Polygamy

"Politics of modern polygamy in modern Russia" Mar 15, 2006
"Why monogamy favours men" Mar 15,2006

Polygamy is more pertinent to the Muslim population as it is part of their religious practice. Recent controversian changes to laws that have brought the issue of polygamy to the front would be the proposed amendment to the Syariah Law in Malaysia to make it easier for men to take more than one wife(polygamy). Moreover, Mr Nikolai Kurianovich, a member of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, has just proposed a radical solution to the decline of the Russian population, which is also polygamy. This would also fit in with the Muslim tradition, as claimed by him. In my opinion, I think that polygamy should not be implemented, as the disadvantages outweigh the benefits.

First and foremost, polygamy undermines woman's rights. For centuries, men have been allowed to practise polygamy and to take several wives at once. This was especially widespread in ancient China, especially in the palace. The disadvantages of this would be that polygamy actually inflicts some form of emotional harm on the woman. She is forced to share her husband with other women and has to jostle for his affection with other women. In a way, it is like a controlled form of sexual promiscuity as well. If the husband is allowed to marry many wives, he would not value each wife as much and this is unfair for the woman as she has pledged her single-hearted devotion for life. Moreover, the other unfair aspect would be usually, only polygamy and not polyandry would be allowed. Women would be perceived to be the lesser gender as males would be allowed to take more than one wife but women not allowed to marry more than one husband. Women will not be given equal rights if polygamy is legalized.

Secondly, polygamy unleashes competitive forces. A more hypothetical argument would be that if men were allowed to practise polygamy, a proportion of males would take more than one wife and the rest of the marriages would be monogamous. The number of eligible women would actually be reduced and now there is an "excess supply of men". Many males would remain single and in fact, the birth rate might actually decrease instead of increase because of the decreased number of marriages due to the lack of eligible women. An example would be China. Because of their one-child policy, there is now an overwhelming large majority of males over females. Homosexuality is on the rise and many males are unable to get married at all because of the relatively smaller women population.

It follows from above that polygamy's competitive forces actually creates problems, even in animals. Polygamy reduces us to the similar status as that of animals. Historically, animals practise polygamy to ensure survival. Each male would have access to many females and this will facilitate the spreading of the species since the reproduction rate will be higher. However, males will constantly jostle and engage in fights so as to gain exclusive access to harems of females. An example would be the bull elephant seals. Natural selection favoured the larger bull elephant seal which would be able to outfight other males. However although this larger size gave males this advantage, it also caused them to become less mobile and more vulnerable to sharks and other predators. As such, polygamy would actually bring more harm than good because of the more intense competition for a smaller supply of females.

In view of all this, i feel that polygamy should not be implemented. We have advanced so much since historical times. Let us not lapse into our previous mistakes of viewing women in inferior ways and let men practise polygamy so has to further perpetuate thinking. Both women and men should have equal rights as both genders are able to make contributions to the society.

Do you think it is right to sideline the respect for a brain-dead person in order to prolong the lives of others?

In my opinion, it is not right to sideline the respect of a brain-dead person in order to prolong the lives of others. However, the issue regarding HOTA here would be the personal initiative of a person to opt out of the scheme before he or she actually becomes brain-dead, if that day ever comes. There is a minority that are unfortunately already brain-dead when this scheme came into law, and certainly, i think that exceptions should be made for this group of people since they were not given prior notice. How is the person going to opt out of HOTA if he or she was already brain-dead when this was introduced? It would be highly uncompassionate to not make exceptions for this particular group of people.

