I have no problem with political leaders' private lives being kept off-limits to public scrutiny as long as no public interest is adversely affected ( Hell hath no fury like power-crazy Puteri ).

My complaint is that when private lives and sexual conduct of public figures are always raised and subject to judgment, then there must be at least equal and fair (rather than selective) application of this judgment to all. There ought not to exist double standards and selective applications.

Otherwise, it leads to the inference that the crucial criteria of prosecution or protection is not really, as hypocritically pretended to be, moral sexual rectitude but whether a politician is in or out of political favour with the top.

Take, for example, Prime Minister and Umno president Dr Mahathir Mohamad's opening address in the Puteri Umno elections in which he claimed the supreme council was not protecting chief Azalina Othman Said.

I don't know if his words were quoted out of context but the following were attributed to him:

"A crime is a crime but you are not guilty until it is proven. But to condemn a person because somebody made an accusation is being unfair because we all can make accusations. We are all strong in some ways, we all commit sins but prove them" ( The Star , Nov 2).

By any measure, these are astounding remarks.

We all know a person is not guilty of a crime until it is proven. What we don't hear so often but which is equally true and we are all now wiser for it is that a crime is a crime but one is not guilty until it is proven!

We also all know that anyone can make accusations. What is less well-known but nevertheless true is that we must be prepared to face up to the consequences of our allegations like for example being sued for defamation by the accused. The problem here is how do we defend persons like Azalina who are not even bothered to defend themselves by bringing a defamation suit against her accusers, who were brazen enough to throw down the challenge that she sues them?

Lastly, it is odd that one can commit sins but considered sinless if they cannot be proved.

Proof is not the "be-all and end-all". There cannot be proof in the sense of court conviction if investigators don't investigate, and even if they investigate, prosecutors don't prosecute, and even if they prosecute, they cannot prosecute competently, and even if they prosecute competently, the judge happens to be not so competent to judge and even if investigators, prosecutors and judges were all competent, the defence lawyers were more competent than them!

It is astounding that in light of the above truism, sins should be considered sinless and crime is and remains as crime as long as they are not proven.

How different as I reflect on the other case of former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim convicted of sodomy. Way before he was tried, let alone proven guilty of sodomy, he was already cast a sodomite on national television. Why weren't these words, ["crime is a crime, we all commit sins but prove them"] said then?

So I agree that private lives/sexual conduct should be kept separate from public conduct. But if one wants to hold public officials accountable for their private sexual morality, then at least apply this yardstick equally and fairly without favour or disfavour or if there were really no actual favour or disfavour, then the appearance of favour or disfavour.