Teresa Kok

Jawapan kepada soalan lisan pada 26 Jun 2006

Soalan: YB Teresa Kok minta Perdana Menteri menyatakan komposisi kaum di Sabah setakat Mac 2006.

Jawapan

i) Anggaran bilangan penduduk Sabah sehingga Mac 2006 adalah 2.98 juta orang penduduk di mana bilangan penduduk lelaki adalah 1.54juta orang (51.5peratus) dan penduduk perempuan adalah 1.44juta orang (48.5 peratus).

ii) Taburan komposisi penduduk mengikut kumpulan etnikdi Sabah adalah seperti berikut:

JOINT ACTION GROUP FOR GENDER EQUALITY (JAG)

PRESS STATEMENT

23 June 2006

We are most disappointed in the response of the Bar Council to the proposal by the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Codes in tabling a new sub-section 375 (f) of the Penal Code which states that a man commits aggravated rape if he has sex with a woman “with her consent, when the consent is obtained by using his position of authority over her or because of professional relationship or other relationship of trust in relation to her.”

The definition of rape needs to be introduced in order to reflect the different rape situations that cause additional trauma to the victim, be it physical or psychological, as well as to demonstrate society’s utter disapproval and intolerance for such acts. (more…)

強奸條文的爭議

國會檢討刑事法典和刑事程序法典特選委員會經過兩年的研討后，終于完成修訂這兩條法令的「工程」，在上一期國會會議的最后一天把這兩個法案提呈到下議院一讀。日前，行動黨特別針對這兩個法案召開了圓桌會議，讓對這兩個法令有心得和研究的非政府組織發表他們的觀點。在這些社會活躍份子的批評和言論中，最令人驚訝的是律師公會代表對刑事法典修正案有關強奸的條文的修正的觀點，特別是對375(2)(f)、 375(2) (g) 以及375A的批評。

國會特選委員會把刑事法典內對強奸的定義分為一般的強奸(375(1))和「嚴厲強奸」(375(2) aggravated rape)。

375(2)(f)是指當一名女人是因為某男人高過她的權威、或因為他與她之間的專業關系，或因着她對該名地位比她高的男性的信任，而同意與他發生性關系，這將被視為「嚴厲強奸」。

375(2) (g)則指如果一個男人強奸一名懷孕的婦女，他也將被視為犯上「嚴厲強奸」。這兩項罪刑的最高刑法是監禁最低5年，最高30年，同時可被施鞭刑，或兩者兼施。

375A則是婚姻里的強暴，即一個男人在一個合法的婚姻關系里對他的妻子或任何人動粗或令她因着怕被致死而與他發生性關系。此罪可被判監禁最高達5年。

當天出席該圓桌會議的律師公會代表極力批判上述條文。他們認為375(2)(f)條款的措詞模糊，可被某些婦女濫用，一些機構的上司如果跟女下屬產生情愫和發生性關系的話，那么在女方可在關系惡化后，以此條文來誣指男上司強奸。

在375(2) (g)方面，律師公會代表認為，控方很難證明強奸犯在強奸受害者時，知道受害者正懷孕。

律師公會的代表也認為，雖然他們認同在一些失敗的婚姻里，一些丈夫經常通過暴力來逼使為妻者與他發生性關系，但是他們卻認為375A可被一些活在失敗的婚姻里的妻子所濫用，而指她們的丈夫強奸她們。這些律師代表認為，為人妻者很容易指責丈夫強奸她們，但是為夫者卻很難反駁，因為他們很難在婚姻強奸的指控里提出具體的證據來反駁。

在律師公會代表發表觀點后，大馬人民之聲的代表接着便在圓桌會議里反駁律師公會代表的言論，支持國會特選委員會針對強奸案的定義種類和刑罰的修正。

身為國會修定刑事法典和刑事程序法典特選委員會的成員，我有機會聆聽來自各地的不同組織的建議，和了解現有法律在援助或解決性暴力問題方面的局限。有鑒于性暴力的罪案與日俱增，因此我們這特選委員會非常重視國內婦女團體所提出修改刑事法典內強暴罪的建議，因為這些婦女組織從事基層工作，他們比其他單位更了解現有法律在援助強奸案受害者的局限和強奸案受害者的苦楚，所以我們才會在刑事法典內納入375(2)(f)、 375(2) (g) 和375A這些條款。

