This is in reference to both your reports 'S'gor gov't is crazy to restrict condom sale: AIDS activist' (Dec 6) and 'Minister lambasts plan to curb condom sales' (Dec 9).
Are they self-appointed guardians of morality in our society trying to safeguard our morals or is it just another Byzantine political manoeuver that characterises our political culture?
Doesn't one feel a sense of deja vu when recalling that Johor authorities tried to score political points by trying to play the religious card in proposing compulsory premarital testing for HIV/AIDS. When they faced a wall of resistance and criticisms from women groups and the Malaysian AIDS Council, they subsequently backed down by changing their tune from "compulsory" to "voluntary"?
HIV/AIDS is now the new 'bogeyman' after the prime minister's proclamation of the Islamic state. It is supposed to compete with, and trip PAS zealots!
Backing Selangor Youth Council's proposal, the state government is looking into the possibility of restricting the sale of condoms to stem promiscuity among teenagers.
While this enhances religious credentials all around, the citizens of this country sincerely hope that it is really our "morals" that are a subject of the authorities' protection and not some "wayang kulit" ploy to compete in religious credentials, solve personal difficulties, and parry and ward off unsavory allegations by PAS opposition members!
The country, and our nation building efforts will have no future if racial or religious card is flashed every time for political expedience to thwart attacks by personal or political opponents.
Think of the rakyat . With the AIDS threat, freely available condoms can be the only thing that stands between a death sentence and us.
The proposal gives Malaysian AIDS Council president Marina Mahathir an additional headache as she said, "chances are the cases of HIV infections will actually rise". (If Marina runs for office, I will vote for her).
Women and Family Development Minister Shahrizat Jalil lambasted the proposal because condoms are a protective mechanism to protect women from being infected by sexually transmittable disease including HIV from men. Unwanted pregnancies and women's control of their reproductive destiny are another burning issue among women.
To the truly religious, and some moral crusaders, the proposal has appeal (so politicians figure). Consider the arguments: Presently, even school children can purchase condoms from any side stalls or 7-Eleven stores; condoms encourage prostitution and homosexual acts.
Besides the religious and the moral, two other groups may also gain from the restrictions.
First, those physicians who thrive on abortion practices who will look forward to the restriction that may lead to more unwanted pregnancies profitable for their abortion practices.
While manufacturers and distributors of prophylactics and condoms may have reasons to worry, the groups vending oral contraceptives and birth control pill will look forward to a surge in demand by women for their products as a countermeasure against restriction on condom sales.
Of course, this state of rejoicing will be temporary if the moral guardians of our society further decree greater restrictions on sale of oral contraceptives on grounds that their availability equally conduces sexual promiscuity.
Yet even for our moral and religious guardians, there ought to exist more than one way at looking at this issue theologically.
If it might be true that availability of condoms promotes sexual promiscuity, it is definitely certain that condoms reduce the risk of STD/HIV transmission and avert certain death.
