I refer to the report New Parliament Dept: Gov't backs down further .

I must say that the whole episode smacks of another one of Nazri's pantomime, reminiscent of the days when he was the minister in charge of taxi permits and when he kept changing his story.

I fully agree that Nazri's current role was created just to give him some work to do and he is fully exploiting that role. One recalls his antics in jumping up and down calling another MP 'racist'. Surely this is not a habit one expects from a minister in parliament.

He must have thought up of this new department as he has nothing else to do and after all, it is useful to build up a fiefdom wherever you are.

Now he claims that the press has got it all wrong as he is English educated and did not use the correct word.

If he is so good in his English, he would have known that the correct term to use for 'pejabat' is office and not department. It is as simple as that. If it were office, then why was its head going to be a director-general?

Now we know they have taken the National Service Training Department DG and made him the new office manager. Apparently the new head will take care of the toilets and canteen. Do you need a DG for this? Oh, come on...

Parliamentary opposition leader Lim Kit Siang was correct to argue against the new department and for once, he seems to have succeeded in achieving something.

What was the cabinet thinking in approving the department and a DG? Where was the speaker in objecting to this travesty of the doctrine of the separation of powers? Or did they just agree without reading the proposal properly? What does that say of the wisdom of the rest of the cabinet?

All this smacks of a soap opera and we are glad that this time it has come to a satisfactory conclusion.

It is correct that Parliament should have an administrative office and that this should come under the speaker. The post of minister for parliament should be abolished and replaced with, say, a specific minister for anti-corruption efforts for example?

On another matter, I must say my heart bleeds when I read the losses incurred by Bank Islam and the impending request to its shareholders to top up the capital to meet the ratio requirement.

Why do I say this? Because the shareholder happens to be the EPF and yet again my hard-earned savings, including that of many others, have been squandered by ill-advised investments by EPF.

And now they want some more from EPF. What cheek. Bad loan provisions which date back to the Asian financial crisis days should not be used as an excuse.

It is time the EPF Act be amended so that there is a maximum investment cap on its investments in any institution. I would limit it to 10% of its paid-up capital or in the case of loans, maybe a 2:1 debt equity ratio could be considered.

For how long more is EPF going to be asked again and again to bail out mismanaged companies?

Maybe I, as an EPF contributor, should be allowed to pursue in court compensation from those who caused EPF's investment losses.