A FATHER PICKS UP THE PIECES: Sodomy II and the wayward son

In August 2008 a fifty-five -year old man who graced a politician’s so-called second sodomy trial, appeared alongside his son who was holding a copy of the Holy Qur’an at a mosque in a bustling city in the country.

There was a huge crowd waiting outside and a significant number of people gathered inside the mosque – including those from the press. Some mysterious figures were curiously hiding behind a long-stretched curtain that arbitrarily split the sprawling floor of the sacrosanct site.

The son in an earnest mood but with a tranquil look splashed all over his face sat beside his stern-looking father during a ceremony to swear by the Holy Book that it was true that he was “sodomised” by a politician.

The father looked rather disheartened and was crestfallen. He was naturally not happy to hear the “agony” that his son had to go through.

This swearing ceremony must be the first of its kind in the world where a sodomy victim was willing to acquiescently declare himself as a victim of unnatural sex while swearing in a place of worship under the presence of the press and the glaring lights of television cameras.

This extraordinary event was soon covered by almost all government-owned media and the world media too.

Should not pay for the sins of others

Following that, many politicians – those in the corridors of power – were gleefully discussing the confession made by the son, so elated that their plot had succeeded and were dearly hoping that the accused would be sent to prison this time.

The “victim” became a celebrity of sort. Pressmen interviewed him and he was not at all traumatised by the event. Instead, he was proudly responding to questions – so very unlikely of a person who has been raped or sodomised. Rarely would a sodomy or rape victim would wish to be paraded in public or auspiciously talk to the press of what happened to him or her.

Real sexually-related victims are usually skulked due to bad conscience and would rather stay away from the public out of shame and would only report the matter cautiously to the police. Never would a father want his son to be in the limelight for a wrong reason that would invite scorns and derisions from among family members and the community.

But the country has broken another record. The country has produced the first ever “sex victim” who broke its conventional tradition of covertness when it comes to sex matters.

But after five years of restiveness and the whole affair relentlessly pricking his conscience the father decided to let go his guilt. As he was walking through the corridors of his mind he must have felt that he and his son should not pay for the sins of others.

He came out to apologise to the politician in the public to clear the scruples that were bothering him all this while. In a shocking turnaround of event, the father told a group of selected media that the politician is innocent of the sodomy accusation against him.

Unusually calm

He went on to say that the politician was a victim of a despicable political conspiracy. During the question and answer session with the press, he claimed that his previous statements to the media were scripted by his son’s lawyer. The lawyers prepared his statements under the instructions of the special aide to a man in the corridors of power.

He appeared unusually calm when expressing his thoughts in the presence of the press. The radiance on his face showed a kind of respite possibly that he has now cleared his conscience. He expounded that that he had stood by his son’s accusation against the politician in the past to provide moral support to him – the piety and sacrifice of an austere life of a father.

He admitted that his son was a good person but while attending his trial in court for the past four years he sensed that something was amiss. He was never a court witness, though.

He did not stop at that. In his discourse he cited that as a religious person he could not continue “being a pawn in this evil scheme of things” – referring to what the son had accused the politician of and that there was a conspiracy to implicate the politician by unscrupulous people in the corridors of power.

This must have dishevelled the evil gut of those “linked” to the conspiracy and many other ambitious politicians.

Denial

He turned around to divulge that his son had been involved in a political conspiracy by concocting false claims that he had been sodomised. He went on saying that his son was used by a special officer close to a very important personality walking the corridors of power.

This has once and for all settled any slightest doubt and suspicion people have had on the accused politician in the plot. The overt confession of the father has apparently vindicated the politician.

He did not even hesitate to name the personalities who architected the evil design. He spoke with an aura filled with so much buoyancy and even voiced his readiness to appear in court to repeat what he had said.

Of course the son later disagreed with what the father had confessed against him – saying that his father was being used by someone to make an about turn. After all, the father was before this so supportive of him and was willing to appear with him in the mosque and in the public to implicate the politician. The father-son spat was expected.

However, the drama has now reached an electrifying point that the whole country is taken by surprise. This must have further vindicated the politician even though he has already been acquitted of the so-called charge of sodomy.

