I read in the New Sunday Times that plans are under way to make it an offence for an unmarried couple to hold hands in public. The apparent reason is that holding hands is the starting point culminating in having sex outside of the sanctity of marriage.

Some city councils like Ipoh and Shah Alam are reportedly already applying this rule.

My 'flabbergasted indicator' always works overtime whenever I come across this kind of situation. I am flabbergasted by this very idea, a nine out of a maximum of 10.

I do not know who started this ruling. I certainly do not understand why our lawmakers would spend so much time and resources coming up with this kind of petty and terribly unnecessary ruling. About the only good thing I can think of is that perhaps they have no other major issues to legislate.

A few weeks ago, they made it a virtual crime for the lyrics of Malay songs to be mixed with foreign words. It was then quickly withdrawn when an irate public reacted very unfavourably to it. And now this.

I believe that the law in principle exists on two counts (i) to protect a person from the government, and (ii) to protect him from his fellow man.

Morality and its upholding and protection come under religious gurus, particularly the ustaz, the ulama, and some religious extremist civil servants. It surely does not come under the ambit of either the government or the ordinary man on the street.

These sentinels of public morality seem to have their own values and their own sense of good and bad. Sex outside marriage is 'bad.' So doing anything that could lead to it, like holding hands, is deemed to be as bad as the sex itself.

To these people, prevention is better than cure. So if they could prevent sex outside marriage by preventing the first step towards committing it - like holding hands - then they feel it necessary to make holding hands an unlawful act.

I am of the opinion that their view might have some form of credibility 30, 40, 50 maybe 100 years ago. During those ancient times marriage was a 'holy matrimony' and usually on an arranged basis.

A boy and a girl just did not meet, and if they did, only once or twice before marriage, and even then usually in the presence of relatives from both sides. That was the time of the extended family system where the married couple would integrate with the larger family framework.

In the world of today, things have definitely changed. For good or for bad is not the point, but change it has. I can list a few items that would give the indication that the world of today is totally different from that of yesterday.

One, modernisation. The youths of today are living in an environment of better health, faster maturity, higher education level, more solid economic background, besides living in urban areas. Their behaviour would reflect the present social conditions.

Two, mobility. The youth of today move faster, and travel to more places than their counterparts of the earlier years did. They are exposed to more ideas and debate and conceptualise on a bigger issues.

Three, communications. They enjoy communication systems that reduce distances to naught, and shrink the planet earth into a global village.

Four, medical advances. In the past there was no such thing as birth control pills or such. Sex would inevitably lead to the production of offspring. Today, sex (or more precisely the human reproduction process) is so much within the control of medical science and technology, that it is no longer an item solely for reproduction but also for recreation and pleasure.

Five, the role of women. In the past women were to stay in the house and raise the family, while the man was decidedly the bread winner. This is no longer the case. There are very many career women - lawyers, doctors, accountants, bankers and even women ministers in government service.

Six, the growing numbers of the population. In today's world we have to think in terms of huge numbers of population. In the middle 1900s, the population of Malaya was at about five to six million. Now people who call themselves Malaysians are at about 23 million, and counting. We live mostly in towns and cities.

Living in a town and city has its own stresses, for life in a very large population centres can be very impersonal and cruel. Everyone is in a rat race where dog eats dog. The world at large is full of competition and challenge, so having a good sense of the individual is important, indeed vital for a youth to succeed.

Put all this together and we see modern youth having to meet the challenges of a world totally different from us, their fathers.

One of the things he has to do is to develop satisfying social interaction with his peers and with society at large. He has to create a bonding with every person of relevance to his specific needs.

Holding hands during this period of bonding is a start, and should be the least of the problems he has to deal with.

And now the authorities are going to make it difficult for him to do just that. Why? Because the morality sentinels have thought it prudent that the act of holding hands might lead to sex outside of marriage.

So what of it if youth has the means, the intellect, the faculty, the opportunity, the need, the willingness to have sex for love, pleasure, recreation, release of stress and many other reasons?

In any case, I do not believe that our modern youth of today will immediately fall into the uncontrollable situation of wanting sex just on account of holding hands. We have to give them a bit more respect than that. They are more intelligent and smarter than we think they are.

My worry comes when our religious sentinels want to apply their own sets of values formed many years in the past. They seem to say and think that the social environment of today is the same as yesterday.

Alternatively they seem to be ignorant of the changes that have taken place in the modern world, some of which I have listed above. If they choose to live with this understanding and keep it close to their hearts, I wish them all the best.

But when they legislate their views and affect other people's lives, then I think the element of fair play is breached. I cannot accept a situation when they impose their views and values virtually at will.

We are very much at their mercy. Perhaps the government should construct some legislation protecting us from these self-appointed moral guardians.

My other concern is that the guru and the ulama seem to have locked in their minds the concept that morality can and should be legislated. Again as a non-legal layman, I believe morality relates to values, and being so, it is non-quantifiable and non-measurable. So it is patently difficult to legislate it.

Morality should not be legislated. Otherwise, where do we stop in punishing people for (im)morality? Do we punish Asmah Ali for not wearing a tudong and therefore exposing her hair? Do we punish Ali bin Atan for not praying five times a day?

I imagine the moral police coming to Ali saying 'Encik, saya nampak encik tidak sembahyang Jumaat hari ini. Ini tiket saman. Pergi bayar RM300 dekat balai polis Jalan Dang Wangi.' I do say it would be a mockery to religion.

As a closing remark, I wish to just bring up the rather unpleasant subject of incest and child rapes that are reported very regularly in the papers. A number of these acts had even resulted in death.

Is it or is it not true that most of the perpetrators are invariably Muslim? The ulama in this country have gone all out to say that this sordid correlation, if true, is due to the fact that these Muslim perpetrators have erred from the true teachings of Islam.

I have always desisted from this rationalisation. Allow me to put my 10-sen view: it is due to the perpetrators being denied any sexual outlet outside (or even inside) the sanctity of marriage.

The real reason for the condition of denial can be any one from a very long list. But the effect is one: that they are invariably sex-starved, and hungry for sexual expression and an outlet.

So once in a while (more ever so often) young or helpless victims (who may be close relatives or family friends) have to suffer whenever the perpetrators have the opportunity to release their sexual tensions.

A less rigid sex regime could create an escape valve for the immense pressure caused by sexual denial. A more realistic sex regime can help lessen the burden. There is something to be said for the most innocuous act of just holding hands.