Is this the entire story?

Okay, at this point we may be wondering why three women and four men? Why not three women and three men, or four women and four men? Did one woman escape the raid and that is why there are only three women and four men? Or was one woman having a threesome with two men?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

By now you have probably read the official finding of Suhakam. (You can read below the full Bernama report about Suhakam visiting my son in prison and what the visit uncovered). And, of course, we can accept what Suhakam and Bernama say. Although both are government bodies, we can certainly accept their word without all sorts of suspicions.

Just to digress a bit, I remember when I was under ISA detention in 2001 and Suhakam visited me at the request of my family. A day before the Suhakam visit I was told about it. I was then coached on what to tell Suhakam. If I cooperated then I would be rewarded. My wife and children would be allowed to visit me. If I do not, then there would be no family visits.

Suhakam wanted to meet me alone but the police did not agree. They insisted that the Special Branch officers must be present during the meeting. And they recorded everything I told Suhakam.

So I cooperated and gave Suhakam a glowing report. They went home extremely pleased and announced that I am being very well treated and am even being given Kentucky to eat. I got to see my wife and children soon after that.

Now back to the story about Suhakam visiting my son. "He scolded an officer. So, he had broken the law. Normally, when you do that, you will be placed in a separate room or block until the investigation is completed," said Datuk N. Siva Subramaniam.

Now, since Suhakam did not offer any details about the ‘incident’, maybe I can help do that.

They gave my son some Maggi Mee and my son asked for some hot water. The prison guard asked why he wanted hot water and my son replied to eat his Maggi Mee of course. For answering back, the guard slapped my son and put him in solitary confinement.

My stupid son thought that the guard asked the question because he required a reply. He did not realise that it was a rhetorical question and not a question that required a reply. And because he answered back he had ‘broken the law’ and was subsequently punished.

Okay, the next ‘crime’ my son is supposed to have committed is as follows.

The guards raided the cell, which had about 30 prisoners, and they found a mobile phone in the cell. The guards then said my son must be the owner of that mobile phone and they assaulted him because he denied that he was the owner of the mobile phone.

So those are matters concerning the prison guards, the details which Suhakam did not explain in that Bernama report. Now let’s talk about the police.

Further to these incidences, the police visited my son in prison and asked him to withdraw his not guilty plea and instead plead guilty to the charges he is facing. He refused, so they beat him up.

They then made a second visit and again asked him to withdraw his not guilty plea. He again refused and they made their move to again beat him up. And that was when my son went berserk. So they put him under psychiatric observation and then put him in solitary confinement.

So Suhakam did not lie. They just did not give us the whole story. And that is quite normal when it comes to the Malaysian government.

For example, there is currently a lot of brouhaha about the three women and four men who were sentenced to canning for indulging in illicit sex. Yes, it is not just three women as how the newspapers are reporting. It is three women and four men who were canned.

Okay, at this point we may be wondering why three women and four men? Why not three women and three men, or four women and four men? Did one woman escape the raid and that is why there are only three women and four men? Or was one woman having a threesome with two men?

Hmm…now it is beginning to get very interesting. Threesome….hmm…….

Can you see how we are given the story but not the entire story? Most of us would be following the case more closely if they had explained why it was three women and four men, especially if the explanation had been what I think it is.

This is the problem with the Malaysian newspapers. They swallow hook, line and sinker what the government says and they are not able to ‘fill in the gaps’.

Let us look at another sex related issue. Dr Munawar and Anwar Ibrahim’s adopted brother, Sukma, were arrested, charged, put on trial, and found guilty of allowing Anwar to sodomise them. Yes, that’s right, both were accused of the crime of allowing Anwar to sodomise them and they were sent to jail.

But it was not rape. It was consensual sex. They are alleged to have consented to allowing Anwar to bugger them. That was why they were jailed. In that case, why was Anwar not also charged? Why were the screwee sent to jail while the screwer escaped punishment?

This was never explained and the newspapers, as usual, did not ask.

Then Anwar was charged for sodomising his wife’s driver, Azizan, allegedly many times over a certain period of time. Again, it was not rape but consensual sex. But this time the screwer was sent to jail while the screwee was spared -- the other way around. Why? They said it was sex between two consenting adults. Then why was one party punished while the other escaped punishment?

In the Dr Munawar and Sukma case, the receiver goes to jail but the giver is spared. In Azizan’s case, the giver goes to jail while the receiver is spared. So confusing and no explanation offered. And the newspapers don't bother to ask.

Now we are seeing the Saiful case being argued in court and he claims that Anwar had sex with him maybe a dozen or so times over a certain period of time. So, again, this is not rape. This is sex with consent. But only Anwar is facing trial. Why is Saiful not also facing trial?

Yes, questions and yet more questions. But no answers are forthcoming. And that is also the same in my son’s case. They tell us part of the story but the story is full of gaps. And they do not fill in those gaps. And that is the modus operandi of the Malaysian government.

In the past they could do this and get away with it. Nowadays it is not so easy. And that was why they arranged that seminar in Washington yesterday. But, as usual, it fell flat. They thought they could pull the wool over the eyes of the Americans like they do with Malaysians. But they could not and the mission failed miserably.

But I will talk more about this Washington fiasco in another column.

*************************************************

Raja Azman Inflicted Injuries On Himself - Suhakam

(Bernama) -- Raja Azman, the son of fugitive blogger Raja Petra Raja Kamaruddin, inflicted injuries on himself at the Sungai Buloh prison but not in an attempt to commit suicide, according to the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam).

Suhakam commissioner Datuk N. Siva Subramaniam said today Raja Azman, 34, told him that he slashed his left arm and swallowed razor blades after learning that he would be placed in a separate block for violating prison rules.

"When I asked him why he had injured himself, he replied that he was not happy to be isolated at the Tawakal Block for an investigation. He was not tortured. No one inflicted any injuries on him, neither the prison wardens nor officers," he told reporters after having met with Raja Azman at the Sungai Buloh prison, near here.

Raja Azman is now at the prison ward. He has been remanded at the prison since May 19 last year pending his trial on four charges of housebreaking and theft. He had failed to post bail.

The Prisons Department lodged a report at the Batu Arang police station on Feb 8, the very day that Raja Azman was found injured.

Siva Subramaniam said he was informed by the prison authorities that they wanted to place Raja Azman in a separate block because he had violated prison rules.

"He scolded an officer. So, he had broken the law. Normally, when you do that, you will be placed in a separate room or block until the investigation is completed," he said.

Siva Subramaniam said the infliction of injuries was neither an attempt to commit suicide nor was it torture by anyone else.

Raja Azman was not mentally disturbed and was not physically abused, he said, adding that he had acted in a moment of anger.

He also said that the slash wound on his arm did not require any stitches but he was taken straightaway nevertheless to Sungai Buloh Hospital for a medical examination.

"He passed out two small razor blades on his own. He did not suffer any internal injury. He is now at the prison ward and will return to his block in a few days," he said.

Siva Subramaniam said Suhakam was generally satisfied with the handling of inmates at the prison.

He said he was also briefed by the prison director, Navander Singh, during the two-hour visit.