Rejoinder, our reply
Orion Group, on October 28, sent a rejoinder to our report "Target Forex Reserve", published on the same day. We're publishing the full, unedited rejoinder along with our reply.
October 28, 2020.
Editor
The Daily Star
Karwan Bazar, Dhaka
Subject: Rejoinder.
Dear Sir
Our attention was drawn to an article published on the first page of your esteemed daily on October 28, 2020 headlined, "Target Forex Reserve" with sub-headline "Orion Group desperate to manage loan from restricted forex coffer, experts ring alarm".
We find the report malicious with the intention of harming the reputation of the Orion Group.
The report sets the tone that it was absolutely wrong for Orion Group to ask for a loan of $906.17 million from the foreign currency reserve of the country to implement its coal power plant -- terming this development as risky, uncertain and beyond the existing practice.
To back up these adjectives, the paper quoted respected banker Khondkar Ibrahim Khaled and economist Anu Muhammad.
Orion Group applied for the loan in late July 2020 following a directive to relevant authorities by Honorable Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in early July to explore ways to channel funds from the record-high forex reserve in the form of credit to finance development projects.
Whether credit from this reserve would be given to a private company or not is absolutely a matter of government policy.
While we are unaware of any law that bars a large infrastructure developer to seek loan from banks or the national foreign reserve, the paper even quoted Anu Muhammad as saying "Attempt to use the forex reserve for setting up a dirty energy plant should be treated as a criminal act."
What is the legal basis of such a comment? The coal power project is a project initiated by the government and Orion won the contract through a tender process. As long as the government does not cancel the coal project, Orion is contractually bound to implement it.
The report repeatedly mentioned that Orion is "desperately" trying to obtain the loan without showing how the company acted desperately. As per the loan process, it had applied for the loan and pitched for it. What is so desperate about it?
Again it mentions "An uneasy situation arose ever since Orion applied for the loan…." stating that "One group was backing the proposal and the other opposing it". How is it possible that a loan application has created uneasy situation in a bank? A bank's business is dealing with loans. Its officials may debate whether a loan should be granted or not -- how is it wrong?
Then it mentions "But it was all a very hush-hush affair amid strong lobbying." How do you suppose a private company apply for a loan? How did it become a "hush-hush" affair and what is the evidence of strong lobbying?
The report contradicts itself when it says granting such a loan is unusual but mentions several Asian countries that provide such loans. Again, this is a matter of government policy -- not a whim of a private company like Orion.
The report also says that if sanctioned, the lending would go against Bangladesh Bank Order 1972 for long-term lending -- but it did not explain how it would go against the order.
Bangladesh Bank has already been providing long term loan under export development fund (EDF) and green transformation fund from its forex reserve. It also provided a long-term loan from foreign exchange reserve to Biman Bangladesh Airlines through Sonali Bank for purchasing of aircrafts.
The Daily Star maliciously cited that Orion Group has a controversial past in using the funds of Orion Bank in 2007 and shared a hyperlink of 2007 story headlined "Orion chief gets life for embezzling Tk 6.7 crore". Firstly the bank in question is Oriental Bank -- not Orion Bank. Secondly, the report only mentioned a verdict of a special court in 2007; but forgot everything about whatever happened to this case eventually.
As you may recall, a large number of businessmen and politicians were legally framed by the then caretaker government through so-called "special" courts. Most of these cases fell flat later on. Accordingly, the said case has been quashed at the High Court on 26.10.2010.
What does this mean? This means The Daily Star conveniently portrayed the Orion chief as a convict, when ultimately the judicial system relieved him of all allegations. This is outrageously malicious.
The report then goes on to mention the loan default culture in Bangladesh's banking system -- as if the Orion group is a part of this. Elsewhere the report mentions that it has Tk 6,036 crore outstanding loans in the banking sector. The Orion Group has never been a defaulter and yet the report tried to imply what it does not practice.
The report in one place mentions that "Rupali went on to send a letter to the central bank six days later. Interestingly, the regulator of the banking sector saw no evil in the proposal."
Evil? What evil? Asking for a loan is evil? The Daily Star is actually questioning the whole business and banking mechanism of the world.
We would also like to point out that the government has been giving sovereign guarantees to all major private power projects and therefore it would not be anything unusual if it provided guarantee for this coal power project.
In the end we would like to point out that the Orion Group has applied for a loan under a new provision being created by the government. Whether the government grants the loan or not is up to the government. The Orion Group has not violated the law, or created undue pressure and harmed the banking sector or the nation. But, The Daily Star presented its report trying to portrait Orion like a criminal.
We have trusted The Daily Star as a symbol of good journalism. But sadly, this instance demonstrates how The Daily Star follows on ethics or journalistic norms in writing a malicious commentary in disguise of a report. The Daily has set a new low standard of journalism.
We strongly protest the report and demand an unconditional apology in the same place of your newspaper, and in online version in both English and Bangla sites.
Otherwise we will be compelled to take legal steps.
Sincerely,
Md. Ferdous Jaman
Company Secretary
Our Reply
A report is to be judged by the facts contained in it. The long rejoinder does not contest a single fact that we wrote about. It interprets some words and expression in ways that do not reflect ours.
Our story focuses on what we consider to be an attempt to use the forex reserve in ways that will harm the national interest and we draw attention to the attempt, in the rejoinder, to unnecessarily refer to a statement by the prime minister to procure the loan.
We wrote our story based on all necessary documents which are in our possession and with the objectivity and journalistic due diligence that is our practice.
We stand corrected about the name of the bank, which should have been Oriental Bank instead of Orion Bank. It was a typographical error.
As for Orion's claim that it is not among the practitioners of default culture, we are in possession of facts that contradict that claim. However, we did not publish it as our story's focus was on the issue of loans by private companies from the forex reserve.
As none of the facts mentioned in our story was disclaimed or contested, we stand by our story.
Comments