These are points raised, according to the clarification by Dr. Badrulamin Bahron the Ustaz from the Selangor PKR, in his version of the khalwat controversy the good doctor is embroiled in.
1. He denies in the strongest terms, media allegations that he was caught committing khalwat by the Pahang religious authorities, Jabatan Agama Islam Pahang, JAIP.
2. He was contacted by the woman concerned on the evening of 24 February.
3. The woman, in a desperate tone, told him, fearing for her safety she intended to run away from her home to which he advised her against doing so.
4. The woman contacted him in the following early morning of 25 February, 2.00am to be precise, informing that she had arrived at the location of a PKR party leaders' encounter ((24 - 26 February) he was attending.
5. He has known the husband and wife couple for over a year when the woman together with her family had accompanied the good doctor's group performing an Umrah.
6. The couple had often communicated with him for advice to family problems including (a case of) domestic violence.
7. In efforts to help the couple, the good doctor and his wife had visited the couple in Rompin.
8. Out of feelings of responsibility for the woman and her child in an early morning the good doctor helped them get accommodation.
9. At precisely 2.30am, the woman's husband and about 20 unidentified men (raided) and attacked him.
10. The woman's husband then forcibly took his wife and child away.
11. The men in gangster manner stopped assaulting him when hotel security arrived to prevent them.
12. However, the men did not allow him from leaving the room.
13. Only after 20 minutes confined by the gangsters, did officers of the JAIP arrive and detained him, alone, in the room.
14. The statement by the Deputy Director of JAIP, that he was detained for committing khalwat, is therefor altogether untrue.
15. He considers the incident a planned action to trap and discredit him.
16. He was only asked to assist in a JAIP investigation.
It is to Point 15 that I address.
Whether it is in a political or personal context, points raised by Dr. Badrulamin Bahron's expressed statements, simply do not support the good doctor to consider the incident as an entrapment to discredit him (sopo articles interpret this statement to mean political conspiracy to discredit him).
For all intents and purposes, Dr. Badrulamin Bahron implies that the woman at the centre of this controversy is innocent. One may not agree but it would not be of any consequence.
As a political leader or a religious personality, a planned action to discredit him by being alone in a room with a woman and worse if the woman was married, and in Islam is seen and can be charged for committing khalwat, the woman bringing a child along totally nullifies that contention.
Politically, if the woman was in concert with the husband in a planned action to discredit the good doctor, there would NOT have been any reason to assault him.
The husband having suspicions of impropriety on the part of wife, and been implied by the good doctor to be violent prone, the husband's action explains the assault. But if the good doctor also implies that it was all an innocent act on his part, the woman cannot be said to be in concert with the husband, again the notion of a planned action for entrapment is dismissed.
Politically, if the woman was in NOT concert with the husband, the husband somehow having obtained information of his wife's innocent meeting with the good doctor, again a planned action to discredit the good doctor would NOT have necessitated an assault.
The good doctor's clarification, Point 1 and 16, expressly stating that he had NOT been caught by JAIP officers committing khalwat and that he was only asked to assist in investigations, absolves JAIP of being complicit of a planned action, whether the statement by the Deputy Director of JAIP is true or not, Point 14.
This is strengthened by his statement that when he was detained by the JAIP officers he was alone in the room, Point 13. To be complicit, the JAIP officers would have found the good doctor together with the woman in the room.
To place the woman together with the good doctor in a same room would not have been difficult seeing that he was confined in a room by unidentified gangsters. He would then be detained by complicit JAIP officers finding him to have committed khalwat witnessed by the 20 unidentified gangsters.
If planned, the woman in concert with the husband, would have certainly sealed the good doctor's fate.
The woman, and their child, was however forcibly taken away by the husband, Point 10.
This greatly diminishes any case against the good doctor.
Whether it was a political or personal agenda for a planned action, the husband had already involved his wife in a sordid affair. To forcibly place his wife, because she was not in concert, together with the good doctor cannot be beyond the husband. The good doctor together with a married woman, confined by 20 gangster witnesses, then detained by JAIP officers, complicit or not, finding him to have committed khalwat.
The woman, any man and woman for that matter, will not be able to refute the words of 20 complicit men, even worse complicit gangsters in any court of law.
Let me be clear that I am only addressing and rubbishes what the good doctor sees as an entrapment, or conspiracy in the political blogosphere.
While it may look that I have already decided that the good doctor is guilty of a serious transgression, that would not be true.
To reach such a conclusion would also mean that the woman is just as guilty. In both cases, it would be wrong if not unwise.
The guilt and innocence of anyone is not implied or expressed here by any means.
But the good doctor's clarification leaves much to be desired. It falls very much short of a satisfactory explanation.
It begs more questions than it answers. I am sure many will agree.
For example "location" raises but a few.
In that I mean how did the other persons know where the good doctor was.
Also, Rompin is mentioned by the good doctor. Rompin to Kuantan and one goes on a mental journey.
Whose "room''? Not specific, surely, for obvious reasons.
Be, all of the above questions, as it may, for such serious statement of facts, being assaulted and unlawful detention. These are serious offences.
Nowhere in the clarification is there any mention or intention to lodge a police report.
Surely, with the hotel security as witness, 20 men assaulting a single person should be ample grounds to establish a criminal offence committed.
As time of posting according to the Police: No report from Badrulamin over assault in khalwat case.
That also raises another question.
It is a trend nowadays for the opposition and their cohorts to blame UMNO and by extension the government for every contretemps.
In all fairness, the good doctor did not specifically UMNO or the government in his clarification.
But even the slightest hint of blame on the government conspiring to bring about the downfall of someone through nefarious means, especially by anyone in the opposition, when they are to be blamed for their own downfall by their own dastardly deeds, it is incumbent in me to expose hypocrisy and confront as aggresively as the opposition do.
Be fair to me.