Amin’s claims that the Attorney-General reduced Rahim Noor’s charge based on law and facts after considering the representations of Rahim Noor's counsel and that "the amendment did not make the offence any less serious in the context of the law" are uncompletely unacceptable.
Who is Amin trying to dupe when he said that the amendment did not make the offence "any less serious", when under the original charge of attempting to cause grievous hurt to Anwar under Section 325 read together with Section 511 of the Penal Code as recommended by the Royal Commission of Inquiry which included the former Chief Judge of Malaya, Tan Sri Anuar Zainal Abidin and former Court of Appeal judge Datuk M Shankar and assisted by former Attorney-General Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, Rahim Noor would have been liable to a maximum sentence of three-and-a-half years’ jail, a fine or both while the amended charge of causing hurt under Section 323 carries a maxiumum of one year jail, a fine or both.
In the event, Rahim Noor was given a light rap on the wrist and sentenced to two months’ jail as compared to 18 months’ jail for former DAP MP for Kota Melaka, Lim Guan Eng and four concurrent six-year jail sentences for Anwar Ibrahim - although the Attorney-General’s Chambers is appealing against Rahim Noor’s sentence for being not commensurate with the offence. The greater problem is that the reduced charge which the Attorney-General had agreed to for Rahim is not commensurate with the offence.
Amin had deliberately misled Parliament and the nation in denying that the Attorney-General had treated the former Inspector-General of Police leniently when taking into account the original charge, the recommendation of the Royal Commission of Inquiry and the deliberate, calculated and heinous nature of an Inspector-General of Police’s assault of a handcuffed and blindfolded Anwar when he was first arrested and taken to the Bukit Aman Police lock-up on the night of Sept. 20, 1998 which expert medical evidence had testified could have been fatal.
As Amin had failed to give any satisfactory or acceptable explanation for the reduction of Rahim Noor’s charge, the onus is still on the Attorney-General to demonstrate that he is not above the law and is subject to the principles of parliamentary accountability and transparency by setting out the real reasons as well as the events leading to the reduction of the charge for Rahim Noor by way of a Ministerial statement from the Prime Minister’s Department in the current meeting of Parliament.
(22/3/2000)