I would like to reply to Jeffrey's 'Three points against Fong' (Dec 14). I agreed that freedom of speech does not mean absolute free speech but who decides if Fong Po Kuan's press statement was absolute free speech? Jeffrey? Parliament? No, just so Jeffrey knows, we have the judiciary and the courts to decide on whether Fong's press statement was absolute free speech or not.

Her statement was made outside parliament and the correct redress for the Speaker was to take Fong to court. He does not have the right to cite her for contempt of parliament. If this is allowed, God have mercy on Malaysia as any Malaysian on the street who criticises the parliament or the Speaker can be held in contempt of parliament and be punished by parliament.

Thank you Jeffery for highlighting what contempt of parliament is all about. However, perhaps you should be the first person who should go back and understand what contempt of parliament is all about. Based on your definition of contempt of court, why wasn't Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Dr Rais Yatim held for contempt of parliament for allegedly making a lewd remark in parliament? By Jeffrey's definition, this is definitely contempt of parliament by speech.

To deprive an MP of his/her pay, prior approval must be obtained from the Finance Ministry, which is stated in the parliamentary standing order and it should have been referred to the Parliament's Committee of Privileges. Why did the deputy speaker dismiss this motion? Shouldn't the deputy speaker be held for contempt of parliament for not respecting the parliamentary standing orders?

If I were to continue, I could probably write a book on possible cases of contempt of court that were dismissed just because a certain party holds the majority in parliament. If this is not a clear case of abusing the power of being the majority, I don't know what else is.

I agreed that all rules and procedures based on words are subject to a range of varying subjective interpretations. However, as elected representatives in parliament, it is every MP's duty to use their God-gifted brains to decide on what is right and what is wrong. I am not saying that they didn't use their brains but based on what has been reported in the media over the years, it is clearly obvious that the government has abused its majority in making decisions.

MPs were elected not to go with the flow or toe the line. Only with constructive criticisms can we progress and be ahead of the competition. MPs should be people who can handle constructive criticisms and not be overly sensitive to these types of criticisms.

How can you better your constituency if you cannot handle constructive criticisms? I view Fong Po Kuan's criticism as constructive criticism, which should be for the betterment of parliament and the nation. However, the outcome is really a setback for Malaysians who are brave enough to speak up.

Lastly, I would like to congratulate Fong for speaking up without fear and for standing firm with her decision not to apologise. She sets a great example as an MP who champions the cause of her constituents and her nation. This should be an eye-opener for MPs who are just rubber stamps in parliament.