 (1) of FPA that only mentions guarantee? FPA does not say guarantee includes any instrument that practically ends in same result of government assuming obligation, albeit moral obligation, and not legal obligation, to pay.
Anyone who thinks 1. and 2. are same by nature simply because their end effects are same is gobbledegook mental processes. Why ? Because ‘nature’ of something like a document is distinct from its ‘effect’. 2 instruments may have different natures but produce the same effects. This is because of different reasons leading to same effect. Here the legal reason under guarantee and the moral reason under the support letters happen to intersect and point same result, the govt. pays. That does not mean the documents are one and the same in nature, both guarantees…This is confused thinking!
#18 by mendela on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 5:38 pm
This beautiful country is being raped by UMNO and its running dogs again and again.
Only a coup d’tat can kill the ills!
#19 by newchief on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 5:39 pm
uncle lim.if not for you,we won’t know where our money goes to. thank you very very much.
however, asking ag to resign is like asking musa to resign again. the only thing i can think of is ‘ if a man is clean and honest, he will go after the dirty leeches ‘ . if not, he’s either part of the team or is pressured to sit tight to makan gaji buta.
good luck uncle lim but i don’t think you will get what you requested because najis has has already given an indirect answer ‘ we will take actions if it deems neccessary ‘ .
#20 by newchief on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 5:44 pm
would you believe najis will say ‘technical mis-management’ and those involved are no longer in the service so case SHOULD BE CLOSED ???? I DO !!!
#21 by Bigjoe on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 5:45 pm
Gani Patail? Najib get rid of him? Not without a big payout. He covered up Altantuya for Najib. What can Najib do to him?
#22 by yhsiew on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 5:48 pm
If Attorney-General Gani Patail refused to take action against former Transport Minister Chan Kong Choy for criminal breach of trust, it is only logical for one to conclude that Gani Patail also had a part in abetting Chan Kong Choy to commit the breach of trust.
#23 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 5:52 pm
///These words may not constitute a guarantee under the FPA, but they constitute financial support where I know I won’t lose my money if I lend to PKA.///
So what? So if Guarantee involves financial support therefore all other instruments implicating financial support will have to be a guarantee? Is that a proper reasoning process or ‘gobbledegook’ ?
So to use a homespun analogy, a man tells a woman to marry and live with him, he will provide her and children financial support. If he defaults the wife has a legal claim against him for financial support.
If same man having money tells another woman to live in another household with him on selected days, he will provide financial support. If he defaults, she will leave. He is scared of that. Being financially able, he provides financial support. It is also moral and honour that he provides financial support but if he defaults can woman have a legal claim agisnt him for support of her?
So there is fincial support in both cases, the difference being in first case he pays because the legal wife has legal recourse against him whilst the second case, he pays because of moral and practical obligation and if he does not choose to do so, the “mistress” as distinct from legal wife have no legal recourse against him.
Just because both involve financial support does not mean the first lady (wife) and second lady (mistress) share same status no more than a guarantee and letters of support share the same in law though both involve the govt paying for not necessarily same reason.
#24 by gofortruth on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 6:03 pm
Aiya AG, IGP, MACC all machai of UMNO la.
According to the leaked papers published by MT earlier, the BN cabinet knew exactly what was going on right from the beginning. We are able to see a glimpse of the truth now only because of PAC & the ugly internal fights among the MCA’s big guns. Najib’s super task force is put in place in the hope of sweeping everything back under the carpet.
Just watch how they BULLDOZE their way through or have a small fish as a scapegoat.
#25 by lkt-56 on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 6:55 pm
A letter of undertaking may not be a clear cut guarantee but one has to look at the circumstances under which the letter is issued. The contents and wordings of the letter should also shed some light as to the intent of the letter. It would also be relevant to note whether the letter of undertaking is listed under list of securities provided in the loan contract.
Whatever it is the letter of undertaking has put the government and therefore the tax payer under moral obligations and liability. Therefore there is indeed a case for this case to be pursued.
