JUNE 16 — The British society was conservative in the 16th century.

It was the era of Queen Elizabeth I, who had united the United Kingdom and defeated the Spanish Armada, turned the Uk into a mighty country while expanding the empire and its influence.

The Queen had remained single till her death and was called “The Virgin Queen.” The way she dressed, always gorgeously with everything from her neck to her toes securely covered, had reflected her conservative personality.

At a meeting, the Queen found it indecent to have human legs and table feet exposed under the tables and thus, she made an order that all table sheets must be long enough to cover everything. Since then, all table feet at official functions were nicely covered.

Of course, being conservative in clothing did not affect the Queen's political progress and the golden age of the British Empire was created by the Queen.

The Queen had her own set of dress code. There were different dressing requirements to follow for government ministers and servants of different classes in the palace. The higher the position, the more gorgeous the clothing, while the lower classes also dressed in neat attires.

The etiquette spread to the whole society. The aristocratic families dressed very particularly, while the civilians' clothing was simple, but not ragged.

The British thus started to focus on the way they dressed and take it as a social etiquette. They then developed a set of dress code for different occasions, and the public was also required to comply with the dress code when they were in government agencies.

Over time, it evolved into a national etiquette of the British and developed into a kind of civilisation standard.

The dress code culture was then spread across the world when British officers and businessmen travelled to other countries or regions.

British officials still dressed decently with suits and ties even in tropical colonies and the respect the people paid to them was a political effect brought by the dress code culture.

The JPJ sarung incident reminded me of dress code.

The public must comply with the dress code when visiting government offices and it should have been a practice for a long time.

Although it is not recorded, I believe that it is a tradition passed down since the British colonial era. People of the older generations usually dress tidily presentably when they visit government offices or courts.

It is a social etiquette, as well as a kind of respect. Proper attire is one of the ways to show respect, and demand same respect from others.

From my personal point of view, dress code set by government departments and offices is a tradition, as well as an etiquette. Of course, it must not be enforced too strictly, such as requiring all visitors to have all their body parts covered like Queen Elizabeth I.

It should just be taken as a reference to require that all skirts must be long enough to cover the knees.

Instead of the length of the skirt, it was the association we have that have caused the strong reaction over the incident.

If the woman was forced to put on the sarung, it is then no longer the question of etiquette, but a humiliating act involving racial issue, which must not be tolerated.

However, we should perhaps think calmly whether it was a gesture of goodwill or malice when the JPJ officers handed her the sarung.

If the move was taken out of goodwill so that the woman would not have to return home to change her clothes, why should the people stir racial sentiment?

I think that criticisms over gold medallist gymnast Farah Ann Abdul Hadi's attire deserve more concern.

Functionality is an essential part in clothing. Farah was wearing standard approved leotards in her winning routine and the design of the attire was to facilitate athletes in performing their stunts.

However, Farah was accused of wearing revealing clothes, even condemned from a religious point of view.

It is sad as the Malaysian society has shown a tendency towards religious conservatism. Pan-religious arguments have infringed the field of sports. Instead of revealing clothes, the actual morality problem here might be the focus on the athletes' bodies, and not their performances. — Sin Chew Daily

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.