I read with great interest Elizabeth Wong and Dr Farish Noor's opinion piece Why we need to keep the state out of our bedrooms and Tai Lo Chin's letter Close bedroom door to state, a matter of how.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that a person's private life (including her/his sexual preference) should not be a matter of public concern, it is difficult to deny that the reality in Malaysia does not reflect that notion. As Wong and Farish themselves admit, there are more than enough people out there who are all too eager to consume and disseminate information regarding other people's private lives and as Tai pointed out, the answer to 'how can we keep the state out of our bedrooms' is a simple 'No way!'.

Taking such a culture into consideration and to be practical, I suspect that those who find themselves helplessly sucked into the black hole of sleazy gossips, such as that on Puteri Umno chief Azalina Othman Said, will find the issue of 'whether the state should peer into our bedrooms' less urgent compared to the issue of whether we are ready to defend the presumption that 'one is innocent until proven otherwise'.

Since victims of sleazy accusations are unable to defend themselves by saying that the accusers have no business in the victims' private lives, they should at least be able to defend themselves according to the laws of the country the very laws which allows the state to poke its long nose into one's private life.

Our legal system refrains from convicting a person before she/he has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, having been afforded due process of law.

Be that as it may, another reality that lurks in our midst is the existence of 'extra-judicial judges' such as the media and of course, the public at large. Even before a sleazy allegation finds its way to the police station or to the court, it becomes sensationalised beyond imagination. Books are written about the allegations. Tabloid newspapers are created for the sole purpose of exploiting the issue. Plenty of mudslinging ensue, eventually leading to further complications.

Realising the great potential of these 'extra-judicial judges' in the effort to force a person's fall from grace, as well as to make lots of quick profit, opportunists and character assassins found a new use in police reports, newspapers, the television and so forth. Commercially speaking, those items have become handy tools for their trade. The truth is that people thrive on sleazy gossips, and sadly, there are few alternatives for those who are subjects of such gossips.

If members of the society claim to be 'righteous' by condemning unconventional sexual practices, should they not be as righteous in respecting the right of the alleged 'sinner' to defend herself/himself against allegations of sexual 'impropriety'? We should not allow ourselves to abet the murder of any personalities or characters through anything as unreliable as wild gossips. The next thing we know, this unbecoming practice may befall our children, siblings, friends, loved ones and ourselves.

It will be very sad indeed if we were to become a nation where the police is made to concentrate its precious resources to investigate allegations of so-and-so's private life that does not cause problems to the public (until the investigations started, that is) when there are rape cases, murders, robberies, terrorism, corruption and countless other crimes which affect the well-being of the public. And worse, the society expects the police to do so.

Having said all these, I believe that in the long term, keeping the state out of our bedrooms is an effective measure of putting a stop to the unhealthy practice mentioned above. In that way, sleazy allegation mongers are deprived of the platform to carry out their business. The line must be drawn at our doorsteps otherwise it is business as usual for them.