#26 by boh-liao on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 7:44 pm
Ha, ha, all 1 pond of reptiles
1 genus of crocodile, 1 genus of alligator, n buaya galore
Happy, happy, 1Malaysia
No problem 1
#27 by boh-liao on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 7:45 pm
Wait n see what our msm spin
#28 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 7:57 pm
Chan Kong Choy’s QC may argue that his client was only giving a financial affidavit, where it was only making a solemn declaration that the Government as at the time of the declaration would have money to pay the debt or the claim due to the contractor if the contractor had managed to deliver the work performance within due course and within due time frame. However, the declaration did not constitute a letter of guarantee or surety because it was not sent to the stamping office for making a documentation and stamping upon paying a stamp duty.
#29 by monsterball on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 8:05 pm
hahahahahaha….Lim Kit Siang at his legendary best!!
Without him….there is no democracy.
Without him…there is no corruptions exposed.
” a can of worms” is actually a ” swamp of crocodiles”…..under close inspections by LKS…hahahahahahahaha
aiyo…forgone conclusion…no one is guilty….just lousy mismagements.
All filthy rich…not good evidence. They are smart investors…making hundreds of millions with their small salaries.
All Malaysians cannot come close to these smooth operators.
Elect them forever and learn.
#30 by monsterball on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 8:49 pm
Once arrest is made on Chan Kong Choy…a chain reaction on arrests..including Mahathir and Ling Liong Sik….UMNO and MCA gone…so serious.
You thin… the UMNO AG will let that happen?
He may also go to jail too.
Nay…it will never happen…and only through People’s Power…the mighty voters..can we have hope to see…real justice.
That’s why .with so cal 62% support Najib claim UMNO is having.. yet he dare not call for a snap 13th GE..to shut our mouths.
Bunch of crooks and hypocrites…you expect they play each other out….sacrificing oneself..to save others?
#31 by mauriyaII on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 9:01 pm
The AG in Bolehland is the omnipotent legal entity. What he decides stands. His decisions cannot be refuted by anybody except by the person who appointed him in the first place.
Would that person even think of reprimanding him of dereliction of duty when he himself has a lot of garbage being hidden for him by his selected minion?
Just imagine if the PP under the direction of the AG had appealed against the court’s decision to acquit Razak Baginda.
The most important job of the AG is to keep the lid firmly on the can of worms whatever the cost to the intergrity and international standing of the country.
#32 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 10:35 pm
A can of worms.
A swarm of crocodiles.
A flock of vultures.
What else can I say?
#33 by boh-liao on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 11:47 pm
LLS, CKC signed surat sokongan n surat akujanji
What’s de big deal? Aku suka mah
Money going to fren fren what, OK 1
Lagi pun, AAB n his cabinet also approved what
Boh problemo punya, just show show only lah
#34 by Godfather on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 12:49 am
Nobody is saying that the letters of support signed by Chan Kong Choy constitute guarantees for KDSB bondholders. They never said that if KDSB defaulted on the bonds, the Ministry of Transport would pay the bondholders.
Hence any layman would agree that MOT did not guarantee the bondholders, and the Ministry is not a guarantor for timely repayment of debt.
However, the wording suggests that the Ministry is a guarantor for the solvency of PKA, who happened to be the main obligor to KDSB. If PKA ever ran out of cash to pay KDSB, then the Ministry would infuse the necessary cash. Did CKC overstep his bounds by making this guarantee of solvency ? Is this a violation of the FPA or of the Penal Code – or both ?
We consistently have a gobbledegook lawyer who thinks he is smarter than the PAC advisors.
#35 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 8:31 am
After one night of sleep and mulling over the matter Godfather is still in a state of confusion of what he disputes.
He says: “any layman would agree that MOT did not guarantee the bondholders, and the Ministry is not a guarantor for timely repayment of debt…. However, the wording suggests that the Ministry is a guarantor for the solvency of PKA, who happened to be the main obligor to KDSB.”
We have in his words:
1. “any layman would agree that MOT did not guarantee the bondholders, and the Ministry is not a guarantor for timely repayment of debt….” Then in next breath the word “guarantor” is used again:
2. However, the wording suggests that the Ministry is a “guarantor” for the solvency of PKA, who happened to be the main obligor to KDSB.”
So Ministry is (1) “not guarantor for timely repayment of debt….” but a (2) “guarantor” for the solvency of PKA.
So are you suggesting guarantee in (1) is same as guarantee in (2) and that both are within the meaning of “guarantee” in Section 14. (1) of FPA providing that “no guarantee involving a financial liability shall be binding upon the Federal Government, unless it is entered into
with the written authority of the Treasury or in accordance with federal law”?
