I studied psychology in the university, and one of the subjects was psycholinguistics.

The language used by a person has some form of corresponding relationship with the psychological state he is in.

The content of the course was highly complicated, and not many were interested in it.

But in a simplest manner, it could be summarised as:

1. A particular kind of personality tends to lean towards the adoption of a particular mode of linguistic expression.

2. Under specific needs, a person will adopt a mode of linguistic expression most favourable to him or her.

Sounds like rubbish.

Indeed, but when it is put into implementation, we will see the effects, especially when we compare what the three former and incumbent transport ministers have said.

The following have been quoted from the report of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

On 15 July 2009, PAC member Tony Phua questioned Ling Liong Sik:

P: Did Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd, its proprietor Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing, or its subsidiary Wijaya Baru Sdn Bhd, offer you any benefit such as flights, entertainment, etc. during your 10-year tenure as the transport minister?

L: Nothing at all that I can remember. (Note: God knows whether there is anything beyond what he can remember!)

On 29 July 2009, Tony Phua questioned Chan Kong Choy:

P: Did you receive any benefit from the developer, such as flights, entertainment, etc., during your tenure as the transport minister?

C: Absolutely not.

On 16 July 2009, Tony Phua questioned Ong Tee Keat:

P: Mr Minister, did you receive any benefit such as entertainment, travels, or flights from Kuala Dimensi, its proprietor Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing, or other related companies?

O: If it was in the parliamentary session, I would cite Article 36 (6) against you. That was malicious remark.

P: THAT was my question!

O: Yes, yes. I say, this is not a parliamentary session, but I must register this inappropriate and ill-intentioned supposition.

I had no intent of saying that it was malicious, but I must tell you, YB, supposing someone is trying to offer money or other specific means as bribe, sure enough there has to be someone with a demand for it. This is "supply and demand."

However, if under such circumstances, what is required has already been secured, what then is the need for bribery? The logic should not have been so simple, and you don't seem to understand that, YB.

(Note: This one is fantastic. It could be "yes," or could be "no." Well, it's good if you can understand, but it won't matter if you can't. Anyway, you can ask your questions, and I'll give my own answers.)

Tony Phua and Tan Seng Giow kept asking, but still couldn't get what they wanted after several rounds.

Indeed, Tony did not seem to understand; neither did I.

Hey! Anyone out there, aliens included, understands what transport minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat said?

As the language adopted in answering the question was excessively abstract and intricate, no one has so far been able to decipher his language.

It could be yet another set of linguistic codes that will put human intelligence under challenge after The Da Vinci Code and The Lost Symbol of Dan Brown. (By TAY TIAN YAN/Translated by DOMINIC LOH/Sin Chew Daily)