is like comparing apple with orange or is it the other way round? Anyway, how anyone could come out with such a comparison by itself shows his warped sense of reasoning and logic.
Shahrizat's case has to do with public funds channeled to own family members' interests in violation of official agreements and the Companies Act, while she is still a cabinet minister. That her post has to do with family matters seem comical that she has taken it literally! It was obvious even to those not politically inclined to notice the blatant conflict of interest and corruption typical of Umno's style of politics. What used to be stealthy has been upgraded to open favouritism in a manner which suggests 'thumbing their nose at ordinary folks' with a 'so what if we did?' That other ministers suggest there was no corruption show the extent of deterioration in accepted universal values.
In the case of Anwar's so-called convictions, most people would honestly agree that it was politically motivated. Even if we were to assume he was guilty as convicted, Dr. Wan Azizah's position as President of PKR was up to the party leaders and members. Of course, when considering Shahrizat's position as chief of Wanita Umno, it is also up to the Wanita Umno leaders and members to decide if she has to resign. That is where the similarity ends. Many people view it as 'if they so decide, so be it' as she is likely to be more a liability than an asset in the next general election.
Shahrizat's ministerial post depends on her term as senator. It was convenient for Umno leaders to suggest that she sacrifices for the party when she has to give up her post anyway, by April 8. Again, others are complaining that there was no proof of Umno leaders having taken swift action to signify their rhetoric on change. It is still same old, same old way of looking after each other's interests.