EVEN AS THE cabinet decided on Wednesday that no student of any faith should be coerced to wear the headscarf or tudung, Higher Education Minister Datuk Dr Shafie Mohd Salleh was quoted as saying otherwise.

The issue of an enforced dress code on female students at the International Islamic University (IIU) received fresh attention last month when the Dewan Rakyat was told a non-Muslim law graduate could not receive her degree during IIU's convocation ceremony because she was without a headscarf.

Parliament was told by no less than Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Dr Maximus Ongkili that the government endorsed IIU's dress code that Muslim and non-Muslim women must wear a headscarf while on campus.

The minister in charge of national unity was reported to have said IIU's ruling was not a religious one, but merely an administrative matter.

Meanwhile, Shafie has defended IIU's position despite a cabinet consensus about non-compulsion. All students, he said, must adhere to IIU's dress code. Non-Muslim women did not have to don a full tudung but must still cover their head with a scarf as a sign of respect to Islam, he said.

To have one minister firstly describe IIU's mandatory dress code as merely an administrative procedure and then have another assert that there is a difference between a full tudung and a scarf must either be disingenuous or short-sightedness on these ministers' part.

In many conservative societies of any faith, women's dressing is often used as a way to not just define piety but also to exert control over women's bodies and movement.

In nearly all cultures globally, from the Biblical Eve to Afghan women living under Taliban rule to those now working in the Malaysian Parliament, women's bodies are often defined as the seat of all temptation.

Even if this is not explicitly stated, the fact that there are men, including Umno Member of Parliament (MP) Badruddin Amiruldin and PAS leaders, and within cabinet and the IIU administration, who insist on women covering up underscores this fact. Notice how men are rarely, if ever, told how they should dress in order to maintain public order and morality?

The argument that women must cover up to prevent sinful male behaviour is not just illogical but an insult to most men who, because of their intellect and/or faith, do not commit a sin or act criminally at the mere sight of a woman's hair, face, arms or legs.

Remember when the Kelantan PAS government decided to impose a RM50 maximum fine on women who didn't wear the headscarf, and threatened to remove employers' business licences if their female staff did not cover up?

When women are forced to wear a headscarf of any kind - or forced not to wear it for example, in state schools in France - it is really very political in nature. When the ways in which women's bodies are viewed becomes codified in mandatory dress codes which women have no say about, and when governments endorse this, the state is in fact saying that women need to be controlled.

Remember also how PAS denounced the Court of Appeal's decision that upheld a ban on schoolboys wearing Muslim turbans in government schools?

These examples show that dress codes are not mere administrative matters pertaining to uniforms. Instead, they are located within and fuelled by a particular religious and political context and often signify who is wielding power over whom and which religious interpretation reigns supreme over others.

The truth is, who is to say that a mere "administrative matter" about uniforms is not the slippery slope that leads to girls not being allowed to go to school and women not being allowed out alone in the name of religion?

And lest non-Muslims think that only Muslims will be affected by Muslim laws and codes, the IIU example is another clear sign that non-Muslims may not be exempt in a country that may be multiracial, but in which one religion is deemed dominant.

But this is not just about Muslims imposing a particular dress code on non-Muslims. The IIU case is also about how Muslims themselves - especially women - who are being forced to adhere to a particular dress code despite the diverse views on what constitutes awrah among both classical and contemporary jurists.

But there is very little room and less so intellectual integrity in Malaysia to openly discuss and fully understand these different views.

And yet, one particular brand of Islam is currently being used officially in universities and municipal councils and who knows, perhaps soon in Parliament, over other understandings and practices of the same faith, and worse, over other faiths.

We can only hope that not just the cabinet but others in authority begin to seriously consider the implications of such a situation.