Dear Editor,
I read with dismay Mr. Hamilton Green’s letter in response to Akola Thompson’s article `Will ending corporal punishment increase childhood development?’ I let it go, however, because he could not adequately speak to her main point which was the fact that there is no evidence that banning corporal punishment is the cause of currently high levels of social violence (in and out of schools). I also thought he was just one more voice in the sad echo chamber of normalizing interpersonal violence. Then came the letter by Mr. Jamil Changlee, Chairperson of the political party, The Cooperative Republicans of Guyana, in which he calls for the “return” of the institutionalized state-sanctioned form of violence known as corporal punishment in schools.
Since Mr. Changlee aspires to govern our country, I thought it best to ask for further clarification on a few points:
Is Mr. Changlee aware that Guyana is a signatory to the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child, which calls for the freedom from physical violence, including corporal punishment? Does he intend that we withdraw from this Convention? Is he aware of the repercussions in doing so, both domestically and as it relates to Guyana’s foreign relations?
Furthermore, does Mr. Changlee know that for several cycles of the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Guyana’s compliance with international human rights standards (policies and practices), several countries around the world, including Namibia, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, have urged Guyana to prohibit all forms of corporal punishment of children, including in schools? This is because Guyana has not, in fact, conclusively banned corporal punishment in schools. The closest that Guyana has come to diminishing the use of corporal punishment was in the year 2015, when the former Minister of Education, Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine, promised the nation that corporal punishment would “soon” be eliminated in schools following a spate of teacher violence against students. Dr. Roopnaraine stated that, “Children need love, children need care, children need to be happy.” Unfortunately, the Ministry did not follow through with this good intention. So, what, then, is Mr. Changlee asking us to return to?
Is Mr. Changlee au fait with the trends of the last few decades of the regional and international drug trade and related criminal activities, including the formation and arming of gangs, which have been linked by some studies to poverty and scarce resources and have not been linked, in any way, to a lack of beating children in schools? I would suggest to Mr. Changlee that he volunteer some of his time to doing community work to help children he has identified as being affected by the appeal of criminal gang activities, if he is so concerned. I have met with children over the years who have shared disheartening stories of abandonment, forced work, and abuse, both physical and sexual by close relatives. These children need support, not fear.
Has Mr. Changlee read current peer reviewed research? Recent research has established a link between corporal punishment and anti-social behaviour. Moreover, an increasing number of studies point to a correlation between disciplining by means of violence and violent cultures. Some studies have shown that the inverse is also true: in countries, unlike Guyana, where corporal punishment is actually banned, there has been a measurable decrease in assaults, thefts, narcotics crimes, sexual violence, and violence in schools.
Like Mr. Changlee, I am also gravely concerned about violence “spilling over” into society. I am also concerned by the appalling lack of logic that leads persons to conclude that violence can be prevented simply by implementing violence earlier. This would be akin to saying, “We want people to stop stealing therefore we will steal from children so that by the time they are adults, they will know that stealing is wrong.” It just does not follow.
Mr. Changlee may find this strange and difficult to believe but when I attended Bishops’, over two decades ago, corporal punishment was not practised – yet discipline was so instilled from top to bottom of the school that my headmistress was known as ‘Ninja’, not only at our school but by our colleagues at other schools as well! She promoted respect and honour for each other and conforming to the school rules. All of this accomplished without the whiff of a rod.
The purpose of discipline is to correct, not harm. It is possible to discipline without the use of violence. It just involves some amount of reason, innovation and a great deal of thoughtful leadership. Incidentally, this is what good governance also calls for.
The time for falling back on old ways is over. We are ready for something new.
Yours faithfully,
Krysta Bisnauth
