It is the writer's anti-polygamy remarks Chu uproar: just plain old sexism (March 5) that appear simplistic, and not convincing in logic or tenable by experience.

The argument against polygamy — to stop a man from "straying" and having "financially stressed families" is not plausible.

From a woman's view point: What man is worth keeping if the only reason he is not straying is because the law would not permit him from legally taking another wife? From a man's: who will embrace polygamy to financially stress himself and his extended families?

The fact is: monogamous laws have no more stopped non-Muslim married men from straying any more than polygamy has encouraged many already married Muslim men from taking more than one legal wife. Laws do not necessarily affect human nature (Personal economic circumstances and moral values play larger part).

Granted that a married man, by the moral standards of the writer, should not, in the first instance, irresponsibly and contrary to oath, get involved with another women.

But supposing he somehow has done so, and she begets him children.

He now wants to make amends and do something responsible and decent by marrying, with his wife's consent, the 'other woman' to give her and her children' legal and social recognition and recourse to his assets in the case he dies or reneges in his financial responsibilities.

He has met the conditions stipulated by his wife and she has given her consent and blessing. Why should he then be stopped by the law on bigamy from doing that, which is decent to the second woman and not unfair to the first consenting one?

How could monogamy be seriously argued to be favouring women in an unqualified sense when it favours only the first in time who registered her legal interest as wife over those many who come later to the man's life?

Polygamy is not an expression of men's proprietary interest over women as chattels. Far from it. It is other way around.

It is, in fact, recognition of more than one-woman proprietary and legal interest in the common husband's assets.

Monogamy — it, too, is a female proprietary thing. It is to minimise conflict between contending females by benchmarking their territorial rights to men and their properties. Monogamy therefore entitles the registered wife and her children to claim the husbands assets'and to deprive the "other woman" and her children from the same.

Monogamy or polygamy then is not an issue of men versus women or men's taking advantage of women. The man is a side show!

It is all about women versus other women. Monogamy is about a criterion based on legal registration of how to demarcate territorial boundaries over men's resources and how to confer exclusivity to registered legal wife over the rights of the competing subsequent other.

Among the principal causes of polygamy in the past was relative scarcity of males, arising sometimes from numerous destructive wars.

But nowadays men are still scarce, at least the good men, as women become more educated and expect more (The prime minister said ratio of female to male undergraduates were 70:30). Therefore suitable men as mates are still scare in that relative sense. Why not allow more women to share a few good one, if all are willing, rather than have them being either alone or settle for less with an incompetent man on monogamous basis?

The writer said "I am definite most people, men or women alike, do not relish sharing their partners. Wonder what men will say if women instead were allowed to poligamise"

I am sure that the writer is right that most people would not relish sharing their spouse. It however begs the question as to why the law should stop the remaining people, who, under certain conditions consent to share, from so doing.

In this modern age and time of women rights, we not talking about the barbarity of returning to polygamy in the hey days when a husband could unconditionally take another wife without the first wife's blessing or consent.

We are talking about legalising polygamy of a qualified form depending on financial viability of the man and his first wife's consent before the second may be taken.

It is not envisaged that this qualified form of polygamy replaces present monogamy, which many favour. But it is urged that it be allowed to be available as an option alongside monogamy. The upholding of any one system alone by prohibition of the other is like making one suit for all sizes.

To make choices available is to respect the fundamental human right to enter into serious legal commitment of one's own private relations (whether monogamy or polygamy) according to mutual terms, circumstances and choice of consenting adults.