A brain-dead person encompasses different dimensions of meaning for the doctor, the government and for the family themselves. To a doctor and to the government, the person could just be another source to obtain organs for transplant. The issue at stake here is who is more worthy of saving? Is it the brain-dead patient or the living person who is in dire need of an organ to continue living? To the general society, a brain-dead person is unable to make any contributions for the general good of the public, but a living person is able to, as such, the argument to 'sacrifice' the brain-dead person is more pertinent. However, if we were to practise such extreme utilitarian measures, it would be more of a case of the "ends justifies the means", and we wouldn't be much different from cold-blooded dictators then. To the family and the web of people around the person lying on the hospital bed, the very presence of the person would bring about hope and gratification to them and he means the world to them. If it were your family, wouldn't you have the selfish inclination to keep the person alive no matter what?

Moreover, there is no knowing where the organs go to. What if they are being transplanted to a wealthy but unscrupulous person who will bring more harm than good to the society? As Andy Ho mentions, "debts of gratitude obtain only between people with real connections", precious organs should not be given away indiscriminately and anonymously. This is a very significant issue.

Another worry is that some doctors have unethical medical practices and they might declare a person brain-dead prematurely just to obtain fiscal benefits from sale of the organs. This is a crucial issue and stringent guidelines and stiff penalties be set in place to try to stem out such unscrupulous behaviour.

It is impossible to come up with a way to please everybody. Even though I disagree that we should sideline the respect for a brain-dead person just to prolong the lives of others, i think that ultimately, the person involved should also be inclined to take on the responsibility to opt out of the scheme. However, the system should also allow donors to know who gets the organs and that such practice be monitored strictly. Also, there could be a window period of one year given after doctors declare the person brain-dead before extracting the organs for use. When the family is not given a choice, at least they have to be given time to accept the harsh facts. In conclusion, such an act is not morally abhorrent but there has to be several measures and guidelines put in place to ensure it is not abused and to make it more acceptable to the public.

Southeast Asia's political mayhem

(Myanmar is also a country with a lack in political stability, in fact its military-run government has recently shifted its headquarters to a rural area, Aung San Suu Kyi still remains in detention, and a visit to Myanmar by ASEAN envoy Syed Hamid has been denied. All these has served only to isolate Myanmar further from the international community. In here, i shall only examine the more democratic systems of Philippines and Thailand.)

Referring to the recent upheavals in the Philippines and Thailand, we can see that South-east Asia is still relatively unstable politically. Both President Gloria Arroya and Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra are facing an unprecedented backlash from the people, which has translated into mass protests and widespread social unrest in the country. Both leaders have brought the greatest economic growth to the country since their installation into office. Yet why has such a situation happened? Are the citizens too demanding of their leaders? Has corruption reared its ugly head? Is it allegiance to the West? Insensitivities towards needs of citizens? Misappropriation of funds??

In Thailand, the recent sale of telecommunications giant Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings is seen as a violation of national vital interests in the eyes of many Thais. They feel unsafe that such an important aspect should be internally controlled as telecommunications is an aspect of the country that is quite sensitive. Moreover, the Thaksin family structured their deal in a way that they avoided the taxes on profits from sales. The transaction even took place just one day after higher foreign shareholding ceilings in Thai companies were signed into law. This led people to think that Thaksin appeared to be placing the interests of his family and business cronies ahead of his conntry. Moreover, there is also a prevailing view among the opposition that he has manipulated the political system to his favour. Thaksin's administration was abused of abuse of power, corruption, nepotism. He was also criticised for his bid to place relatives in key positions in the country's security forces. At the moment, the opposition is boycotting the elections on April 2. But this would mean that even if Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party won, they would have won without competition and this would lead the public, especially the people in Bangkok(produces >65% of the countrys GDP), to seriously doubt the legitimacy of the candidates.

However, if Thaksin is simply overthrown without the elections, then Thailand would go back to the political uncertainty that it had suffered in the past decade, where there were 8 governments in total, even one installed by a military coup, before Thaksin came into office. All the hard work trying to institutionalize democracy would have been in vain. The political future of Thailand looks grim.

In the case of President Arroyo, she has been accused of corruption. Moreover, her recently installed curfew of one week to quell the rising unrest has even been viewed as a futile attempt to consolidate her hold on power. Her win in the elections last year was claimed to be a fraud. There are also many corruption scandals facing her and her family.

