Spare the rod and save the child

ACCORDING to a recent news clip, a series of public seminars have been planned by a professional association aimed at lessening the divide between parents and children on the theme - 'Parents Today: Bridging the Gap'.

This story reminded me of a factor quite relevant to the theme which probably will be discussed extensively at the seminar about parents spanking their children.

I do not intend to tell parents how to discipline their children, because none can interfere in parents' responsibilities to teach a child right from wrong, whatever way they believe best.

Each individual will deal with the consequences of their action karmically, which means, for every cause there is an action or a reaction. That is the way mankind learns his lessons.

I remember about a British study of 500 families conducted two years ago, which found that 75 per cent of babies under 12 months had been hit and 25 per cent of 7-year-olds had experienced 'severe' physical punishment. One child has died every week in Britain as a result of physical abuse in the home.

Sweden, which outlawed physical punishment of children long years ago, has had four children die from being beaten in their homes during that time.

In Canada, 28 children under age 12 were murdered by their parents five years ago.

And what did parents of those 'advanced' countries think of physical 'correction'? In Canada, 70 per cent of adults believed that it would be wrong of the government to make it illegal for a parent to strike a child.

As more and more child-custody cases got under way in the past two years, Canadian adults would have had an opportunity to think again about whether it is right to subject children to corporal punishment.

Coming back to Sri Lanka, our Penal Code clearly says that children under 18 years should not be subject to physical, mental or social abuse. Offenders can be severely punished.

However, in real life, most people will not intervene unless they are shocked by a parent's behaviour. In the end, parents who can't figure out how to get their children to pay attention other than by hitting them every time are generally not in danger from the Government or their neighbours.

Research has shown that the more authoritarian parents are, the more likely they are to produce aggressive children with reduced self-esteem and confidence.

The message behind getting hit is that violence is acceptable, especially if the person doing the hitting is bigger and stronger than the one being hit. Is this what we want as a society? I, for one, don't.

I believe that the 'spare the rod, spoil the child', approach may have worked 25 years ago. But it is not effective today, because young people have avenues that allow them to survive outside the home.

Neither were the children of earlier generations exposed, as today's children are, to 'environmental poisons' such as 'drug-infested neighbourhoods' and unwholesome television programs.

A child is a precious soul, to be brought up with love to know right from wrong, and there are limits to the disciplinary practices to be taken. If a child cannot be taught, there are corners to sit in, TVs to be shut off, toys to be taken away, etc. but one cannot teach a child through beating.

If you strike a child to make him learn you may break his spirit, as some professionals seem to think is necessary. Is that what you are striving for? Do you really want a robot for a child, one who only repeats word for word what you have told him to say? Or do you want to teach a child that you love him, no matter what he does and will forgive any wrong he does if he changes his ways and acts with love towards others.

The bottom line will always come down to our intention: If our goal is to teach responsibility and self-control, build community and raise children to be respectful, considerate citizens, we will choose different behaviours than we would if our goals included exacting revenge, causing pain or disempowering children.

The sheer hypocrisy of using violence to try to teach respect, self-control or non-violence should, in itself, stop us in our tracks. For it makes absolutely no sense for us to raise our hand to a child and then bemoan the rise of violence in our communities.

Hitting children sacrifices values and long-term outcomes for an occasional short-lived victory. It makes us look weak, ineffective, unskilled and unprofessional. Let us cut it out. There is a better way.

Punishment should ultimately seek to restore an offending child to its family, not to alienate him. And if we lose sight of that goal, we'll risk making a rod for our own backs.