2007 07: Doing away with the cane

The Star Online. Opinion. Sunday July 15, 2007

The Women, Family and Community Development Ministry is proposing to abolish the cane, which has long been the tool of old-school disciplinarians and in the punishment of convicted child offenders.

AS kids, many of us have had our bums whacked! One doting grandfather recalled that when the teacher caned him and he sought compassion from his mother, she too would pick up the rotan, or a piece of firewood, and add to his lashes — no questions asked.

“I was a bit of a rascal in my (all-boys) school, and we did harmless mischief like throwing chalk at each other,” he admitted. By the time he was midway through primary school, he just bore his welts in philosophical silence.

“But I am none the worse for it,” he added. Tellingly, he never laid a hand on his own children.
Another person brought up by the cane is herself today a teacher.

“I don't resent my own mother caning me because I was remorseful about whatever naughty thing I had done. But I did resent it when my religious teacher slapped me on the face for daydreaming,” she said.

The days when parents brought their children to the teacher, presented him with a light rotan (cane) and urged “Cikgu, buatlah macam anak sendiri (treat him as you would your own child),” are long gone.

Among teachers who strictly uphold this role of mentor and have not hesitated to wield the stick, the ball rebounds swiftly with furious parents rushing to the headmaster complaining against Encik Farid and Cikgu Faridah.

Now, the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry is proposing to abolish the cane. A signatory to the (United Nations) International Convention on Children's Rights (CRC) since 1995, Malaysia wants to give life to mere words. If passed, it means that the Court For Children will no longer have caning as an option for child offenders.

Under the present Child Act 2001, only boys between the ages of 10 and 18 may be subjected to corporal punishment. And there are clear guidelines:

a maximum of 10 strokes with a light rotan;

the boy must be clothed;

whipping must not be inflicted on the face, head, stomach, chest and private parts;

the person meting out the punishment must not raise his hand over his head;

if a doctor deems the boy no longer fit to be whipped, the caning must stop; Caning, a negative reinforcement, has lost its popularity among many who have interacted first-hand with children today.

They prefer the non-punitive approach, focussing on positive reinforcement of good behaviour such as praise, love, tokens for younger children, recognition, rewards and treats, said Director of the Institut Sosial Malaysia, Associate Professor Dr Mohamed Fadzil Che Din.

Even positive discrimination like taking away an hour of television, or cutting back on pocket money, or negative discrimination such as standing on a chair or the “submarine” (where the child has to sit under the table), which I went through, are preferred, he said.

A trained psychologist and a lecturer in psychological counselling for 10 years with Universiti Putra Malaysia, Dr Mohamed Fadzil has worked with non-governmental organisations, adolescents and schools and today continues to advise adults and children alike.

“How a child sees himself will determine whether he is self-confident or anxious,” said Dr Mohamed Fadzil.

“Caning may bring about a negative self-concept, where he grows up in fear, panicking easily. This tendency follows into adulthood. If as children they are afraid to try, as adults they are not independent, not industrious.”

This makes them a manpower liability. After having spent millions on educating them as children, to then have to pour millions more to make them creative adults is a drain on the nation's coffers, he pointed out.

“One of the side-effects of caning is hatred, revenge, rebellion,” he added.

“In an aggressive personality, in its extreme form, we get terrorists.

“But passive personalities internalise the aggression. They become runaways, or in extreme cases, commit suicide.”

More to the point, corporal punishment, even for adults, has not been proven to be psychologically effective in character development. Depending on the individual, some who survive the school of hard-knocks may in fact become hardened by the experience.

The trend for adults, but even more so for children, has shifted to community service.

A legal practitioner admitted that he had been a naughty lad. One day, angry with his elderly neighbour, he lit a matchstick and threw it at his neighbour's roof. His mother roundly scolded him, not least because their adjoining roofs meant he could easily have burnt his own house down.

But it was his neighbour's forgiving generosity that was the turning point. His punishment? To tend to the neighbour's flowers and plants.

The real authority who may cane a child are his parents. But here too there are pitfalls.

Neighbours might hear the child regularly crying out, see the welts on his arms and leg, and complain to a welfare officer or even the police of child abuse. But what is the alternative? Spare the rod and spoil the child?

Judging by reports, caning is more frequently conducted in schools, where it falls under the ambit of the Child Act.

Ideally and theoretically it is the punishment of last resort.

In urban schools, teachers concur and parents concede that children are spoilt, especially in dual-income families. Parents admit to wanting so desperately to give their kids a better childhood than theirs: sushi snacks, maids, mobile phones, branded shoes and Disneyland school holidays.

The proposal to withdraw the cane should be seen in the context of another proposed amendment to the Child Act 2001 made just last year — to punish parents for errant children.

That proposal from the police received the support of Youth and Sports Minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said.

At present, Section 33 of the Act metes out a fine of up to RM5,000, a two-year jail sentence or both for failure to properly supervise a child under their care.

But is it fair to blame parents for errant children?

For most of their primary years, children mirror their parents. Aggressive parents beget school bullies while offspring of reticent parents become their victims.

But caning also begets a chain reaction.

“Studies have shown that many criminals and convicts either came from troubled families or had suffered corporal punishment as children,” said Dr Mohamed Fadzil.

By setting the age of criminal responsibility at 10, the Act recognises that individual characteristics set in around that age and thereafter. Somewhere after 11, parents start “losing” their adolescents. Instead it is their peers who have the greatest influence on teenagers.

This age of criminal responsibility differs from country to country, reflecting the societies in which they operate. In Hong Kong it is 10, while mainland China, Taiwan and the United Kingdom set it at 14; France has lowered it from 15 to 13; Greece and Netherlands to 12.