Vindicated by the apology

The court had acquitted the politician of the so-called sodomy charge but those in the “house of laws” have appealed against the verdict with the case fixed for hearing soon.

Be that as it may, what the father has declared is more than enough to vindicate the politician in the people’s court. He solemnly apologised to the politician. The politician felt vindicated by the apology from the father that he was innocent of sodomy charges.

The father’s admission will go a long way to convince some people who still have any doubt about the politician’s innocence. The politician’s image and reputation is now further heightened and this must be not to the likings of his nemeses.

To the people at large they feel relieved too– at last the truth has prevailed. The father has declared that the politician is innocent and his son is wrong. The matter to them has cleared any slightest doubt they have on the politician’s sexual conduct.

The charismatic politician is actually happily married with children and at the time he was accused of the so-called sodomy he must be around 62 years old – already a grandfather and the so-called robust victim was about 21 years old.

Perjury

Can this confession be a perjury of sort on the father’s part? To a layman, this may not be classified as perjury. He was never a witness to the case in court even though his own son was the so-called victim. Furthermore and possibly at the time when the accusation was made, out of piety and sacrifice, he could have been predisposed by his son’s “anguish and desperation”, and conceivably believed in what was told to him by his own son.

The judiciary they say is a beacon of honour and integrity. Thus his statement made outside the courts by persons only indirectly related to the charge and the issue at hand may not carry much weight.

It’s only after a few years, as he claimed after following the case in court did he come to his sanities that something was amiss in the whole plot. He however most likely cannot appear as a new witness when the case comes up for appeal. In an appeal case, normally new witnesses are not entertained.

Nevertheless, in the people’s court he has done justice to the politician – clearing his name and this is enough from the political aspect to boost the politician’s reputation among the people.

Making a false report

As for his son he is now caught in a web by the laws of the country. It’s perjury if he were to retract his initial statement accusing the politician of sodomising him. So, retraction is out of question. Making a false report is an offence and appearing as a prime witness to the case under oath claiming that he has been sodomised then retracting it tantamount to perjury.

And he does not want to go to jail for this. So, theoretically, out of no choice he cannot agree with his father’s statement no matter how true it is

Agreeing to his father’s confession is tantamount to cheating the judiciary, the “house of laws”, the police, doctors, lawyers and the media. He can be charged for falsely incriminating an innocent man.

He cannot budge from his allegation and if he retracts court punishments await him. Out of no choice he will stand firm on his case. If he admits that it is a political conspiracy, he and the conspirators will be tried in court and be charged for perjury and sent to years in prison.

His father is the closest person to him and certainly he must have known the truth behind the sodomy accusation.

A Catch-22 quandary

Is the son now in a Catch-22 quandary? If he concurs with his father’s statement he is finished. Many others in the corridor of power will be implicated. He and they will go to jail. If he were to say, "Yes.it was a conspiracy and I accused the politician wrongly,” he will be charged for perjury and sentenced to jail.

He has no choice now but to stay with his earlier stand even when it is a wrong accusation.

This is how conspirators work on people. They will make use of others and wash their hands clean after that. The ones being made use of are the ones who have got to bear the consequences.

The Project IC that started in the early 90s saw thousands of ICs given to foreigners in the country to help vote and keep UMNO in power. Those who were asked to execute the order – mostly government servants – were later detained under ISA for many years. The planners or the main conspirators got off Scott free.

Two persons are now in prison waiting for their court appeal. They were sentenced to death for killing a pregnant Mongolian lady who was a stranger to them both. The motive for their killing was never established in the court of law and it seems that “it was not necessary”. The main people behind this gruesome murder – the conspirators – have not been dragged to court.

Caught in a web

Is the son of the 60-year-old man here also caught in a web created by the conspirators?

The shrewd conspirators will make sure that the person(s) they use will not be able to retract whatever statement he has made especially when the matter has reached the court of law. This is where the son is possibly locked in.

Alas, the son can never draw back his accusation now less if he wants to serve jail sentence.

Malaysia Chronicle