[Unless you are suggesting above, how does one interpret Chan Kong Choy has breached Section 14. (1) of FPA and by extension committed breach of trust? This is the issue in this thread, isn’t it for AG to prosecute? We’re not talking of related broader issues like the need to pursue public accountability of PKFZ scandal.]
If you are suggesting (1) guarantee for “timely repayment of debt….” is the same as (2) guarantee for solvency PKA, you’re talking nonsense because the use of word “guarantee” in (2) is layman’s use of the word as good as substituting another word like “assurance” or vouching which is the very stuff of all letters of support letters of awareness and their variants used in commercial transactions that have nothing to do with the “guarantee” in (1) by a Guarantor to a surety for timely repayment of debt of another (principal debtor) within its restricted meaning as defined in the Contracts Act that bears relevance to “Guarantee” in section 14.1 of FPA.
“We consistently have a gobbledegook lawyer who thinks he is smarter than the PAC advisors.” – Godfather
You are talking nonsense again. I have not suggested that. It depends on the wordings of the 3 documents signed by CKC. I have said that: whether the wordings suggest a guarantee in (1) its true legal restricted sense within meaning of FPA or (2) mere support/assurance of PKA solvency that is outside FPA’s scope. (1) is binding in legal sense allowing those guaranteed a direct legal recourse against govt whilst (2) is without legal recourse though on moral/oractical grounds govt may seek to honour it.
PAC advisors may have seen those documents and form the opinion that those are “guarantee” in their true sense as contemplated in FPA, they may be right or wrong, as they are not final arbiter of their determination like the courts.
The strange thing is that you can liberally call others “gobbledegook” out of the sheer “gobbledegook” understanding on your part of the issues discussed.
It is like calling others fools because you don’t understand what others say.
The fact that even after one night of sleep you come out with same circuitousness of arguments meant that you went to sleep as a fool and got up in the morning with no change or improvement on your clarity of thoughts!
#36 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 8:43 am
I am not the “gobbledegook lawyer who thinks he is smarter than the PAC advisors.” You should say that to CKC’s Queen Counsel who after review of documents issued by CKC opined that they are mere support letters not tantamount to guarantees in their legal sense as must be contemplatedin in section 14.1 of FPA.
Then gain the QC may or may not be right as he must opines such being partisan lawyer for CKC. Ultimately it boils down to the construction of true meaning the words in Support letters issued whether they are mere support letters as described or something more tantamount to guarantees in FPA’s intended sense. That determination, unfortunately is up to the Courts as arbiter.
I am merely clarifying the issues here on the support letters for the benefit of readers as they bear on the question whether CKC is “guilty” of contravening FPA.
Godfather if you don’t understand what has been discussed here at least don’t muddy the waters of discussion with the words like “gobbledegook” thinking under which you labour as seen from your postings but projected unto others.
#37 by Godfather on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 8:47 am
Did anyone say that a guarantee for timely repayment of debt is the same as a guarantee of solvency? Only a crapshooting lawyer with a penchant for eloquent English would put words in other people’s mouths. If you want to defend Chan Kong Choy, that’s fine, go get hired by him with your statement of defence.
#38 by undertaker888 on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 8:51 am
A day in Malaysian court:
khir toyol:
Judge: Not GUILTY! Not GUILTY! Not GUILTY! (thump!thump!thump!)
A Razak Ba-hlul:
Judge: Not GUILTY! Not GUILTY! Not GUILTY! (thump!thump!thump!)
Chan kong choy:
Judge: Not GUILTY! Not GUILTY! Not GUILTY! (thump!thump!thump!)
BN – buayas na-sial-nal:
Judge: Not GUILTY! Not GUILTY! Not GUILTY! (thump!thump!thump!)
Judge himself:
Judge: Not GUILTY! Not GUILTY! Not GUILTY! (ka-ching!ka-ching!ka-ching!) -cash register
Rakyat:
STUNNED!!STUMPED!!STOMPED!!
#39 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 9:06 am
CKC/Transport Ministry is probably not the only one who has issued such support letters. It may well be the case many other ministers/ministries have done so to vest financial credibility in various govt agencies like PKA or GLC to facilitate deals of these under Malaysia Incorporated requiring raising of monies from public/financvial market.
