Recently, the issue of public decency have been raised due to the prosecution of a young couple (Ooi and Siew) kissing in public places. In her support for the banning of the public showing of affections, Fathima Idris offered two justifications, one from a cultural point of view, the other religious.

Fathima would have us believe that the act of kissing is indecent in Eastern cultures and should be confined to the privacy of the bedroom. Whose Eastern culture is she referring to? Is she not familiar with the Kamasutra? There is a copious amount of 'indecent' material originating from Chinese culture as well.

Some of those 'indecent' materials are even carved in stone and in very public places. What about belly dancing, which is ever so popular in some Middle Eastern countries? Are Chinese, Indian and Middle-Eastern cultures not part of the Eastern culture? She may not be aware of these 'indecent' materials, God bless her, but Eastern culture is far from pure and 'decent' as she purports.

Western culture is always at the receiving end of the blame for the declining moral values in our country. The West serves as the convenient all-purpose scapegoat for all the social ills our country is facing. Has it ever crossed Fathima's mind that perhaps the declining moral values are due to the dearth of good leadership in our country?

Survey the speech and deeds of authorities - nude squats, blaming rape victims for their provocative dressing, etc. Are these so-called 'standard operating procedures' and chauvinistic attitudes Western imports as well?

By not censuring those who abuse power and spew hate speeches, it conveys the message that the government in general holds the same view. Perhaps the eagerness to legislate morality is a way to compensate for their lack of progress on other fronts.

Some people treat dogs as pets, some think of them as food, yet some find them beyond filthy. Some think of wearing the head scarf as a sign of piety, while some think it is a sign of oppression. Some think of kissing, holding hands and hugging as a form of affection and should be celebrated, while some find it indecent and should be banned from public places. Whose view should we enforce? Is it a simple matter of rule of the majority?

I find it rather puzzling that something as innocuous as holding hands can be construed as immoral. Frankly, I rather have the authority devote the same level of zealousness in banning smoking in public places than kissing. After all, smoking pollutes the air. On the other hand, if I don't want to see people kissing, I could just avert my eyes. But then again, kissing does not bring in obscene amount of tax money.

Fathima also invokes religious sentiments to justify her position. Firstly, that God has prescribed a set of eternal and immutable rules for all human beings to follows down to the very last detail. Secondly, that secular laws are based on religious commandments.

No one disagree that crimes like theft, murder and rape should be outlawed but that does not mean all religious edicts should be legislated, especially on non-believers. Besides, had God wanted believers who obeyed every command without question, He would have created computers, not human beings.

I do not question Fathima's right to live as a Muslim. She may observe the no-kissing-in-public rule to her content, but please do not impose her belief on others. Others kissing or holding hands or hugging in public in no way whatsoever affect her morality or piety.

As Confucius (Analects), Mencius, Jesus (Matthew), Hinduism (Mahabharata), Buddhism (Udana-Vaga), Islam (Hadith, Sunnah) and many others have said, do not do unto others what you do not wish done unto you and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is both an Eastern and Western value.