In reference to your report MPs clash in Senate lounge wasn’t it MIC chief S Samy Vellu who two years ago drew a parallel between the ‘dilapidated’ state of Parliament and the looks of a 50-year-old woman who had lost her beauty?

Wasn’t he the one whose metaphor of a ‘50-year-old woman’ drew flak from women groups like Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG) for reinforcing the gender stereotype that a woman’s worth lies with her extrinsic attributes (looks) and not with her intrinsic qualities as a human being??

And now they want to change Parliament – have a new one at Putrajaya that could cost up to RM800 million – and yet complain we have no money and need to cut back on subsidies with one minister Idris Jala saying we’re on road to bankruptcy if we don’t cut back expenditure.

Typical mentality of an already not-well-to middle age man who wants, at the slightest whims and urge, to re-cycle his 50-year-old wife for a younger nubile virgin even if the latter substitute will blow a hole in his pocket.

Nazri Abdul Aziz should consider seriously the lower cost alternative like upgrading works, fixing the roof and the electricity supply: like an ‘old wife’ that has served well – take a leaf from Samy Vellu’s advice, a bit of expense on maintenance and renovations spent on her, like stem cell injection, plastic surgery will, so to speak fix the the problem and cost relatively less than blowing one’s pocket for a brand new problem.

This is typical mindset complained of by JAG of putting more importance on ‘extrinsic attributes (looks)’ rather than on what that counts – the intrinsic qualities whether of wife or the institution of Parliament.

The worth of Parliament is in its intrinsic structure of practices – whether democratic or despotic – and the way the MPs conduct themselves. It is supposed to be a citadel of Malaysian democracy including freedom of speech. What we have is a lack of respect for freedom of speech.

Instead of debating and refuting the opposition head’s allegations linking Apco and Jews and 1 Malaysia to ‘1Israel’ and by rational arguments showing them fallacious or spurious in the best tradition of democratic parliamentary debate Commonwealth style – they prefer to flex their majority status to refer him to Parliamentary Rights and Privileges Committee (dominated by the ruling coalition’s members) for punishment in the process denying him the right to counsel that is allowed even by the House’s own Standing Order 83 Rule 7A!

Other earlier times quality of debate was interspersed by sexist innuendoes of a MP who alluded to a fellow woman MP’s menstrual cycle, the very same who lately was one of those in centre of a heated argument between opposition MPs and several Barisan MPs in Parliament’s Senate lounge.

This is precisely the point - what’s the point of having a brand new Parliament (cost RM800 million) when its intrinsic qualities are at these levels? Like what’s the point of having a young wife, beautiful in outward appearances, but whose inner qualities are quarrelsome, vindictive and restrictive of the man’s freedom?