Where a real guarantee of government is issued within FPA’s sense the Ministry of Finance steps in and issue it on behalf of govt.
The only reason why CKC’s support letters come to sharp focus is because of the mega magnitude of PKFZ that strains the Public Purse, so this issue arises, who has broken what law and breacjhed what regulation as everyone is searching for a convenient scapegoat and to shrug the monkey on one’s shoulder to another, and hence the commencement of the blame game.
To protect the public purse from being frittered by moral hazard issues and impose counter check by MOF from circumvention of section 14 of FPA, that section must be first amended to say that not only guarantees require MOF’s approval but any form of letter instrument or document issued by any Ministry or Govt agency the effect of which is that the Public Finances (beyond a certain threshold) are committed and are reasonably expected to be incurred and paid by the Govt in the interest of facilitating deals involving government agencies and government linked companies, irrespective whether such a commitment on Govt’s part stems from a legal obligation or otherwise arising from moral or practical or other considerations.
#40 by lkt-56 on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 9:07 am
The exchange between Jeff & Godfather made me look up the meaning of “Gobbledegook” which means language characterized by circumlocution and jargon, usually hard to understand: the gobbledegook of government reports.
Since Jeffrey has a penchant for using more words than necessary to express an idea I would say that Jeff’s postings are more “Gobbledegook” than Godfather’s. ;)
#41 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 9:12 am
//If you want to defend Chan Kong Choy, that’s fine, go get hired by him with your statement of defence.//
Don’t talk stupid here. This has nothing to to do with wanting to defend or attack him. We are talkking of the objective issues.
///Did anyone say that a guarantee for timely repayment of debt is the same as a guarantee of solvency?/// – Godfather
Another stupid rhetorical question. If a “guarantee for timely repayment of debt” is exactly the kind of guarantee contemplated in FPA, and a “guarantee” in layman’s sense of assuring (PKA) solvency is different from the first, how do you propose to nail CKC for contravening the FPA when what he issued was not the guarantee of a nature contemplated by FPA ?
That shows how confused you are!
#42 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 9:16 am
IKT-56 : if more words than necessary to express an idea are not sufficient to make a person of Godfather’s tinted and restricted mental screen understand, will more succinct words be effective???
#43 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 9:22 am
As the Chinese said, when drawing the person, no need to draw the intestines. Here even in a long wided fashion you draw the intestines and their folds and annotate it with how many centimeters of length and add colour, we have illogic and constricted eyes/temper of minds who can’t perceive the true picture and keeps saying “there’s no person, no person”. LOL
#44 by lkt-56 on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 9:48 am
Jeff,
I suggest that you read #8, posting by Godfather, again.
#45 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 10:00 am
We need a new kind of RCI – a Judge Dredd type. If found guilty – shoot on sight..An RCI that can immediate hang the people involved in PKFZ – terminate on judgement..
#46 by undertaker888 on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 10:05 am
There is 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
#47 by taiking on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 10:30 am
Waah lau eh undertaker888 mai ah ne kong leh. A sai boh?
#48 by undertaker888 on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 11:35 am
taiking,
boh lah, ee lang tiam tiam meh lai meh ki. Ka ki nang pun phak. mana eh?
chi lang kong kiam chi ku, ok liao ma…understang meaning ok liao loh. mien kong ka choon-choon eh ma…meh lai meh ki meh ka thii kooi…
#49 by cintanegara on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 11:37 am
LKS has a habit of demanding others to resign…BTW, when is he going to resign.??? According to his memoirs….he was first elected Member of Parliament for Kota Melaka in 1969….Meaning it was 40 years ago,,,, Our Beloved ex Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir….Tun Abdullah Badawi..Ling Liong Sik..Lim Kheng Yeik…Ong KT and many more had stepped down…Has LKS ever considered of stepping down too??
In this era…people with obsolete political thinking like him is no longer applicable…same goes to LGE…DAP should consider appointing Dr Tan Seng Giaw who appears to be more rationale and sensible as the Chairman or Sec general…
#50 by Godfather on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 11:40 am
aiya..ni lang kong si mik? Wa liak boh kiu leh?
#51 by tenaciousB on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 12:16 pm
I must admit Jeff’s comments and outlandish elaboration have successfully put me to sleep. One has to be succint and not gobbledegook. LOL
#52 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 12:34 pm
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!