Political instability has serious repercussions for the country. Net foreign direct investment will be affected adversely and the people will eventually suffer as a result. Moreover, the reputation of the country is also affected. In the case of Philippines, the confidence of lending agencies is also affected.

In view of all these, it can be seen that transparency in the government is very important. Also, education of the people is also crucial to ensure that they are able to make critical judgments of the government and resort to peaceful means to effect a change in ruling. Political unrest ultimately brings benefits to no one and it will only be a vicious cycle, eg. 2 Filipino presidents in the past were brought down by mass protests.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/13/news/phils.php
Pressure mounts against Arroyo - july 14,2005 (International Herald Tribune, Carlos H. Conde)
"Will Thaksin survive biggest political storm?" 11/3/06 Leslie Lopez (ST)

Police informing parents of teens below 17 who stay on streets after 11 pm

Personally, I agree to a large extent that this should be implemented. However, there should be due consideration and special care allocated to a select group of youths who grow up in problematic homes.

Firstly, this is able to get potential victims of crimes out of the way or prevent potential crimes from happening. Police will only inform the parents if the youths are loitering in a secluded area or one which has seen a spate of crime. This move is inspired by the recent 20% rise in youth crime rate last year. Youths account for 22% of the total number of arrests last year even though they constitute only 15% of the population. Many were arrested for fighting with their peers in void decks, lift landings etc, usually in the wee hours of the night. By keeping teens at home during this period of time, it is indirectly contributing to the reducing of the incidences of these crimes happening.

Secondly, this move also has an advantage as it is able to identify youths that have problematic family backgrounds. Youths who loiter around at night could be runaways from their own home, and with probing by the police, they could be appropriately referred to family service centres which would provide assistance for them. Finding out such cases early would help the development of the youths' psychological dimension and help to alleviate or put a stop to the hurt suffered by coming from a family plagued by problems. The US police put up a shelter for some teens when no family member comes to bring them home. This aids in identifying such problematic cases earlier and is beneficial to the youths.

Thirdly, this makes streets at night safer. Many wayward youths loiter around at night and are susceptible to joining gangs or participating in gang fights. People on the streets at night might face threats of fights from gangs or groups of youths. However, youths argue that it is a restriction of their freedom and it makes them feel that they are looked upon as being immature enough to make informed decisions and to realise the consequences. Moreover, they think that it would probably cause them to lose their trust with their parents when they are found walking on the streets for only a short while when they told their parents that they are studying. After parents are notified by the police, there could be a possible strain in relationship as the parents might become too dictative over their children. But if there is a strong relationship in the first place, parents are likely to know the temperament of their children well and this measure will not affect the measure of trust they have in their children. It also helps parents to identify lying, in some cases, so that they can take measures to encourage greater communication with their children. Moreover, youths can also schedule their activities to earlier parts of the day as well. Such a measure is also not as strict as the curfew imposed in America, so the situation might not be that serious as youths picture it to be.

It is unsure that this message will effectively reduce youth crime rate as the statistics might take a few years to show up any change in crime rate. However, it is a commendable attempt to stem the increasing crime rate. As society gets more open, the idea of freedom is becoming more widely accepted. Imposing such a measure would inadvertently draw protests and criticism. However, in the light of incriminating statistics that youth crime rate is on the rise and getting serious, something has to be done. The duty to maintain social order in this case outweighs the individual's right to personal freedom.

In conclusion, I think that such a measure is beneficial to a large extent. As they always say, "Prevention is better than cure", moreover, a prison record is jarring to one's life. As such, we should put in our best to prevent our youths from taking the wrong paths.

"Do you know where your kids are?" Andy Ho,2/3/06
"Police act to keep teens off streets after 11pm" 16/2/06
"Move to stop teens from loitering 'not a curfew'"