Early on, the puritanical consternation was fixated on what women were "under wearing" at public counters of government offices that vexed tribal sensibilities.
Now, it's the men's turn for committing this inoffensive infringement. Seven men in Tanah Merah, Kelantan, were slapped with minor fines for wearing what most guys in west coast cities take for granted — slipping on thigh-length shorts, most likely athletic garb, probably after playing football.
There are subtle differences between these "offences" by the sexes, but let's work out the transgressing principles. In the women's case, personnel at a government hospital and a police station refused to entertain the female emergencies because, in their distress, their normal but "spare" clothing failed to meet the standard of some civil service by-law. Fine, but it remains vague if the same officious reaction has been tempered after an outburst of public incredulity.
As for the men's offence, a paradox emerges: what if the sporting professionals compete in shorts or something more revealing, especially if they perform in Kelantan, say, the Sukma Games? Anticipate fines per appearance, game or rostrum finish? Yet, the nature of the offence is galling in its geographical confluence: Instead of getting cheered for sporting excellence in the national or international stage, wearing the same outfit in the east coast state leads to embarrassment and humiliation. It's bizarre.
To be sure, the Muslim men's exposure is considered a religious anathema: men must be covered at least from the waist down to below the knee. Note that the chief morality inspector is the Kelantan Religious Affairs Department (JHEAIK), thus the religious undertone of the offence which, ironically, goes unpunished and nonchalantly accepted elsewhere.
Granted, many Muslim athletes wear leggings (or the hijab) that match the colour scheme of their formal kit in competitions, but these are personal choices not regulated by sports governors. So, will JHEAIK round up male and female athletes, whose apparel disturbs their orthodoxy in the heat of competition?
JHEAIK may loftily uphold their codified prudishness but in perspective, it's a dismal commentary on how old-line mores have bent on the extreme over the decades. While their eyes police fashion they deplore (department stores once had to remove mannequins donning "inappropriate" dresses), their eyes glaze over socio-economic problems and decaying public infrastructure and amenities.
These are but surface testaments to this farcical imbalance. We also can't help but observe that the surging puritanism parallels the belligerent sectarianism that held various anti-Malaysia positions that browbeat our sanctified pluralism, so much so that the prime minister was compelled to issue a high security alert.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the ill will appear to be teasers for the looming six state elections, a political conspiracy designed to energise the base but unnerve the rest of us.