Should parents be banned from beating children? The question raised widespread controversy earlier this month when a 12-year-old British school boy took his step father to court, charging him with assault. The British court acquitted the parent, but the boy's lawyers are seeking a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights.
In this case, the boy had been beaten by his stepfather with a cane when he was nine for trying to stab his younger brother with a kitchen knife. His mother defended her right to punish her son saying he had been totally out of control and had 'run riot' since the age of two. Caning and other forms of corporal punishment were outlawed in British schools a few years ago, but the British laws sanction' reasonable chastisement'.
In conservative Sri Lankan society, caning and beatings were the order of the day some years ago, especially for boys as most parents upheld the adage 'spare the rod and spoil the child'. Today, however, schools are wary of caning errant students and parents themselves are more likely to try reasoning than physical punishment. But in the case of continuing abuse, Sri Lankan law does have provision for a child to seek redress, we found. Here parents, children and professionals in the fields of psychiatry and law address the issue.
Should you beat your child? This is a question that most parents are forced to grapple with at some stage or the other. As most would agree, even the most orderly and well brought up children go through phases of rebellion against authority, parental or otherwise, not to mention indulge in disobedience, lying and acts of mischief. So is the answer an occasional beating when the misdemeanor is serious enough to drive home the lesson that such an act should never be committed again or is a reprimand adequate?
Many of the parents The Sunday Times spoke too were of the view that it is a child's upbringing and environment that determined how he or she grew up. They felt that the onus was on the parents to guide them on proper codes of conduct and moral standards. Love and counselling was often more important and effective than repeated beatings which they felt would only serve to make a child stubborn and defensive. Father of two sons now grown up Palitha Gunasinghe explained that though his boys were often naughty and uncontrollable in their younger days, a policy of handling them with firmness and stern words was always enough. He stressed that there was always parental love and a sense that they were important which his sons respected.
Theatre and film personality Mrs. Manel Jayasena was a parent who agreed with this view. She said her son had never been beaten. "Both my husband Henry and I tried to treat him like a friend. If children are constantly beaten they will grow up wanting to retaliate at some point and will also be resentful of their parents," she said. Mrs. Jayasena added that she believed that many children grew up being mischievous and difficult as a result of their parents not having enough time to spend with them on account of pursuing their careers in today's competitive and stress-filled world. "Children need time, attention and a lot of love and understanding," she pointed out.
On aspects of behaviour and the influence of the environment in which a child grows up, several parents were critical of the effect of television on their children.
Children grow up watching many violent programmes and this it is felt, has a detrimental effect on them for they are more likely to use violence on their peers.
Some parents, however, felt that an occasional beating had to be administered. Says Mr. L Perera, "We should be able to beat them if necessary. Not all children can be controlled through love and affection. "Another parent Yohan Fonseka said it was only as a last resort that he would consider beating his children. "There are times when they need to be punished and need to be shown that they cannot get away with every thing." However he felt strongly that a loving hand and liberal doses of reasoning usually worked.
It is evident that different parents have different answers to the problem of instilling discipline, and would choose their own methods according to the situation. One consensus was that parents should not administer beatings in a fit of anger, thereby setting an example of resorting to violence themselves. Yet many did say that they had in anger and frustration at bad behaviour occasionally administered a slap or spanking, though regretting it later.
A few years ago, children themselves were more likely to accept beatings with little or no vocal protest, however indignant they felt within. In fact, in many schools caning was part of tradition while girls themselves were quite used to being smacked by irate teachers, having to extend their palms to face some stinging blows from their own foot rulers. But now children are more likely to expect other punishments, such as being deprived of their favourite TV soap. Many felt that while parents should punish them for their misdeeds, physical punishment had no place in this. Twelve-year-old Dilini Dharmatillaka spoke out strongly.
"We are people too and it is humiliating. Children should be warned and scolded, but should not be hit. If the parents tell the children clearly what they can and can't do, then they usually won't break the rules. Nobody likes to be scolded and make their parents unhappy," the little girl said.
Ten-year- old Vanitha Corea says she feels hurt and ashamed when she is hit by her parents. "I am not always naughty, but I forget to do things. If I am told to clean my room and forget, I get hit. I hate that! Why can't they tell me nicely," she asked. Her mother, Mrs. J. Corea says she is a busy person and Vanitha's forgetfulness is an excuse. "We hit her only in extreme circumstances. We try to be loving and expect her to respect that," she said.