375(2)(f)條款最主要是針對目前經常發生的一些宗教師以治病或驅霉運為由，而與一些無知的婦女發生性關系的事件。這些性關系表明上是你情我愿，但是事實上她們是強奸案的受害人。此外，類似的案件也經常發生在其他機構和行業，例如：男警員與女扣留犯、男醫生和女病人等個案上。

我們也經常在報上看到一些沒人性的強奸犯，他們連老太婆和懷孕婦女都不放過，這些強奸犯其實應該被判重刑，因此才會有375(2) (g) 的條款出現。

婚姻里的強奸經常發生在家庭暴力的個案里，一些不負責任的丈夫經常在失蹤一段日子后，突然間又跑回家來對老婆孩子拳打腳踢，然后再逼妻子與他發生性關系。由于國情的關系，我們不把這樣的問題列為「婚姻里的強暴」，而把它定為「在性關系里行使暴力」，以免招惹宗教保守份子的抨擊。

國內的從事草根工作的婦女團體原本要求把家庭暴力納入刑事法典內，因為警方一般上都不重視蒙受家庭暴力痛苦的婦女的投訴，他們經常把這視為家庭里的茶杯里的風波，而不嚴正以待。但是她們這建議受到婦女與家庭與社會發展部的反對，因為該部門正準備修正現有的家庭暴力法令，以解決該法令的不足。

其實，很少強奸案的受害者愿意投報她們被強奸，因為她們出來投報后往往被逼面對更大的家庭與社會壓力，而使她們受到二度傷害。此外，大部分的強奸案子在被帶上法庭后，女受害者除了將被強奸犯的辯護律師嚴厲盤問之外，很多案子最后都會因為控方證據不足或警方調查工作做得不周全而落敗。也因為如此，我們更需要加強有關強奸的法律條文，以還受害者公正。

從律師公會代表在圓桌會議上的言論與人權和婦女組織的極大差異來看，我只得到一個結論：人權與婦權份子極力要在法律上保護強奸案受害者的權力與尊嚴，但是律師公會的代表則從為強奸犯辯護的角度來看待上述法律條文。兩者的角度基本上是對立的，所以這些單位的代表的立場才出現如此令人遺憾的巨大的差距。

（23－6－06）

Press statement by YB Teresa Kok, MP for Seputeh, Secretary of DAP Women and Member of the Parliament Select Committee on Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code on 22nd June 2006, Kuala Lumpur

I am disappointed with the comment by the Bar Council on the proposed new clauses that define aggravated rape to the proposed amendments bill on Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code.

The Bar Council has criticised and objected to the proposed new paragraphs (f) and (g) recommended to be incorporated into section 375(2) as well as to the proposed new section 375A of the Penal Code in the proposed bill (more…)

by Beh Lih Yi and Ng Eng Kiat
Jun 21, 06 7:07pm
http://www.malaysiakini.com/print.php?id=52835
Malaysiakini

The Bar Council has objected to a proposed amendment that would see rape by persons in a position of authority being treated as an offence, saying women could easily abuse the provisions should a relationship turn sour.

The council is against the introduction of this offence because it is redundant and since existing law already defines rape as sexual intercourse against the will of the woman.

It is further of the view that other proposed revisions to the Penal Code are not clear enough in relation in defining the circumstances of rape.

Criminal law sub-committee chairperson V Sithambaram (left) said this could be easily abused by women when a relationship or marriage turns sour.

“This proposed amendment is obviously designed to appease women’s rights groups (who have been) insistent on such an amendment. Amendments are easy to make but the repercussions must be considered and innocent men may be easily accused of rape,” he said (more…)

by Pauline Puah, sun2surf.

The Malaysian Bar Council objects to the proposed Penal Code (PC) amendment that a male superior can be charged with rape even with the victim’s consent.

“The definition of rape will lead to innocent men being easily accused of rape,” said the Bar’s criminal law sub-committee chairman V.Sithambaram.

In a parliamentary roundtable on the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and PC organised by the DAP today (June 21, 2006), Sithambaram said the proposed amendment was obviously designed to appease women rights groups demanding such an amendment. (more…)

An open letter to Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad: Not going gentle into that good night09 Jun 2006
By Rehman Rashid

WHY, Tun?
That’s what we — the products, inhabitants, stewards and legatees of the country you designed and built — need to know. Why have you become so harsh a critic of your successor’s administration?

You made them, too. They have cleaved to your vision of what this country needs to be, and they are moving forward — or at least attempting to, as best they can, given the way forward as they see it.

It wasn’t necessarily their way forward; it was yours. No one has argued with the road map you drafted for this country, nor the direction you determined, nor even with the pace you set to get where you wanted us to go.

Nothing of your legacy as prime minister has been dismantled. Such restructuring as is happening in the corporate Malaysia Inc you established — Proton and MAS in particular — is for companies in desperate trouble, needing to be re-engineered to new and more businesslike specifications. Whether this will turn them around remains to be seen, but it needed to be done.

On the fuel price hike, your suggestion that fuel subsidies could have been maintained by allowing the exchange rate to float was, well, radical. Certainly, so was your decision to peg the ringgit to the US dollar during the Asian financial meltdown in 1998. By that time the claws of the crisis had sunk deep, and there was no lack of popular and political support for your soon-to-be famously successful move.

But the present administration, in reducing fuel subsidies, was responding to imperatives of long-term prudence, and that too has been by-and-large accepted and supported by the people. Times have changed, Tun. You should know: You changed them.

In the case of the Tebrau bridge, you seemed beside yourself with irritation. But it was precisely with respect to national sovereignty that the idea was scrapped; it’s hard to understand how you could have implied otherwise.

We know it’s a gamble, but for this term at least, the electorate have fallen behind the present administration with a greater mandate than you received even at the record-breaking height of your popularity.

But that was in 1982. For the ensuing 21 years, you charged forward with stupendous resolve, damning the torpedoes, brooking scant dissent, building this city on rock and roll.

Your successor is more graceful at the waltz, it seems — and so far the people have responded fondly enough to that, too.

How has Malaysia changed in the first half-term of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s administration? It’s quieter. More circumspect. There’s more introspection at the top; a need, as much as a willingness, to listen, perhaps even more than to speak.

(more…)

Hi friends, I am in New Zealand attending a MPs’ conference on population now.
The time here is 4 hours ahead of Malaysian time, it is Saturday night now and the
whole city is soooo quiet. I can’t sleep so early, so I try to put a few interesting emails
and articles which have been sent to me earlier to my blog, just in case some of you
have missed them earlier.

teresa

Of Ignorance, Impunity & Insult to Injury by the IGP
by Martin Jalleh , 2nd June 2006

The police force in Bolehland has very ironically lived up to its name it
carries out its supposed duty with brutal “force”. Sadly, such mindless
aggression is seemingly condoned and even commended by Inspector General of
Police Mohd Bakri Omar whose pathetic justification adds insult to injury.
Below is an open response to the IGP’s comments made in a Malaysiakini
interview on the violence demonstrated by the police when breaking up a
peaceful demonstration of about 500 people in front of the Kuala Lumpur City
Centre (KLCC) on 28 May, protesting against the price hikes in fuel and
electricity. Alas, very little has changed since Pak Lah took over.

Mohd Bakri: “The police have got a job to do (and) they were merely doing
their job. I defend the action of my officers and men…”
Is it the job of the riot police to run riot? Is it your job as the
Inspector General of Police to defend your men without “inspecting” and to
“generalise” so as to cloud the truth!

Mohd Bakri: “How serious are they? I don’t know how serious they are…” (in
response to Malaysiakini’s feedback that “a few of them were seriously
injured”).
Without knowing the seriousness of the situation you insist on defending
your men! Are you really serious about being the IGP of this country?

Mohd Bakri: “The police have been tasked into looking after law and order
that’s our basic function.”
There was law and definitely a lot of order when the public demonstration
and protest began… until the police created the chaos by clubbing the
dispersing protestors.

