Highlighting a comment made from a KLGTU reader:
November 30th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Was reading the article by Wong Chun Wai on “Sex City Claim Can Hurt KL” in The Star today and seeing that the foreigners even compare KL to the like of Patpong makes me wonder if this really is happening. I supposed I can now relate your articale to his and conclude that this is really happening…
Let me put it into perspective. KL is definitely no Patpong. KL’s (Bukit Bintang’s) physical appearance is largely void of smut in your face. However, there are many touts/pimps on the streets (yes…around the bukit bintang area) who approach people especially foreigners, selling them sex with all kinds of girls from regional countries and these days even Arab girls are available. (at one stage russian and ex-russian states provided the exotic ‘meat’)
So, behind the surface there is a big sex trade going on, but physically on the streets, KL is far from being a Patpong, simply because it is NOT a sex destination for sex seeking tourists.
With regards to being a Muslim country – whats the big deal, even in Kabul, Afghanistan there are Chinese prostitues available.
So long as there is commerce, there is sex. You want to attract FDI… and satisfy the side cravings of tourists… you gotta give them sex. I think all politicians and businessmen would unanimously agree with me on that.
Now in relation to what I am trying to document in Chinatown and even in many parts of KL’s golden triangle, (if its about the sex trade) its the older communities that have continued with the sex trade since the early formation of KL city. (different from the ‘new’ sex trade talked about in Wong Chun Wai’s article)
Filed under: Kuala Lumpur