I refer to the Malaysiakini letter Chua's sex life none of our business .

When politics is mixed with sex, it becomes a deadly, potent concoction. History is replete with examples of prominent leaders in the prime of their political career being banished to the wilderness when literally caught with their pants down.

Therefore I am appalled when there are still people who feel that Dr Chua Soi Lek, the former health minister, should be allowed to continue in his ministerial post despite his sexual liaison with a 'personal friend'. Their logic is that his private escapade should remain his private affair with no consequential effect to his work as a health minister.

This ill-conceived notion and naive presumption cannot hold water when one subscribes to the belief that once a person enter the domain of politics, his personal life is no longer his own. His exemplary role as a leader in the community must at all times be beyond reproach.

His daily conduct in the course of his political life must be free from any sexual tryst or relationship which might cast any aspersion on his character. Such is the sacrifice and choice that an aspiring politician must make before he takes the oath of office.

Agreed, we should not cast the first stone at the health minister for his indiscretion but this should only be applicable if he is not a politician holding an important ministerial post. If he is an ordinary Joe, he can have as many sexual liaisons as he pleases and its nobody's business but his wife’s and family’s.

But the moment he choose to enter politics, he can no longer ignore his responsibilities and must face the consequences of his sexual indiscretion.

Chua's admission of guilt in the first instance is admirable but his initial decision to cling on to his ministerial post was wrong in principle. His admission of guilt cannot be compromised and any attempt to remain in office only cast doubt on his integrity.

How could he decide to remain in public office when his sexual antics have become public knowledge? A confession or admission of guilt cannot completely exonerate him of his sexual misdemeanour. As with any misdemeanour, there is a price to pay and in this case the punishment was for him to relinquish his public office.

Surely it is not acceptable for anyone to escape punishment by merely admitting their guilt and then to continuing in their office as if the very act of admission was sufficient punishment.