Mohd Bakri: “If you refer to section 33 of the Police Act, which is
available in the major bookstores in town, then you should know our
function.”
If you refer to the Federal Constitution, which is available in the major
bookstores in town, then you should know our function as citizens of this
country.

Mohd Bakri: “If people start going to the streets, demonstrate, and if the
police do nothing about it, it will affect the flow of traffic, it will
threaten the safety of the location.”
In the first protest on March 3 when your men allowed a peaceful
demonstration, the flow of traffic was normal though some slowed down to
honk in support of the demonstrators! No one felt unsafe.

Mohd Bakri: “If it is a business centre, then people will shy away (from
it), people will not go to that premise anymore and it causes a lot of
disturbance to the peace.”
For many foreigners, public protests in their country are a daily affair!
What frightens tourists most, Mohd Bakri, is the sight of baton-wielding
police unleashing their violence on innocent people like the protestors.

Mohd Bakri: “So we have a job to do, and my men have a job to do, and that
is why they advised (the protestors) ... (to) get this group to disperse. In
the course of it – if you go ahead and confront the police…”
The citizens of this country have a job to do too. The protestors were doing
what everybody including your men and their families should in fact be
doing protesting against price hikes that would gravely affect all of our
lives.

(more…)

Below is an interview with Ani Arope which was published few days ago. I missed it, a blogger emailed it to me, I hereby share with those who have missed that article.

Tuesday June 6, 2006

Ani: TNB got a raw deal
WHEN the Government decided to approve the request from Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) to raise electricity tariffs, the plight of the national utility took centre-stage. Naturally, the knee-jerk reaction among consumers was not favourable. The 12% rise in tariffs appears to have re-ignited the debate on how good the going is for independent power producers (IPPs) at the cost of the national utility’s cashflow. The imbalance between the generation side of the business and that of transmission and distribution has put a strain on TNB. To understand the privatisation of the power generation sector, one needs to take a look back in history to understand that the country’s IPPs came about as a result of the Government’s effort to address the issue of stable power supply after the landmark 1992 blackout. Lending a historical perspective to the issue of IPPs is former TNB executive chairman Tan Sri Ani Arope, who headed the national utility from 1990 to 1996. It was during his tenure that the first generation IPPs were created. StarBiz deputy news editor JAGDEV SINGH SIDHU has the story.

STARBIZ: What happened after the first major blackout in 1992?

Ani: TNB had plans in place to pump out more energy by building plants in Pasir Gudang and Paka. Financing was no problem and our credit standing was very high. We had the land acquired and were ready to move in and plant up.

But we were told by the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) that it had its own plans. We cautioned EPU that if those plants, which would take two years to complete, were not built, Malaysia would get another major blackout. When you have a place with 250 engineers, it does not make sense to say (the blackout) is because of poor planning. But the EPU said it had its own plans and we were told to surrender the land.

Then it surfaced that it wanted to privatise the power plants. I am not anti-IPPs per se. It is good to have other players but it has to be done fairly. It has to be fair to the consumers, not just TNB, which is a conduit. TNB, because of the electricity hike, has been treated as the whipping boy. The focus should be on the consumers.

When the generous terms were given to the IPPs, all my other peers around the world asked what was happening. They said they would like to have a share in the IPPs. They said (the contracts to IPPs) were “too darn generous.’’ (The terms) were grossly one sided.

How was the Malaysian model of IPPs created?

Ask our previous Prime Minister.

How was the process of negotiations with IPPs conducted?

There was no negotiation. Absolutely none. Instead of talking directly with the IPPs, TNB was sitting down with the EPU. And we were harassed, humiliated and talked down every time we went there. After that, my team was disappointed. The EPU just gave us the terms and asked us to agree. I said no way I would.

What about the pricing and terms of the contracts?

It was all fixed up. (They said) this is the price, this is the capacity charge and this is the number of years. They said you just take it and I refused to sign the contracts. And then, I was put out to pasture.

Why did you disagree with the terms?

