Apparently Attorney-General Mohtar Abdullah is not too pleased with the two-month jail term meted out to former police chief Abdul Rahim Noor. He said his office would be appealing against the sentence. But why the hue and cry when Mohtar took it upon himself to offer Rahim a lesser charge?

Not surprisingly, many Malaysians, too, are not satisfied. Clearly, this is more than a case of the jealous housewife caught bludgeoning her maid.

Rahim, as top cop, was one of the most powerful men in the country. He headed a police force which has been accused of being trigger-happy, known for inflicting torture and other "turning over" techniques on detainees and has a reprehensible record of deaths in custody.

Surely not forgotten is the case of a mechanic who was found battered to death while being interrogated by police a few years ago. And it wasn't until there was a public outcry that 11 police officers were rounded up. Still, they were given nothing more than a rap on the wrist.

Indeed, like his underlings, Rahim's assault is an action unbecoming of an officer who was duty bound to uphold the law. He, of all people, should be made an example of.

That the man he punched, slapped and karate-chopped in ''potentially lethal areas'' in a fit of rage was prime-minister-in-waiting Anwar Ibrahim is immaterial. Yet, one cannot help but compare the fate of these two former acquaintances: a police officer who clobbered a defenceless man was sentenced to two months, while a politician who asked the police to do his bidding got six years.

More foreboding, however, is the red-carpet treatment given to Rahim by the AG Chambers. The Royal Commission which probed into the black-eye assault was clear in its recommendations: it wanted Rahim charged with attempting to cause grievous hurt.

Mohtar, despite his recent pronouncement that he was unsatisfied with the sentence on Rahim, has much to answer, especially on why he went against the commission's recommendation by offering a lesser charge.

More so, he must also explain why the charge against Rahim was preferred as a summon case.

Most summon cases involved minor offences such as traffic infringements. Those appearing in court on such charges are technically not under arrest. Which explained why Rahim did not have to sit in the dock when he was in court: he was given a special seat nearby. Any other assailants would have been arrested and put in the dock.

Perhaps, as KeADILan vice-president Tian Chua had suspected, this we-are-not-satisfied reaction from Mohtar is part of a planned script. Let Rahim plea guilty to "causing simple hurt", instead of "grievous hurt".

According to the script, Rahim would then appeal against his sentence, which indeed he did. The appeal process is expected to continue for years before the whole episode is brought to a close, if ever. Perhaps by then, the court would find that Rahim has "suffered" enough and let him go without having to do a single day behind bars.

The double standards, however, go beyond the Attorney General Chambers. Only a few weeks ago, the media worked themselves into a lather over the abuse of foreign maids by a number of deviant employers, complete with editorials waxing lyrical about the need to punish such sadistic bullies.

But when Rahim's sentence was announced this week, it was greeted by the media with a deafening silence. Evidently their outrage is reserved for certain individuals, not errant agents of the state. This, despite that Mohtar has made it clear that he wants a stiffer penalty for Rahim.

Or perhaps, it is part of an elaborate show.