For the past two weeks, he has been in almost every tabloid and gossip column in Asia for all the wrong reasons. His scandal has reached such a status that even CNN has bothered to give it coverage.

Amid the shock, mystery and 'when will it all end' sentiments, questions about who should be blamed have been raised by various commentators.

Some 500 people in Hong Kong have also taken to the streets to protest against the police's preferential action against the alleged culprits, just because the pictures featured celebrities.

The question of 'Is it wrong?' is perhaps best answered in a moral sense and, in this regard, many will agree that it is immoral and therefore wrong.

But if it is wrong, the next logical question is: 'Who should be assigned the blame?'

Should it be Edison, whose weird habits have been the subject of the scandal? Or should it be the people who stole the photos and posted them on the web?

Many are determined to pin the blame on someone, but just who that someone should be seems less clear.

Were Edison's habits wrong? Did the photos reveal him as the Casanova he is? Should he therefore bear the brunt of the blame?

In the first place, it wasn't him who posted those pictures on the Net. They were ultimately meant for himself, and, well, perhaps his private party of friends. But then again, it was his own private life. Why should judgment be pronounced on that?

Think about it this way. Before the scandal broke, if someone were to ask you whether you thought Edison was a nice, decent guy, you would probably say: 'I really won't know' or 'I don't think so'. Face it, he has always held a reputation for being a 'bad boy'. Such is part of his cool boyish attitude that many have come to associate him with.

So now that you know he has slept around with many young HK starlets, and taken pictures aplenty of them in various stages of undress, what then? Can you say that he's wrong?

I don't think so. Firstly, like I said before, private is private. He did not intend those photos for others to see. Secondly, he did not coerce the girls to sleep with him. And yes, he has slept with many girls. But he did not project a squeaky clean image to begin with, did he?

And what about those who distribute the photos? The first question that comes to mind is what their motivations were. Did they intend to do so because they thought they should spread the 'joy' of their discovery? Or did they do so with malicious intent?

The law that finds them guilty in this case is again a moral one. It pronounces them guilty because they are in possession of private material, material which can be deemed pornographic.

And returning to the protesters' point of contention, have the police acted differently because they involve celebrities?

How celebrities should be treated is something which differs from society to society. In Western society, the consensus is that since celebrities court the media spotlight, they should bear its consequences, kind or harsh. So the law treats celebrities differently, because, after all, that is how they know and expect to be treated. Maybe this is why the West looks more kindly on paparazzi, as they feel it is part and parcel of being famous.

In this context, how should celebrities be treated in Hong Kong? Should their private lives remain private? If so, then why should we bother about who's dating who. Or should part of their private lives remain private? How much of this privacy should celebrities be accorded if, after all, it is the public eye that grants them the celebrity status in the first place?

It is not an easy question to answer. But I believe that thinking through these issues are integral to clarifying how we should, as individuals, respond to the unfolding scandal.

Think about this: How much of the lives of celebrities do we own? How much should we?

Chong Yew Mun