It was grossly unfair. At 16 sen per unit (kWh) and with the take or pay situation, actually it was 23 sen per unit. With 23 sen, plus transmission and distribution costs, TNB would have had to charge the consumer no less than 30 sen per unit. If mixed with TNB’s cost, the cost would come down but that was at our expense because we were producing electricity at 8 sen a unit. We can deliver electricity at 17 sen per unit.

And then there is a capacity charge. Nobody produces excess electricity like Malaysia and it goes to waste because there are no batteries to store that power. TNB only needs a reserve of 15% to 20%.

(more…)

Hello friends,

Below are questions which I have submitted to Parliament last week. I will take note of some of the issues that sent by you all earlier and try to raise them in next sitting.

There is a format in drafting Parliament questions, the question cannot exceed 40 words and we cannot ask more than 2 issues in a question. Of course sometimes we did not follow the format exactly and the Parliament staffs “close one eye” and approve our questions, sometimes, they will help us to re-write the question and word them with better grammar, but sometimes, they will turn down our question with the excuse that our questions did not fulfil the question format, particularly when our question touch on sensitive issues.

Each MP only allowed to ask 10 oral questions and 5 written questions, the oral questions will have chance to surface and to be replied orally by the Ministers during Q & A time, as for written questions, we always get the answers at the end of the sitting because it takes time for officers to look for statistics to reply to us.

So, you may help me to draft Parliament questions in next sitting if you have any particular issues for me to raise in the Parliament )

teresa

Soalan Lisan dan Soalan Bertulis Yang dibentangkan oleh YB Teresa Kok Suh Sim (Ahli Parlimen Kawasan Seputeh) Untuk Sidang Dewan Rakyat Jun – Julai 2006

SOALAN LISAN
1) YB Teresa Kok Suh Sim (Seputeh) minta Perdana Menteri menyatakan komposisi kaum di Sabah setakat Mac 2006. Sila nyatakan rancangan kerajaan untuk menangani pendatang asing tanpa izin di Sabah. (26-6-2006)

2) YB Teresa Kok Suh Sim (Seputeh) minta Perdana Menteri menyatakan bilangan pengundi hantu yang masih berada dalam Daftar Pemilih dan bilangan pengundi hantu yang telah dikeluarkan daripada Daftar Pemilih dalam 3 tahun yang lepas? Apakah langkah yang diambil oleh SPR untuk memastikan Daftar Pemilih bebas daripada pengundi hantu supaya kita boleh mempunyai pilihan raya yang bebas dan adil?
(27-6-2006)

3) YB Teresa Kok Suh Sim (Seputeh) minta Perdana Menteri menyatakan kenapakah carta Pendapatan Rumahtangga Bulanan Kasar (Distribution of Households by Monthly Gross Household Income) telah hilang daripada RMK-9 manakala ia wujud dalam RMK-8? Apakah pendapatan rumahtangga bulanan kasar mengikut kajian yang terbaru? (28-06-2006)

4) YB Teresa Kok Suh Sim (Seputeh) minta Perdana Menteri menyatakan kenapakah kerajaan masih belum mengambil tindakan terhadap Mastek Sdn Bhd yang telah memberi US$10 juta kepada rejim Saddam Hussein sebagaimana yang dinayatakan dalam laporan jawatankuasa inquiri bebas Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu pada 27 Oktober 2005?
Apakah ini kerana syarikat tersebut dipunyai oleh keluarga mertua Noor Asiah Mahmood dan Faek Ahmad Shareef? (29-6-2006)

5) YB Teresa Kok Suh Sim (Seputeh) minta Perdana Menteri menyatakan jumlah rakyat miskin di Malaysia mengikut negeri dan kumpulan etnik. Apakah benar bahawa kiraan ekuiti/kekayaan negara hanya berasaskan pemilikan saham tanpa mengambil kira sumber kekayaan/pendapatan yang lain saperti pemilikkan tanah/bangunan/sumber pendapatan yang lain?(3-7-2006)

6) YB Teresa Kok Suh Sim (Seputeh) minta Menteri Sumber Asli dan Alam Sekitar menyatakan Pejabat Tanah dan Galian di negeri manakah yang telah menubuhkan Lembaga Hak Milik Strata? Apakah sebab kelewatan penubuhan Lembaga Hak Milik Strata dan apakah langkah yang akan diambil oleh kementerian untuk membetulkan keadaan ini? (4-7-2006)

(more…)

Dear friends,

CH Khoo sent me the following letter written by Jacqueline Ann Surin that published in The Sun. Jacqueline is my friend, I’m proud of her for speaking out as a Malaysian citizen and a journalist.

teresa

An open letter to the PM

[the Sun Online Jun 01 2006]

DEAR Prime Minister Abdullah, When you first came into power after the 2004 general election, you promised us that you would be prime minister for all Malaysians.

