I write in response to Morality standards must reflect pluralist Malaysia.

This letter by Malaysians Against Moral Policing (Mamp) is certainly a step in the right direction. I agree most with their insistence for an 'open, inclusive and collective effort' when discussing issues pertaining to morality and the impact of our definitions of 'what is right' on the conduct of individuals.

Yet, I feel that this letter, and indeed the entire debate regarding morality standards in Malaysia is missing the point. In economics, when the actions of an individual affect the welfare of another individual in such a way that the 'offending individual' is not made to pay for his transgression, we say that there is market failure in the form of a negative externality.

This gives a justification for the government to curb the freedoms of the 'offending individual', in relation to his 'offending' activity. An obvious example would be the case of a smoker, whose freedom to smoke in an air-conditioned office is rightly curtailed as his actions impose a verifiable health threat on his colleagues.

This is essentially the foundation of any argument attempting to justify moral policing. Mini-skirts, holding hands in parks, swimsuits, drinking alcohol, nightclubs all impose an adverse psychic cost on sections of society in varying degrees.

If the majority of citizens in a country deem the sight of swimsuits vulgarly offensive, then swimsuits should be banned. Equally well, if 'society' found the idea of unescorted women venturing out on the streets offensive, then a ban should be imposed.

With these two examples, we can see that it is clearly fatuous to imagine an analogy between the case of the smoker, and the situation of the unescorted woman.

The curtailment of the freedom of the smoker was justified because his action imposed a scientifically verified and quantifiable threat to the physical well-being of a fellow human being. In the second case, the actions of the unescorted woman imposed a psychic cost on the well-being of members of this (presumably) ultra-conservative society.

The key difference here is not that the opinion of society regarding the status of women is irrelevant, but rather that such things as feelings of disgust, distaste and moral disapproval can never be objectively quantified.

It is demeaning to human intelligence to imagine so fundamental and rationally justifiable a right as human freedom being subjugated to something as flimsy and varying as the moral prejudice of society.

It is therefore unsurprising that I disagree with Mamp who believes that the 'government has a vital role to play in shaping and strengthening public morality in Malaysia'. Contrary to legislating and enforcing the moral prejudices of the majority, the role of government should be to protect and defend the right of freedom of the minority.

The philosopher Rousseau wrote that 'man is born free, but is everywhere in chains' when speaking of the oppressive nature of aristocratic governments in the 18th century which intruded into and attempted to dictate aspects of citizens' lives.

Civilisation has moved a long way since then, with, among others, the spread of democracy, female emancipation, education, labour rights and social mobility. Let us not make a mockery of these freedoms and rights we have won by attempting to regulate how our women dress, how our friends express their sexuality or what films we might want to watch.