new

The arguments put forward by both proponents and opponents of polygamy are getting very confused.

Normally, it ought to be a question grounded on the principle of whether it is right or wrong, fair or unfair to women, for polygamy to be eased in dispensation with first wife's consent.

Instead of this right or wrong, fair or unfair measure of yardstick, Perlis takes the position based on geographical proximity.

State mufti Mat Jahaya Husin justified it on the basis that it would reduce the number of men travelling to southern Thailand to get hitched secretly ( More wives the merrier, say men as women plot polygamy curbs ). This is a strange reason. If it was done secretly in southern Thailand, it was because it was wrong for it to done it in Perlis.

According to the mufti's logic, the way to stop this wrong thing done across the border was to make the wrong a right in Perlis! Is Perlis easing polygamy because it is geographically near Thailand? So what of men in other states? The mufti is talking as if in spite of modern transportation, men from other states — unlike those from Perlis — cannot flock to southern Thailand to take advantage of the eased restrictions on polygamy.

The other proponent of easier polygamy, PAS spiritual leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat said that polygamists who dumped their first wives after "extracting all their sweetness" should be whipped until they become impotent. This is because taking on a second wife was to ensure the woman's welfare especially single mothers and not to satisfy men's sexual lust.

If this were the yardstick why does not Kelantan legislate to ease polygamy only in cases that meet these requirements — the second, third or fourth wife must be a single mother or widow whose children are abandoned by their biological fathers and preferably has no more "sweetness" and is menopausal and be of age 50 and above or at least not younger than the first wife.

If the criteria for polygamy or easing of polygamy is that the man has to prove he has the financial means and ability to treat all wives equally, would there be rules to prescribe the minimum cashflow and personal networth in terms of assets to be divided by the number of wives and children on per capita basis before the man becomes eligible? Besides equal treatment based on economic assistance, how does one measure equal treatment in other matrimonial areas like the conjugal duty of sex?

On the other side of the fence, women groups which uphold the interests of women and families have been systematically campaigning and educating society for men not to take more than one wife. The men are blamed for lust if they do so. Why are they picking on men as if they force women to become second wives?

Why can't women groups educate their own constituency which is women themselves not to accept a man who has already a wife?

If women themselves do not have qualms to take or carve a share of another woman's husband, why blame the men only and not the women who compete with other women for their husbands?

Knowing that men are driven by lust, women still want to marry men and then lobby for maintenance laws to restrict the men from subsequently "lusting" for other wives especially when other women are ever willing — is this fair to men or women other than the first wife?

Is it an accomplishment for women groups to secure a man to one wife not by winning his heart, mind and groins but by monogamous laws and rules? The laws and rules can be sidelined and circumvented for these cannot force a person. Laws and rules can neither make nor unmake desires.