So, the former Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Rahim Noor, was jailed two months and fined RM2,000 for ordering the blindfolding and handcuffing of the ousted deputy prime minister, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, before beating him to a pulp when in police custody in September 1998. That he did so deliberately and calculatively is beyond doubt, accepting responsibility only when a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the incident decided beyond doubt that it was he assaulted Dato' Seri Anwar. The charges were amended twice, and his pleading guilty denied Dato' Seri Anwar from upsetting the Prime Minister's re-election plans as UMNO president. But the conviction raises disturbing questions of morality, one in which the judiciary informs the public that future episodes like these would extract little more than a token sentence if a police man is found guilty; and the police can take comfort now they would be as leniently treated for assaulting members of the public, which they now can with impunity; and to the public to expect such treatment without murmur. Mr Justice Augustine Paul sentenced Dato' Seri Anwar to four concurrent sentences of six years for misusing his authority because of his position; The Inspector-General of Police is in effect told that he could rightly beat up the same man, since as a police detainee his official position is irrelevant.

But Tan Sri Rahim is convicted under a section which deals with street side brawls, not for murderously assaulting a detainee in police detention. If Tan Sri Rahim Noor is treated so lightly, the other police officers involved who allowed, especially the case officer in whose custody Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim was, should have been brought to trial. There were not. Tan Sri Rahim would have escaped prosecution but for the Royal Commission, and public disgust at what happened. The sentence ensures the continued criminalisation of the police force, instilling into the public the fear psychosis. More than 400 have been killed in police shootouts, many innocents, and in only case has a police man been charged: when a doctor was shot dead in Cheras. That man is charged in court, but a token sentence is expected. It could not be more in the light of Tan Sri Rahim's sentence.

The prosecution appeals. It would have had to. "Wayang Kulit" requires it. The former Inspector-General of Police could not be sent to prison when the UMNO divisional elections are in full swing, could it? So, he is released on bail. Why? Dato' Seri Anwar has been in prison since his arrest 18 months ago on what is a bailable offence. If he could be released on bail on what is said to be principle, then so should the IGP be held on bail pending the appeal. If He Who Must Be Destroyed At All Cost deserved the maximum sentence for what is a technical offence, then so should the highest ranking police officer for the more serious offence of deliberately assaulting the former deputy prime minister without cause or reason; indeed, he had no business to be there at all. His offence is all the more severe because he sets an example for others to follow. There clearly has been plea bargaining in this; otherwise why were the charges relaxed even further after he claimed trial.

But the regime takes care of its own. Tan Sri Rahim is after all a loyal officer. He did only what he thought the Prime Minister and others wanted him to do. It does not matter if they did want that or not. But even the Prime Minister suggested that Dato' Seri Anwar's black eye could well have been self-inflicted. The sentence does suggest a wider conspiracy in derailing the former deputy prime minister's political career than is supposed. The former Bank Negara Malaysia official, released on bail with his passport impounded, was allowed to leave for overseas after he hamfistedly accused Dato' Seri Anwar of acts of ommission and commission. Why was he allowed to leave the country? When did the Attorney-General's Chambers appeal to the courts to release Dato' Murad Khalid's passport to allow him to leave the country? Why was it not publicised? Now Tan Sri Rahim is released on bail without an order for his international passport is handed into the courts. No where in any of the news reports I read today suggests this was done. Why not?

So what happened to Tan Sri Rahim raises more questions than answers. He behaved like a thug. Even after the prosecution amends the charges to a nominal one, the Sessions Court judge gives him not, taking Augustine Paul J's sentencing policy in the Anwar case, the maximum for the offence but one sufficiently light to make the exercise laughable. The Attorney-General, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, must explain why the charges were progressively made lighter against his cousin. Yes, the Attorney-General's Chambers appeals against the verdict. But given the judiciary's tendency to treat such appeals to exculpate the convict, it would turn out in the even, even if the sentence is confirmed, of affirming the policeman's right to harass the public at will. That is the tragedy in the sentencing of Tan Sri Rahim Noor. The public must continue to be fearful of the police. And the judiciary encourages that view. The more so if Tan Sri Rahim succeeds in his appeal.

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@mgg.pc.my