#53 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 12:52 pm
tenaciousB, I think its ok to go to sleep. I do admit being succint (or as they say ‘brevity is soul of wit’) is not one of my strengths.
Be that as it may, it must be recognised that PKFZ is a scandal of epic financial proportions. There are many tier of issues involved on this issue. It is not helped by the fact that it is viewed very emotionally by many people because of the mega loss and ensuing brazen cover up. It is not helped by all kinds of cover up and throwing blame and searching for scapegoat and protecting one’s own backside being launched by everyone depending on where they stand when the chips fall.
It is not easy to examine with objectivity the multi-tiered issues related to a matter of great complexities like PKFZ involving in Kit’s words “tombs of documents”!
For such a case I like to see anyone who can unravel its complicated issues in succinct words without leaving out important aspects.
Nice one! I can justye
#54 by undertaker888 on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 1:18 pm
///LKS has a habit of demanding others to resign… Our Beloved ex Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir…In this era…people with obsolete political thinking like him is no longer applicable…same goes to LGE …cinta
Only criminals need to run away even though they are not in pursuit, but those who are righteous stand firm as a lion. If LGE and LKS need to be here another 50 years to obsolete your masters’ corrupted politics, be it so.
So you go back and tell your kings, the people of malaysia is theirs no more.
#55 by undertaker888 on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 1:26 pm
//I must admit Jeff’s comments and outlandish elaboration have successfully put me to sleep. One has to be succint and not gobbledegook. LOL///
Ya Jeff, no offense. But sometimes going thru your article is like gong thru my house Sales and Purchase Agreement…whooo….sweating.
Not sure whether should l sign or not…
#56 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 1:45 pm
///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!
#57 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 1:48 pm
///Ya Jeff, no offense. But sometimes going thru your article is like gong thru my house Sales and Purchase Agreement…whooo….sweating.///
Its Ok, I already admitted that what tenaciousB said was fair comment. I don’t have the language ability to make shorter: as it is “longer than necessary”, its already not understood.
#58 by jamalmalikslumdog on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 1:54 pm
One could ask the objective of issuing such Support Letters. Not one but three !
Here’s an analogy. A small time businessman intends bidding for a large project but may run into a loan situation with his bank. He calls upon his rich business friend who then told him. “Don’t worry. I will support you” and issued a letter (not a guarantee) to his bank saying that his company “will continue to support” his friend’s business under all circumstances.
The bank can assume:
a) That it is safe to loan the first party monies on the basis that his rich friend will continue to give him more business and hence, his business is viable.
b) That if it does not loan the first party the money, the bank may lose the rich person’s business.
Either way, one can interpret as only support and not a guarantee. But without the support letter, the bank wouldn’t even have considered the case in the first instance. Hence, the support letter becomes an indirect guarantee.
The fact that PKA had asked ex Minister CKC to issue such letters were intended to show that without the “SUPPORT”, the project is simply no longer viable. They were clearly intended to help gloss over the project. CKC letters were in fact the oxygen (read “guarantees”) that puts the PKFZ project on life support, without which, it would have died.
#59 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 2:01 pm
///Not sure whether should l sign or not…/// – Undertaker 888.
Also a very legitimate sentiment. The Sale and Purchase Agreement is not just “I sell and you buy and thats the price and when you pay me). Its long winded – it makes hard reading – bcause like any other agreement it seeks to cover every contingency and aspect that may or may not unfold in the future, given uncertainties of life and changing circumstances.
So is any issue, whether public, political, moral issue raised in this blog or anywhere else.
We would like things to be simpler. Easy to read. Clear cut. No doubts. So decisive action and decision is facilitated.
But it is not the case, as you being experienced in life will know. Every issue has multi-faceted aspects – and different tiers and ways of looking at things that parties in conflicting position will seize to support their case in contention.
Thats why there is no peace in the world or the discussions in this blog (though in latter case one can’t say its desirable).
Long windedness may be fault of language/thoughts as may well be in my case but certainly if one wants to deal “holistically” and comprehensively the complicated aspects in an issue, it is well nigh impossible without elaborate explanation unless one is like OrangRojak having mastery of the language (he said he has masters or something like that in the language).
#60 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 2:14 pm
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.
