If Khir Toyo or Rafidah Aziz were to be captured on camera sleeping naked do you think moral judgments here will be as charitable and liberal as that accorded to Ms Elizabeth Wong?

No Farish. Every power of rationalisation and reconcilaition will be used to defend the PR’s Cause and those identified with its support and vice versa.

It is precisely because “Malaysian society has demonstrated our desire for change, and for a new politics that befits and mirrors the new Malaysia we live in” and every moral judgment will be skewed to serve this Cause and undermine the incumbent! Even PAS supporters who would normally advocate moral snooping aroound by moral police against couples holding hand will say everything is OK if it concerns a PR’s official but not otherwise it were (say) ex MIC Deputy Speaker DP Vijandran, a bachelor, caught unwittingly on camera in the sex act in the privacy of his pad!

“Defending the private lives and private spaces of our politicians is therefore part and parcel of the process to regain and defend the private domain of all Malaysians” is OK if politician is of the right side but not embraced if the politician happens to be of “the other side”.

People are so polarised that the judgment is also polarised on a single axis – whether it is “right” in serving to shorten BN’s rule by one more day or wrong to lengthen it, and vice versa for the PR upon which all hopes are pinned to end a perceived immoral regime.

Hopes and Truth are seldom compatibel bedfellows : to most, hopes will truimph over logic/truth. For the former gives emotional solace, the latter, not necessarily, and often a feeling of despair!

For now there is no other right or wrong but this axis.

Ideally , private life is, in Elizabeth Wong’s own words, nobody else’s blooming affair and a politician is so entitled to his/her private life insofar it does not conflict with his/her public duties and responsibilities.

There is in this ideal milieu a clear demarcation between the private and public sphere, the latter encompassing the social/religious norms, strictures of public morality. This clear demarcation is easier defended in a secular and modern society.

Surely no one can seriously contend that we are a secular and modern society, no matter the aspirations of some people of minority proportions. We are feudal and conservative. We’re neither secular nor modern, at least in mindset!

Reality is so different. The encroachment of the public moral norms is inexorable and, probably, irreversible. The individual is forced to share, consent to, or merely obey a range of laws, norms, and regulations not only in his or her relationships with others – but also when he/she is alone : for example a politician is caught on camera masturbating with film or photo circulated without his/her consent !

You think he/she will be spared by arguments that the act harms no one else – it is self-love so what? – causes no loss to public funds, the actor is handicapped, has no partner etc?

Come on, get real. We’re a society that courting couples get caught and fined for holding hands in public parks; where performing artists are not allowed to perform if their attire is too revealing etc

When at any point of time are ordinary Malaysians allowed, by their rulers or other Malaysians the right to defend their private lives and private spaces, fulfill our destinies without let and hindrance, let alone a Malaysian politician holding public office?
What Farish said is a mere statement of aspirations/ideal.

In corporate regime it is called “best practices”.

It does not happen on the ground.

-ec- Is MIC our ex speaker DP Vijandran’s case – if you are aware of that case – adultery? Vijandran was a bachelor then.

If I were not mistaken, Karpal Singh was one of the prominent that brought to light in Parliament the video tape of DP Vijandran’s bedroom antics, taken out of his possession without his consent?

Would you exonerate DP Vijandran as you would Elizabeth, and would you criticise Karpal for blowing it up, embarrassing the govt., MIC & Vijandran?

Get it right : it is never an issue of who is victimised. If Elizanbeth Wong were a victim, so was Chua Soi Lek & DP Vijandran in the sense of having their privacy violated. It is also not about law or victim having infracted any law: it is only the photogrpaher/distributor who has broken the law.

On a superficial level, it is all about propriety of personal conduct when holding public office. It is about personal morality that moralists want to press upon us.

Don’t you all see where Khir Toyo & BN apologists are coming from when they argue that if we demand Chua Soi Lek to resign so we must Elizabeth Wong?

We may seek to distinguish Elizabeth’s case : she is single ; she is not committing marital infidelity like CSL (though the case may be complicated if her former boyfriend who did the dastard act were a married man!)

The argument of BN apologists is best put forth by Kuala Kubu Bharu MCA Assemblyman Wong Koon Mun reported on page 2 of The Star today: “The picture was taken obviously by someone who had access to her bedroom….Who is that person? And if its her boyfriend as rumoured, it is ‘morally wrong’ for a single woman to allow a man access to her room” – when she was naked, so to speak.

Ladies/Gentlemen, once we become moralist, we’re down slippery slope: PR’s supporters condemn Dr Chua Soi Lek because he was guility of “extra-marital sex” – committing marital infidelity.

In Elizabeth Wong’s case, the BN is alleging she is not a fit and proper person for engaging (not in extrmarital sex) but premarital sex! It will be asked: how can premarital sex be morally right? What kind of role models does she as state councillor serve to children etc ?

The fact is everyone is giving their moral judgment – not that it is objective – but depending it serve their personal hypocritical purposes or political agenda!

That to me is the highest immorality of it all. It is sheer hypocrisy. We should consistently hold to the principle as what Farish – and Elizabeth Wong herself said in relation to Chua Soi Lek – that a person’s personal life/sexual morality should NOT have a bearing on the objective merits of a person as a holder of public office, and we don’t care whether he/she is a BN or PR politician or what he/she has done is extra-marital as in CSL’s case, premarital in Elizabeth’s case or some solo act of “self love” caught on camera/tape!

To attach morality to public office is a forte to BN because the crime is not doing the act but getting caught and here again BN has the advantage of getting the media/authorities to hush the matter if their very own who is important gets caught but the same does not apply to PR’s. Just like defection game, they love it because they having more resources play better. We shouldn’t play their game and take the other true position – that private morality is demarcated and should not be used to judge fitness of public office. Sex is natural, so his greed but it is the hand that steals (not the hand that plays) that is more harmful to collective weal and it matters not that the one who steals is sexually celibate!

“It is without question that she has lost her dignity and she has to resign.” – Kasim Amat

Dignity is = not seen naked in photos by public is it, even if shots taken by former boyfriend or a burglar or maybe a voyeuristic neighbour with zoomlens???

There must be something wrong with our body then (native suit we were born with). :)