In fact, I still have the letter you sent out to voters before the elections that promised you would fulfill your duties with sincerity, integrity, efficiency and fairness.

It was a letter that moved people, including staunch Opposition supporters.

There was hope that a new leadership which was more conciliatory, more willing to listen to differing views and more just was in store for the country.

And people invested in that hope by voting the Barisan Nasional back into power with a clear majority.

But recent events, including your administration’s reactions to these events, have been deeply troubling. The most recent has been the disruption of a peaceful and legitimate public forum in Penang organised by a group of non-governmental organisations that wanted to help people reclaim their rights under the Federal Constitution.

It was unfortunate, but really no longer inconceivable, that those who opposed such a civil discussion should frame their opposition in ways that incite hostility, threaten violence and make false accusations in the name of Islam, a religion that in fact promotes peace and justice.

What is actually more troubling is that as prime minister, you have also publicly announced that these issues of Constitutional rights are “sensitive” and the organisers of such events must be careful not to tread on “dangerous ground”, lest the government has to use the Sedition Act against them.

Why would you lend legitimacy to the argument that Malaysians should steer clear of discussing issues which affect us all as citizens, whether Muslim or non-Muslim?

By continuously telling Malaysians these issues are “sensitive” and “dangerous”, isn’t your administration really creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? Aren’t you in fact supporting the argument that these issues should not be discussed?

Additionally, Malaysians have been reminded by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz that it’s not for no reason that the word “amok” comes from the Malay community.
Non-Muslims ¬ and that easily translates to non-Malays in this country ¬ are told we cannot speak out about the way Islam is used to formulate laws and public policies in this country even though they affect all of us.
We are told that not just the Sedition Act can be used, so can the Internal Security Act which allows for detention without trial.

In fact, I found it deeply paradoxical that Nazri could repeat the threat of the ISA at an international meeting of experts on Islam and human rights last month.

How can an unjust law be Islamic? We know it cannot, and yet, it would seem your administration is wielding it as a way to silence citizens in a democracy.

The way I see it, naming something “sensitive” and “dangerous” is just a disingenuous way of saying, “This is not open for dialogue and discussion. We might tolerate your views but only to a certain extent.”
What that extent is, is left to be seen. We hope your election promises will be kept for all Malaysians, but really, many of us are more fearful than reassured.

From a non-Muslim perspective, the events leading up to the need for public discussions such as the Article 11 forum in Penang, have been disconcerting and troubling.

The painful injustice suffered by S. Shamala who found that her estranged husband could unilaterally convert their children to Islam, and the widow of M. Moorthy who discovered she could not bury her husband according to Hindu rights, are real and frightening.

But those instances of injustice are not being framed as “sensitive” by non-Muslims. They are not being used to threaten violence or incite hostility in order to silence discussion of the issues at hand.
Ad d i t i o n a l l y , w h e n yo u upheld the decision for the tudung to be used in police parades, did you consider how it would make non-Muslims feel? How can it still be a surprise then that most non-Malays will not join the police force?

Really, I don’t need to be a Muslim or a Malay to have a stake in this country. But even that might be delegitimised because in more ways than one, I’m a minority.

And I’m constantly reminded that my views and concerns must give way to the privileges and rights of the dominant race, and a specific interpretation of the faith they profess.

But really what I want to ask you is this: Why do I have to constantly feel afraid in my own country? Why am I continuously told I have less rights to discuss important issues affecting my community?

You promised to be prime minister for all Malaysians. We hope you will remember that promise.

