Did the IMF Pledge violate the Singapore constitution?

You can read the explanation in this article
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120707-0000033/IMF-pledge-did-not-violate-Constitution

Mr. Kenneth Jeyaretnam said that the pledge of US$4 billion to the International Monetary Fund, without approval of Parliament and the President, violate article 144 of the Constitution. The MAS said that the article refer only to borrowing and does not apply to lending by the Government.

I have to disagree with the MAS. My reasons are: 

• Article 144 states that "no guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs". I consider the pledge to be a "guarantee". 
• Even if the article did not contain the word "guarantee", the article also stated that "no loan shall be given". How can MAS said that the article does not apply to lending by the Government?

I am surprised that MAS would give the above type of explanation - as it seemed to defy logic and common sense.