Steve Oh's article, [#1]Curbing the naked debauchery of media sex[/#] (Feb 22), fans the flames of moral panic a trifle too overzealously. Of course, there is no doubt that western media movies and advertisement are increasingly sexually more explicit, and the fact that they are motivated by commercial profit give moral crusaders like the writer extra ammunition to blame them for social problems and ills out of their shame.

Western societies unlike Asian ones are generally more open about sex and seek a balance between expression and repression. Sex is recognised as a basic human physiological need, the expression of which, whether for procreation or recreation, is, according to westerners, as much a democratic and human right as (say) the right to free speech etc.; and the repression of which fosters hypocrisy and other forms of deviant anti-social behaviour.

In such societies dedicated to secular government, administration and laws, often the line drawn against too aggressive a prosecution of sexual expression is the criterion of harm. Hence, homosexuality is tolerated if no harm is implicated when the parties are consenting adults; paedophilism is not tolerated because of its harm to children whose tender age evinces the lack of real consent; rape is prosecuted because it represents an attack on and harm to the victim (irrespective of gender) without the latter's consent.

The sexually explicit content of media movies and advertisement is therefore tolerated in western societies precisely because freedom of sexual expression is as much a freedom as that of freedom of speech to be upheld in the absence of manifest harm verifiable by empirical data resulting from exposure to it. So much emphasis is given to sexual expression because western values extol transparency (not to be confined only to government or corporate dealings) but also in regard to areas of physiological need.

Indeed, by pushing forward too aggressively a morally sanitised agenda like the form advocated by the writer without confronting the reality of sex is like ignoring the elephant in the room. The repression of sexuality through guilt, shame, moralising, to the extent that it alienates people from their bodies and desires, will on the contrary be viewed as a major barrier to mental and emotional health.

To be sure, the above perspectives are not shared or empathised by Malaysians who like other Asians are more religious and conservative compared with Westerners. This however does not mean Malaysians will go overboard and join the writer's moral crusade without proper application of thought and study.

In the holy haste to champion this moral crusade, the writer clearly made a sweeping statement when he said that he "supported Dr Mahathir's and Islamic initiatives to curb the bad influences of Bollywood movies and certain negative Western pop music".

I do not know if the writer in giving such support has ever seen Bollywood movies in Perth but over here there is certainly no consensus amongst Islamic bodies, let alone Malaysians in general, that Bollywood films purvey negative influences and cause social or sexual crimes that need curbing.

The National Fatwa Committee chairman Dr Ismail Ibrahim had clarified that the call to implicate Bollywood movies to social crimes was only the "personal opinion held amongst the Mufti Council members" and did not reflect that of Fatwa Committee; that the Mufti Council was not an institutionalised organisation set up by the government or the Islamic Affairs Department and therefore its members' views were not official views nor, may I add, reflective of the average Malaysian's view.

All that Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad said in response to such a call was to urge a scientific study to be conducted to determine if there was a nexus between Bollywood movies and social and sexual crimes and ills like, for example, incest and close proximity, before taking action.

Ismail pointed out the danger of drawing too simplistic an equation. For example, counting amongst many who were committing incest were many with strong religious backgrounds whom I surmise are not exposed to decadent influences of foreign and western media.

Malaysians should know that we couldn't be exposed to the Good that the Internet Age and Western Values offer without being equally exposed to their hedonistic and liberal or, as some would view it, 'loose' sexual moral values.

In an age of globalisation and Internet, Malaysians will have to interface with people of other races, cultures and values, and whilst maintaining a moral relativism in relation to, and tolerance of others' differing sexual mores, mature through exposure (rather than shelter) and learn to discern and choose what is suitable for application to ourselves or otherwise.

The writer's support for government control to stem what he described as "floodgates of evil into our society" is hard to empathise because firstly, even the PM himself concedes that in this age of Internet, CDs, cassettes and the likes, there is no effective way to intercept censor or curb seepage of certain western influences viewed negative.

The writer's tirade against "negative influences of undesirable foreign media" reflects a moral point of view subjective on his part to which he is entitled but to which some of us may not subscribe from that high moral platform and with that kind of evangelical zeal - at least to the degree of supporting (even in the absence of empirical data) any official move to restrict airing of Bollywood movies on the dubious grounds of their link with sexual crimes, to the chagrin of our Indian and Hindu friends.

It is curious that without a feeling of inconsistency, the writer could rail against negative influences of decadent western media on Asians, Australia being laden with fractured family unit and killing 100,000 unwanted babies and yet conclude that it "does not mean Westerners are more decadent than Asians". What does it mean then that Asian's resolve and self-control in the face of sexually explicit material are less than those of westerners?

That certainly is his conclusion when he said, "Until self-control is a virtue of most Malaysians, government control is a wise option. Prevention is better than cure".

I cannot agree that we Asians including Malaysians could not countenance the so-called decadent influences of foreign media in this Internet age with self-control as Westerners so as to justify paternalistic protection and enforced government control. The way to maturity and control is exposure rather than protection and shelter.