Rompin’ MP shouldn’t get off easily

I don’t care if the victim has withdrawn her police report against a former minister for alleged sexual harassment. It is the duty of the police to call in the former minister, who is also an MP, for questioning.

There can be many reasons for the victim to have withdrawn her report. She could also have cited various excuses for lodging the report in the first place.

Of course it is within her right now to say that there was a misunderstanding over the ex-minister’s behaviour and that she was "sensitive and moody" at the time of the incident and as such she had felt offended at that time due to her “complicated mood”.

She had added she had known the former minister over the past five years and was used to his rough ways, and he had acted in jest without any bad intention.

Based on her statutory declaration which she signed to withdraw her report, it can be alluded that:

1. the MP is known for such behaviour against her in the past, and,
2. that she had in the past experienced his rough ways and his “jest without bad intention”.

However, sexual harassment is still sexual harassment and an offence even if it was done in jest!

I am glad the KL police chief had said that they would still question the MP, which they had done yesterday. They have also spoken to some witnesses apparently.

Now if they think he had acted against the law in sexually harassing the woman, they should pass the file to AG for action. And on the other hand if the victim had indeed lodged a false report, action should be taken against her as well.

I think the public perception at the moment is that she has been either forced or has been bought over to withdraw the report.

The police can clear this perception by completing their probe on her report and making public their finding, all in the spirit of the new found reform agenda of the prime minister.

[Rompin’ (or romping) means, among others, to play or frolic boisterously.]