#61 by OrangRojak on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 2:27 pm
I like the way Jeffrey writes, even if I may not be an ideal sort of supporter! It’s tricky – there are very many courts of public opinion, mostly with very limited jurisdiction. On LKS blog we can all agree “Why lidat? No good wan!” but the world is full of critics who will pick the tiniest nit from the most tangled hair. Nobody cares if we are having a bad hair day at the kopitiam, but we would be sure to carefully comb our hair before appearing in court!
I think it’s not unreasonable to expect a little ridicule when one sports an expensive bouffant style to the kopitiam? You can give it back when we go to court.
like OrangRojak
I haven’t mastered the language. Some of my friends – on hearing I was going to live in Malaysia – asked me if I was going to teach “Thames Estuary English”. I was 14 years old, the last time I got a qualification in English. My higher qualifications are all in subjects whose only use is to crush the life out of any light-hearted discussion, particularly those that start “Isn’t it amazing…” and end soon after I start droning “Actually…”
#62 by undertaker888 on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 2:37 pm
Jeff,
Those are not directed at you or anybody.
But if you are dealing with those who behave like the Pharisees and Sadducees (hypocrites), you are welcomed to use such words as:
“Don’t talk stupid here. ” or “Another stupid rhetorical question.”
Using those words on godfather to score points? Come on.
Hey, even the Son of Man overturned tables. But on who? Hey, even the Son of Man wipe the dirt off people’s feet. But on who?
#63 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 3:21 pm
‘ “Don’t talk stupid here. ” or “Another stupid rhetorical question.” (re post #41) Using those words on godfather to score points? Come on.’ – Undertaker 888.
No more scoring points than what you forgot to mention of what’s stated in earlier post #37- “Only a crapshooting lawyer with a penchant for eloquent English would put words in other people’s mouths. If you want to defend Chan Kong Choy, that’s fine, go get hired by him with your statement of defence.”
#64 by undertaker888 on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 3:38 pm
//Only a crapshooting lawyer with a penchant for eloquent English would put words in other people’s mouths….
ha, you see. u write long-long, people got confused then they run amok.
#65 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 3:50 pm
///u write long-long, people got confused then they run amok./// – must be the case lah. Ha ha.
#66 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 3:52 pm
However its also true that if short, they are likelier to run lagi amok out of greater confusion.
#67 by Godfather on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 4:42 pm
In every class, there is always that little nerd in sitting in front of the class who is the first to put up his hand when the teacher asks a question. When this nerd gets the chance to answer, he usually can’t find a way to stop, and will go on and on to show off his supposed eloquence. This nerd will also need to have the last word.
What people normally do with such nerds is either to ignore them or to steal their pencils and rulers. I rest my case.
#68 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 5:02 pm
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.
#69 by johnnypok on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 7:22 pm
Guinea Pig tail should have been slaughtered and barbecued to feed the dogs for creating havoc.
#70 by OrangRojak on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 8:56 pm
“have the last word”
You’re not aware of the irony in that quarreling technique?
I’m sure I’ve recounted this before. My mother and sister were having a blazing row one day when my sister was a young teenager. My mother was sitting in our living room, my sister stood a few steps up the stairs. The quarrel was going nowhere, with longer gaps between shouts as the ammunition ran out. Finally, my sister shouted “AND you always have to have the last word“, gave my mum a triumphant look and stomped up the stairs out of sight. My mum, never one to concede a battle, slowly turned purple and eventually ran to the bottom of the stairs and yelled “NO I DON’T“.
#71 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 9:00 pm
And your sister did not say, “yes you do!”
#72 by Bigjoe on Friday, 6 November 2009 - 7:43 am
Zaid Ibrahim warned us of Najib rule and return of Mahathirism. PKFZ waste is not only a reminder but the conspiracy harks back to the imprisoning of Anwar. The you look at the description of Kelantan’s oil royalty as ‘wang ehsan’..
Najib is not exactly like Mahathir and I say, in some ways its worst, Najib is a moron compared to Mahathir. He absolutely did not have the imagination to see the problems of thee issues. The issues publicity castatrophes is a monument to his pathetic leadership and mediocre intellectual skills..
#73 by ktteokt on Friday, 6 November 2009 - 1:27 pm
How to take actionlah? They share the same pair of pants, so if one goes to court, can the other be left out?