A Malaysian citizen. Jacqueline Ann Surin believes that you cannot be neutral on a moving train. She is an assistant news editor at theSun.

警隊烏龍

本周最大的烏龍，莫過于大馬皇家警察把屬于警隊內部傳閱、反對政府成立「警方投訴及違例行為獨立委員會」(IPCMC)的會訊，刊登在其官方網站上。

有關會訊的內容，除了敘述皇家調查與改進警察部隊委員會建議政府成立IPCMC的來龍去脈、警方對該委員會報告書其中24項建議的批評、警方代表與首相兼國內安全部長針對皇家調查與改進警察部隊委員的報告書和IPCMC與首相進行的對話內容，以及他們反對IPCMC的十大理由。

有關會訊和網站的內容其實是非常令人驚訝的。在皇家警察代表與首相所進行的對話里，它敘述各階層高官反對成立IPCMC的理由，某位警官甚至對首相說，如果IPCMC成立的話，警察協會的成員將進行的系列抗議杯葛行動，包括以手機互傳短訊表達不滿、按時上下班、拒絕100元津貼而要像其他公務員那樣的每星期工作5天和每天工作8小時、廢除隨時服務的精神而只進行主要工作吧了、在2008年大選投票給在野黨、要在野黨為他們在國會爭取權益、要警官協會領導層及警隊領導層集體辭職，因為他們無法為警員們爭取權益、任由罪案率上升、查案警官集體辭職等。警方對于其他政府機構的弱點沒受到抨擊，但是警隊成為被針對的對象，同時國內安全部對警方被批判保持緘默感到沮喪。

在上述談話里，最令人注目的莫過于警方要「在2008年大選投票給在野黨」和「要反對黨議員為他們在國會爭取權益」這恐嚇了。警方的首要職責是維護國家治安，在政治上，他們原本就應該是中立的，他們效忠的對象應該是國家，而不是執政黨，因此警察在大選時投票給那一個政黨是他們的人權與自由，投票給在野黨并不表示他們不效忠國家或不效忠警隊，此外，在野黨的國會議員在抨擊警方濫權和貪污之余，也經常都在國會為警察部隊的薪金和福利發言，因此警方把投靠在野黨列為抗議IPCMC的行動，也真反映出他們民主意識的薄弱。

在上述皇家警察的網站內容曝光后，國會在野黨領袖林吉祥便針對警隊威脅要在來屆大選投票支持在野黨的聲明，而發文告要回教黨表態是否支持IPCMC的成立，因為在上期國會會議，回教黨議員完全沒對IPCMC表明立場。令人意外的是，除了回教黨秘書長卡馬魯丁向電子報「今日大馬」表明該黨支持IPCMC的立場是無可質疑之外，回教黨其他領袖看來卻對此保持緘默和模棱兩可。

雖然全國總警長經已對該會訊刊登在網站里公開向政府道歉，并表示警隊對目前政府的效忠，而上述反對IPCMC的文章，在媒體大肆刊登后，已從大馬皇家警察的網站里卸下，但是警方這烏龍，也真讓普羅大眾有機會對警方部隊對皇家調查與改進警隊服務委員會的建議，特別是對IPCMC的激烈反應的態度有更進一步的認識。他們看來已把自己定位為不可挑戰和不可被監督的部隊，也就因為許多警員具有這樣的態度，因此民眾才對皇家警察有這么多的埋怨。

我真難以想象，警察部隊的代表竟然會對身兼國內安全部長的首相阿都拉作出這樣的恐嚇，而我們的好好先生型的首相也竟然無動于衷？如果馬哈迪還擔任首相和國內安全部長的話，我們的皇家警察是否敢這樣對他說話呢？

警方網站的烏龍，實際上已傷害到警方的形象，它也再次挑起人們對警方霸權的不滿，如果警方愿展開民調，他們肯定發現肯定越來越多的馬來西亞人會要政府成立
IPCMC，因為極度的權力帶來的便是極度的腐敗，這是自古不變的道理。

(2－6－2006）

Is there any question or issue you want me to raise in Parliament? Please give me your question by tonight, 1st June 2006. Tomorrow is the dateline )