|
Contributed by Richard Wee Thiam Seng
|
|
Monday, 27 March 2006 11:04pm |
|
 During the Police Day parade last Saturday, the IGP declared that the PDRM has rejected the creation of IPCMC and instead demanded that the present Police Commission be maintained as the watch dog of the PDRM.
At Parliament, some Members of Parliament even challenged the creation of the IPCMC. Many of these MPs were actually condemning IPCMC, and so far, from what I read, they are mostly BN MPs.
Why this steadfast stand against IPCMC?
The IGP's stand is unsurprising. The IPCMC is a direct challenge to the Police's goodwill (whatever left of it) and he is defending the Police as most people in his position will do. Whether his defence is warranted, justified or right, is another issue altogether.
However, why are the MPs challenging the IPCMC too? The Parliament as a body was very supportive of the Royal Commission when it was first set up. Many spoke out (which included MPs) in support of Pak Lah's great vision to rid our country of bad police. Why the sudden change of tune?
Could the reason be votes?
The uniform unit of the Police, Army, and Firemen etc etc at every election contributes 'postal votes'. These votes can be crucial to a close fight at any constituency. It is also a well known fact that many (if not all) postal votes favour BN. Therefore, it is not wrong for me to conclude that these MPs are concerned, that the constant attacks of police may lead to them losing postal votes.
I do not see alternative solutions offered to IPCMC by these MPs. Are they condoning the police's misconduct? As MPs, they are here to serve the rakyat and to speak out for us in Parliament. Are the people living in their constituency disapproving IPCMC??
Also, I find this argument that 'not all police are bad' a weak defence to stop the creation of IPCMC. We do not have statistics to support how many good and bad cops we have in this country, but let me pose a question to each and everyone of you - How many times have you personally incurred the wrath of police abuse, or have first hand information of police misconduct, or at the very least heard hearsay horror stories of police brutality?
It is very likely that the decay in PDRM is more prevalent than we suspect. Of course I am open to attack for saying something without statistics [but I am rather blessed (or cursed - depending on how you look at it) to have direct knowledge of the decay in the Police force]
So, in my view the MP's defence of the PDRM is suspiciously tainted with the vote-winning agenda. If I am right, then these MPs do not deserve to be re-elected in the next General Elections.
 |
News/Articles/Notices 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
list of participants.refugee law seminar
The "national interest" - whatever the term means since its interpretation has always been the reserve jealously guarded by the powers-that-be - must prevail.
The "national interest" calls for a new start, a fresh beginning, for our police force.
When the chips are down, do we have a Jefferson in our midst?
We do not want more of the same - more police violence against the people whose taxes pay for their INCREASED salaries, more custodial violence and more custodial deaths.
We want a CARIN' police force who we can count on, not a CALLOUS police force who will only laugh at the misfortunes of Malaysians.
We want a police force as PROTECTORS of the rakyat, not a police force as PREDATORS of the rakyat.
Alas, with time to reflect, the IGP's reflection of the three police organisations - all self-serving, mind you, not people-serving - has been the wrong dice to throw.
All may have been guilty of lese majesty since the Commission is a ROYAL Commission.
Indeed, like what Max Weber said, the police bureaucracy has assumed a life of its own, making decisions without regard bewing had for the public they serve and the public who pays them their salaries.
The accept what they want out of the Commission's recommendations and reject what they don't.
So they approbate and reprobate! What a shame! We have fallen into the abyss of the ridiculous.