My take on the current polygamy debate over the Perlis policy boils down to this.

Marriage (whether monogamy or polygamy) is expected (more by women) to be life-long and all embracing: "Marriage is not merely a contract between a man and a woman. Besides the physical and biological aspects of it, there is a social face to it, it is a contract of the hearts, it involves the sharing of resources and values, it involves a psychological and spiritual connection, caring and the shared burden and joy of bringing children into this world and raising them" ( A betrayal of Trust by Malaysian Woman).

Now that you have heard from Malaysian Woman, think about it, Malaysian men.

Can a man guarantee for sure what his feelings will be for the woman three months down the road, much less a lifetime?

Unless one can be sure that one's decision to marry a woman, whether out of love or sublimated lust, can last three decades down the road, marriage as a "contract of hearts" reflects more a triumph of aspiration and hope over reality — a bondage rather than a voluntary commitment of the lasting kind.

For many, the reality after the first flush of wedded bliss is domestic cares and responsibilities, management of conflicts, mounting bills and financial stress, worries for children's welfare etc. It is to fantasise about other women with whom one cannot, as long as one remains married to another, carry on an open relationship without guilt and lies.

As stated by Malaysian Woman, it is a commitment tantamount to "contract of hearts" — meaning that the act of marrying one is to signify the forsaking of all other women in the world, and in renunciation of all romantic and sexual possibilities of the unknown future.

If one is marrying the second because one is tired of the first, there is the very likelihood that one will be faced, in advanced age, the prospect of having two wives instead of one to be tired about. It is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Malaysian Woman said that wives are entitled to "share" (meaning appropriate for use) the husband's resources without competition from another woman. Resources will include money, assets, time, indeed your person.

But even if a man has sufficient "resources" to afford two or more wives and families, can he manage and arbitrate their incessant competition for these resources without losing peace of mind?

PAS spiritual leader, Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat has said that as a condition for polygamy, you have to be able to accord fair treatment to all the wives.

This implies that when you, for example, give a credit card to one wife on the occasion of a festive season, the other would also want one of same benefits and drawing limits (One supplementary platinum card begets another). When you send the children of one family to an expensive private school or take them abroad for a holiday break, the other family will clamour too for the same privilege.

How much money and time can you afford to provide for at least two or three major holidays for families a year? How do you divide your birthday or Valentine's Day between two or three families? When you sleep with one wife three nights a week, the other will also demand three nights in rotation leaving you only one night per week to recuperate your energy from performing your conjugal duties.

If what Malaysian woman said is true of women's expectations of men in marriage — all embracing and forever till death do us part — then unless one can be absolutely sure that three decades down the road, one will still tremble in excitement or at least glow with contentment at the sight and companionship of the same woman (now aged) — and it is very hard to think how one can be sure of this — it will be daunting for a man to get married to even one much less two or more wives!

The easing of polygamy rules then by Perlis may offer opportunities for fervent debate of opposing ideological positions but in real life, does it have practical effect on men's behaviour?

The fact that polygamy laws in Perlis are eased does not necessarily mean that more men will opt for this "dubious" privilege — or burden depending on one's point of view — than the situation otherwise would have been. Would easing of polygamy laws or tightening of monogamous laws have practical effect on men's behaviour?

Those of the men who would avail to this privilege of lesser restrictions in polygamy, would probably have liaisons even if the restrictions were not removed. They would have crossed the border to Thailand to sanctify the second marriages. Or they would have, in spite of being already married, still consorted with other women and even beget children by them outside legitimacy and without rights and status.

Human rights are not just about men being not allowed with ease to be polygamous in relation to their wives, as 'matrimonomaniacs' are inclined to argue.

Human rights also concern the rights of the second women and children in relation to the first and her children. Given an unavoidable situation of some married men involving with another outside marriage, it is neither fair nor equal to accord the first family with all the legal rights and social status to share the man's resources while the second women and children are socially condemned as mistresses and bastards respectively, and legally excluded from sharing the 'errant' men's pie.

For equality and fairness between man and woman to subsist for the sake of human dignity, so too there must, in relations between women — the wife and the significant other — some form of equality and fairness. You can't accord all warmth in the heath to the first and leave the other in the cold. Where the first wife is allowed to occupy the main mansion, the latter and her children deserve at least the shelter of the guest house next to it, so to speak, metaphorically.

Perlis' stand of easing polygamy (to legitimise the 'other woman') may be supported if, in fairness to first wife faced with the prospect of her husband taking another, she is accorded the right and option to either accept the situation or be allowed to divorce him in both cases of which she ought to be entitled to adequate matrimonial asset division and maintenance (especially when she has no means of her own) and rights to custody based on children's needs.

This may not assuage all of the wife's feelings of hurt and betrayal as Malaysian Woman said but it is till a measure of recompense in mitigation of the hurt and betrayal.

As for the man seeking another wife to share further his financial, emotional and genetic "resources", let him be the work horse or bull that he wants to be and deserves. There is not much point to debate to tighten laws to prevent him from choosing to be such .