Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak effectively said on ntv7's 8 pm news on Monday that we have to accept BN MPs' sexist remarks in Parliament as a 'form of humour'. Sure, Najib, which one - scatological humor or male fascist humour? Take your pick.
Najib, Tun Razak (and I hope the name rings a bell!) would have been extremely ashamed of your feeble attempt to defend such sexist remarks and your embattled parliamentary colleagues. He would have, quite sensibly, whacked your bottom for such an inanity and further knocked some sense into your aberrant thinking or put some steel in your spine.
Anybody who calls such sexist horsing-around, monkeying about and playing the goat 'humour', well, he ought to send his smarmy brains to the laundry for a massive cleaning.
The august chambers of Parliament is a different forum. To direct demeaning jokes at women at large is offense enough; to direct them at a fellow parliamentarian is downright disgusting, ugly, imbecilic and in bad taste. To hurl such 'a joke' in the midst of a parliamentary debate on a subject of intense public interest and treat it as a harmless pun is insensitive and irrational.
One needs to have a mind (oh, what a rare commodity in our Parliament!) to sit in Parliament. It's these minds that map the country's strategies and directions. It's the same minds that can send the nation to its doom.
BN parliamentarians, particularly from Umno, have this base mentality and proclivity for sexist gaffes. MP Bung Mokhtar Radin (who is famous for his heckling and clowning on the parliamentary floor while speaking hardly a word of the English language), MP Mohd Said Yusuf of Jasin (whose infamous call to the Custom Department to 'close their eyes' to his timber corruption is now a byword for 'selective corruption prosecution'), MP Mohd Aziz of Seri Gading are just three names that come in a flash.
There are just too many of them, which begs the question - why does Umno have so many morally effete men of such little substance in Parliament prone to distract parliamentary proceedings with their inanities to mask their abysmal lack of debating prowess and intellectual contributions?