Poizen Pen's letter, although well-intentioned, is a little over the top ( Ditch local products, ladies ). Saying things like the possibility of forcing the victim to marry the rapist becoming a law in this country is without basis and a very poor attempt at ridiculing our lawmakers.

In effect, putting aside her obvious preference for foreign gratification as opposed to local sub-standard offerings - of course, I mean that in a purely holistic context - she is very close to belittling the very religion that I believe she embraces.

My take on the section of the Islamic Family Law dealing with shared income is that it was conceived for certain special rich men who have, or plan to have, more than one wife. It is an accepted fact that almost all men put their extra income in their wife's name, some more, some less. It is a matter of ensuring the security of the family. This arrangement is fine and dandy until the husband decides to have another wife.

All of a sudden, the money or property is no longer easily accessible for the insecure spouse. Without this law, technically speaking as long as they stay married, all of it belongs to the wife and the poor man has no legal recourse to his 'loot'. This takes on a whole new dimension when you consider that the fortune could be in the millions.

Now I ask you, who are these multi-millionaire Malay men who instead of putting some their hard-earned money and property in their own names feel compelled to put it in their wife's names instead, and now needs a law to protect their interests, and for good measure make sure that they don't even have to tell the wife that they want another?