AB Sulaiman in his piece Morality and law, Keturunan Melayu style exhibits a lack of appreciation of Islam and of the law. However before I go on to give my reasons for saying so, I would like to make a short excursion to touch on the issue of decency.

The Ooi and Siow case (which has been much discussed in the media despite it being pending in Court) to me still concerns the specific issue of decent behaviour and not on the larger issue of morality.

The liberal voice seems to suggest that there is no need for society to have any propriety of behaviour or language in public. But this is not the case in most Eastern societies as demonstrated by Dapsy in their exhibition in front of Dewan Bandaraya which appears to have been such a tame affair.

Easterners, I believe have still retain their sense of what Muslims refer to as 'Haya', and that was why there was no lip kissing in public by the Dapsy protestors because it is not respectable behaviour here.

It is for this same reason that the Indians in India were offended when a starlet gave a peck on the cheek when greeting Prince Charles on his visit to India or when the South Koreans raised an outcry over the exposing of belly buttons.

However, Western influence is undoubtedly eroding these restraints as a result of which young people do not make a distinction between behaviour in private and in public. Instead of keeping to our values, we now fork out money to attend courses on how to conduct ourselves and have newspaper columns telling us on how to behave; to the extent that people now have to be counselled on how to dress for a job interview.

Now turning to Islam, I wish to quote from Muhammed Asad who has succinctly explained the Islamic worldview, but I do this at the risk of casting pearls. He says:

'The intimate connection between religion and politics which is so characteristic of Muslim history is, more often than not, somewhat unpalatable to modern, Western educated Muslims who have grown accustomed to considering questions of belief and of practical life as belonging to entirely separate realms. On the other hand, it is impossible to gain a correct appreciation of Islam without paying full attention to this problem. Anyone who is acquainted, however superficially, with the teachings of Islam knows that they not only circumscribe man's relation to God, but also lay down a definite scheme of social behaviour to be adopted in result of that relation.

'Starting from the fundamental assumption that all aspects of natural life have been God-willed and possess, therefore, a positive value of their own, the Qur'an makes it abundantly clear that the ultimate purpose of all creation is the compliance of the created with the will of the Creator. In the case of man, this compliance called Islam is postulated as a conscious, active coordination of man's desires and behaviour with the rules of life decreed by the Creator. This demand presupposes that at least with reference to human life the concepts of "right" and "wrong" have meanings that do not change from case to case or from time to time but retain their validity for all times and all conditions.

'Obviously, no definitions of "right" and "wrong" arrived at through our speculation can ever possess such eternal validity, for all human thought is essentially subjective and, therefore, strongly influenced by the thinker's time and environment. Hence, if it is really the purpose of religion to guide man toward a coordination of his desires and his behaviour with the will of God, he must be taught in unmistakable terms how to differentiate between good and evil and, consequently, what to do and what not to do. A mere general instruction in ethics such as "love your fellow men," "be truthful," "put your trust in God" does not suffice, because it is subject to many conflicting interpretations. What is needed is a precise body of laws which would outline, however broadly, the whole sphere of human life in all its aspects spiritual, physical, individual, social, economic and political.'

The modernist 'first class' mind (in essence a non-believer) will baulk at this worldview. To them, it is quite unbelievable that God can instruct them on how to live, since they are in a better position to know "right" from "wrong".

If this 'first class' mind truly has the courage of this conviction I challenge them to organise for the abolishment of the Employees Provident Fund. If they are sincere in what they believe how do they reconcile this with their acceptance of the state organising ones' savings. Shouldn't each individual be left to decide for themselves how they wish to make their savings?

Similarly, Sulaiman may be surprised to find that even in secular law, morality, religion and law are inextricably interwoven and the law is infused with principles from religion and is not only concerned with mundane regulatory matters.

The proscription of theft, murder, perjury etc, in secular law is entirely based on religious edicts. If one goes further, one would find that principles of fairness, justice, equity and good conscience are all derived from religion.

Ask any lawyer and he/she will tell you that the neighbour principle in the law of negligence, defining the scope of duty of care, was inspired by the second commandment in the New Testament.

The law is part of life and is full of verve and not all dry bones that some would like us to believe.