Pious man visiting prostitute? Can meh?

We received the comment below yesterday to our posting ‘Messiah Anwar, his God’s Army and their paroxysm of violence’.

So just because Chua Soi Lek owned up, Anwar should do the same. Seems like not only does one have to give up on the Star, but also this site. Thanks for letting me know. — Kesu

Here’s our response to the reader. (Pix: Anwar parting the red sea, and the policeman on his right going ‘H –‘)

We do not expect Anwar Ibrahim to own up. After all, he didn’t own up to his role in toppling the state government when Joseph Pairin’s PBS was the choice of the people of Sabah.

He did not own up to his complicity in absorbing illegals in Sabah under Project M. He did not own up on how his Malay language chauvinism led to the decline of English during his tenure as Education Minister. He did not own up to his dismal failure during the Asian financial crisis of 1997. Do you remember him ever owning up to anything?

So do we expect him to own up to a purported starring role in the sex scene? Obviously not.

The big difference between Anwar and Chua Soi Lek is that the latter does not sit astride the holier-than-thou religious platform. CSL has not projected himself as purer than pure with regard to sexual morality.

Anwar of ex-Abim should realise that the punishment for zina is stoning.

And do not forget his most pivotal role in the Islamization of Malaysia. It was not Tunku or Tun Razak or Tun Hussein or even Dr M (despite his unilateral declaration of Islamic state) who was responsible for injecting the religious yardstick in public life.

Do Malaysians expect right sexual conduct from Anwar? Yes, because he has flaunted his religious credentials from the very beginning.

If any of one the ulama-soaked PAS leaders were to come this close to a sex scandal, we’d pengsan terus. Just can’t imagine, can we?

Joining politics, eh?

In a Malaysiakini news report today headlined ‘Catholic bishop speaks out against sex video‘, Dr Paul Tan Che Ing castigated the authorities for their inaction against those responsible for the sex footage discussed above.

Bishop Paul decried how there was one set of rules for a privileged few and another set of rules for the rest.

He lavished fulsome praise on a speech touching on religious pluralism — Anwar’s at at the London School of Economics in March 2010, we’re told.

Strangely enough, Bishop Paul in his catechism on Good and Evil across the Malaysian landscape forgot to mention that adultery is a sin and that a pious man should not visit prostitutes.

Read also,

God’s gift: The Anwar cometh, parting Red Sea

3 Responses to “Pious man visiting prostitute? Can meh?”
  1. Greg Lopez says:

    If the premise of law is “Presumed innocent until proven guilty” then this form of character assassination should be illegal.

    As Ustaz Hadi Awang has explained, if there is proof that Anwar has committed adultery or any other immoral activity, then there are proper procedures set in place – i.e the Syariah courts.

    So, Bishop Paul is not out of place to suggests that “..there was one set of rules for a privileged few and another set of rules for the rest..”

    • hartalmsm says:


      In court, yes, innocent until proven guilty. In police investigation (note that Anwar has himself lodged a police report), the suspect is required to provide his alibi when confronted with a smoking gun (read: evidence). In public debate/discussion, there have been various calls to authenticate the identity of the man in the tape. Surely even his defenders can’t complain about such a legitimate request?

      Greg, you cite Hadi Awang/immoral activity/Syariah court.

      Yup. Unlike CSL, Anwar has been promoting himself as a model of Islamic rectitude.

      There should be 4 witnesses to zina. Well, there’s Datuk Shazryl Eskay, there’s the woman and now Shuib Lazim has stepped forward. If we agree to go along with PAS’s reaction, Syariah jurisprudence have their own procedures regarding the examination of evidence and doubtless modern jurists will have to interpret the validity of camera testimony.

      As to Bishop Paul’s “one set of rules for a privileged few and another set of rules for the rest”, may we add that he has glaringly overlooked the double standard when he castigates certain people only for making accusations.

      The allegations against Anwar were made based on the secret taping. There is the footage held up for scrutiny — to verify or disprove.

      On the other hand, Anwar made allegations against Hishammuddin as the culprit behind the video — based on what evidence does Anwar finger Hisham, may we ask?

      If the Pakatan supporters want to shout ‘fitnah’ at all those who’re asking for Anwar to clear the air (i.e. suspicious that he may be guilty), aren’t the same Pakatan followers able to look in the mirror and see if they too have one set of rules for a privileged few (their beloved PKR/DAP/PAS leaders) and another set for the rest (those who are not of the same mind)?

      Read carefully over all the Bishop’s stern criticisms; read again his fulsome praise of Anwar; and ponder if he has been fair to all angles of the scandal? And whether like the Mufti of Perak, he’s playing politics by only condemning one side?

  2. jamie says:

    I`m now convinced Anwar is a rascal and will vote BN. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: