The ban by the Selangor state government on over-the-counter sales of condoms in December 2001 caught most people with their pants down.

We thought the 'Umno insider attack' on Selangor Menteri Besar Mohd. Khir Toyo which portrayed him as damaging Umno's political interests in his blitz on blue VCDs and other 'vices' had finally ended the moral hysteria in the Klang Valley.

Ipoh was the other city suffused with 'moral correctness' with the mayor ridding its public parks of the corrupting influence of hand-holding couples. That made us pretty famous. We were on CNN.

The moral panic rages on. Will this lead to sex-segregation in buses and trains? Will private vehicles be stopped with passengers' ID checked for consanguinity, affinity and religion?

Will cinema-goers have to show IDs, marriage licences and birth certificates as proof of an acceptable relationship? Are we moral-policing flat-mates?

These suggestions may seem ludicrous for now but one never knows where this all might eventually lead us to, in the name of morality and the alleged 'islamisation of public morals'.

Somewhere in some municipal office, someone is tasked with making an extensive list of what will come next.

Most of us readily attribute these acts of moral enforcement to Islam.

A letter-writer to malaysiakini opines that Islam does not allow the holding of hands, but that non-Muslims should not be charged for it.

Sisters in Islam, readily embraces the same notion when commenting on the Ipoh hand-holding incidents. A spokesperson was quoted in a June 23 press report as saying, "They (Ipoh law enforcers) should not impose our (Islamic) morality on them (non-Muslims)."

We might note that the law in question is the Parks (Ipoh Municipal Council) Bylaws 1985. It is a civil law with a parent Act of Parliament.

Ipoh mayor Sirajuddin Salleh claims that the municipal actions reflect Asian values but reiterated that holding hands should not be an offence unlike excessive kissing, embracing and probing in public parks.

I think it would be fair to say that there would be among us, those who find some display of affection and sexual desire in public to be discomforting, but perhaps not to the extent of meting out penalties.

Morality in civil laws

The Penal Code, has several provisions on public morality. A whole chapter devoted to this is entitled 'Of offences affecting the public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals' (chapter XIV).

Other morality sections include section 377 on unnatural offences (sexual acts deemed unnatural and therefore a crime). Whose morality is this?

The Penal Code is borrowed from the Indian Penal Code. Does it mean that Hinduism influences it? Law students know that the architect of the Indian Penal Code is not an ethnic Indian. Was the code influenced by Christian values?

There are Muslims who claim that these 'secular' laws from the 'decadent Christian West' are un-Islamic. The fact that a secular liberal state is one which in theory does not get involved with matters religious nor inhibits in any way religious expression and activities, is somewhat lost in this understanding.

Some of us may get tied up in knots about Christianity being 'West'; but if we ascribe to the view that unnatural sex is immoral, then East meets West in this argument and some can happily lay claim to it being Asian. Others simply say that 'unnatural sex' being in the realm of the other (therefore deviant) must be by that fact alone, intrinsically wrong.

Our infamous sodomy case is only very recent. The deposed deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim is serving a nine-year sentence under this law. A bail application will be heard on July 14 pending appeal. There are allegations that he was convicted on trumped-up charges, but the point is, section 377 is a morality law.

We might note that 'unnatural sex' laws are repealed in many other jurisdictions by laws on sexual violence. Violence (e.g. lack of consent) becomes the key ingredient to establish a sexual offence.

Sexuality is political

Our values, whether premised on cultural-religious traditions, philosophical principles or even gut feeling, abhor violence but large sections of the population - including out-going Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed - are not ready to decriminalise 'unnatural sex'.

The so-called sodomy law hangs like a sword of Damocles over entire homosexual tax-paying citizens with the power to vote.

However, with still entire 'right-minded' populations attributing sin and retribution, social condemnation and stigma to consensual homosexual sex, no right-thinking lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgendered, queer person is coming out, speaking out and challenging this morality law. There is perhaps some small comfort in the vote and sexuality is a political issue.

The fact remains that people unhappy with the enforcement of morality, whatever their sexual choices, are not exactly falling over themselves in opposing the 'unnatural sex'" law.

We may get a little keliru (confused) in dealing with policy makers and legislators on issues of morality and sexuality.

We draw lines. Holding hands is okay. Groping body parts in public is not okay. A peck on any part of the face is okay. Wailing and nursing babies excepted, a tongue on any body part in a public display is not okay.

Sexual intercourse in a public park is not okay. Most are adamant however, that it is nobody's business, certainly not the state or busybodies of whatever persuasion, faith and belief, what consenting adults do in private (with or without blue VCDs). These are informed by all of our religious, philosophical values.

We think and hope that the enforcement of the law would at least accord with our sense of decency (which may be diverse). We think enforcement must not be dependent upon the complete discretion of some civil servant or municipal officer in the drawing-up of guidelines.

In the hand-holding incidents of Ipoh, concerned citizens have courageously challenged the over-zealous enforcement of the bylaw and no less a personage that the in-coming Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (photo) had to openly caution enforcers on the matter.

Whatever may be the decisions of politicians and civil servants, public vigilance remains an important factor in securing, protecting and maintaining our civil liberties.

In this, the work of civil society actors in the formation of an inter-religious council proposed at a workshop facilitated by the Malaysian Bar on May 17 is a step in the right direction to build and foster a greater understanding of our multi-culturalism.(*)

There is a reasonable expectation exacted by the vote to our representatives that there must be clear policies and principles in the implementation of law and the protection of fundamental liberties including the freedom of conscience, practice, belief and religion.

Islamic morality

Malaysians are expressing real concerns that the enforcement of even civil laws in this country may have been informed by Islamic morality.

There are emerging complaints such as the banning of the sale of pork openly (Kajang, Selangor) and the issuance of licences for dogs upon consent of Muslim neighbours (Johore). (I am however not entirely convinced that the ban of alcohol advertisements and the case of dog licences are informed solely by Islamic teachings.)

The constitutional arrangements in the Federal Constitution (1957/1963) recognise the parallel legal system of Civil law and Islamic law in matters carefully itemised in the federal and state lists. Muslims come under the jurisdiction of both the Civil and Islamic law system.

Non-Muslims in theory are not subject to Muslim law. The rulings on pork and licences for dogs are not state Muslim laws.

There are concerns that the nature of the Malaysian constitutional arrangements are slowly being eroded in the assertions of an Islamic identity espoused by its Muslim political leaders of the main Malay-Muslim parties, Umno and Pas together with most Malay-Muslim based NGOs.

It is unclear whether Islam as religion of the federation should necessarily colour the socio-political life of the nation.

These wider concerns go beyond the dog-licence and pork-selling prohibitions although these are seen as the manifestations of the creeping Islamic identity.

Unfortunately, there is no political will to allow or promote a rigorous debate on the matter. The current islamisation or Islamic state debate is presently framed as a contestation of power with little intellectual integrity.

* Note: Points of Agreement developed and adopted by participants of the workshop, 'Towards The Formation Of An Inter-Religious Council ' on May 17, 2003:

1. that there is a need for a statutory body whose primary objective shall be to advance, promote and protect every individual's freedom to thought, conscience and religion with a view to harmonious co-existence in our society;

2. that such harmonious co-existence is integral to the happiness, welfare and prosperity of the Malaysian people;

3. that the said body shall be an independent body of a consultative and advisory nature. For clarity, the body shall not have any adjudicatory functions;

4. that the said body shall have the following broad functions:

a. to identify values and ethical standards universal to all religions, faiths, beliefs and ways of life with a view to promoting the same;

b. to identify and recommend ways in which harmonious co-existence in larger society can be promoted and achieved with a view to national harmony and unity; and

c. to receive address and make recommendations in respect of complaints or grievances brought by persons, bodies or organisations in connection with the individual's right to profess and practice his or her religion or faith of choice;

5. that a national conference be convened for the purpose of further considering these proposals with a view to the implementation of the same; and

6. that a steering committee be established for the purpose of taking all necessary steps towards ensuring the success of the national conference and further to convene the said conference.