So, do Sri Lankan children have recourse to the law in the event of parental beating? Commenting on the legal rights of Sri Lankan children, a leading lawyer, Upul Jayasooriya said, a child is a legal entity. "A child in Sri Lanka has rights before and after he or she is born. No person has the right to take the life of a child or cause injury to a child. In such a circumstance, the child or a person on behalf of a child can lodge a complaint to the police. The parents or adult causing this injury can be taken to courts. This is stated in the Common Law," he said.
Mr. Jayasooriya pointed out there are instances when children are hit with firewood. There are parents, teachers and other adults who inflict such injuries on children. The police, on behalf of the child, have the right to take these offenders to court after investigating the matter," he elaborated.
Employing children under 16 is also an offence. Mr. Jayasooriya reiterated that under the Common Law in Sri Lanka, the child has rights and cannot be physically or otherwise abused or injured. Though no child has taken parents to courts yet in Sri Lanka on the basis of constant abuse or injury caused to them, the police, on behalf of the child can initiate proceedings," he added.
What then is the correct approach when dealing with children? An eminent psychiatrist, Dr. R. Kulanayagam advocates consistency, predictability and trust in child-parent relationships.
"The reward and punishment theory must be followed when dealing with children. If a child does a misdeed then punishment should be immediate. The same goes for reward too," he said.
Sharing an incident which took place over two decades ago Dr. Kulanayagam said that a nine-year-old girl was accused of killing her call-girl mother. "This child was in the custody of probation officers but was given back to the mother when she proved she could look after this child. But, once the child returned to her, the mother was constantly threatening and abusive. There was no love or affection. The child lived in fear. The mother had told the child if she ever ran away from her she would chop her with the axe she kept with her when she went to sleep between herself and the child. The mother was later found chopped and killed by the very same axe she used to threaten the child. This was an instance of continuous threats and harassment on the part of the mother," the doctor said.
According to Dr. Kulanyagam 'violence begets violence'. "If a child is continuously beaten up, there is no response from the child and the child becomes immune to that punishment. The child must be told what he/she is being punished or rewarded for.
That is where consistency, predictability and trust come in. The child must be made to understand that it is the act that is despised, not the child," he added. "It is important to extinguish the misdemeanor and not the spirit of the child", he emphasised.
Dr. Kulanayagam also pointed out that action on the part of over enthusiastic adults who are campaigning against child abuse can be misinterpreted and can prove to be counter productive "Love and affection should be available to a child," he added.
Perhaps one could best sum this up with some much-loved lines quoted by Ms Jayasena:
"If a child lives with criticism, he learns to condemn,
If a child lives with hostility, he learns to fight,
If a child lives with security, he learns to have faith,
If a child lives with tolerance, he learns to be patient,
If a child lives with encouragement, he learns to be confident,
If a child lives with praise, he learns to appreciate,
If a child lives with fairness, he learns justice,
If a child lives with approval, he learns to like him/herself,
If a child lives with acceptance and friendship, he learns to find love in the world"
At midnight of May 24,1996, the Standard Clock of Sri Lanka was hastily advanced by one hour from the previous GMT+5 l/2 to GMT+6 1/2 .The reason given was that there will be electrical energy saving, to relieve the crisis in the generation system. There was very little warning or explanation to the public about why and how exactly it would affect their lifestyle. Moreover, no one in the Government, the Energy Ministry or the Ceylon Electricity Board cared to explain to the intelligent public of the country about how electricity may be saved by this move.
What is even more pathetic is that there was no thorough analysis of what the savings would be, in spite of the fact that the country has a wealth of experts in science, engineering and mathematics, who could conduct such a calculation using modern mathematical techniques
Thus, the decision to advance by 1 hour was never recommended by engineers, scientists, mathematicians, meteorologists, sociologists or communication specialists in the country, or by any of the professional institutions involved in electricity, communication, etc. However, there had been previous recommendations to advance by half an hour, which were apparently ignored by the decision makers of today
When it was found that mornings were too dark for children to set off to school, school timing was delayed by half-an hour. Then, when it was found that there were traffic jams in Colombo and when the gap between school time and office time was inadequate for the office workers to drop their children at school, the office times too, were delayed by half-an hour.
As discussed by various writers to the press, including Dr Arthur C Clarke, there are 3 benefits of advancing the clock in Sri Lanka. Daylight saving is the first. People and school children who have fixed work schedules would find more hours of daylight in the evening for their housework, gardening, recreation and shopping. On a particular day, if sunset was previously at 6.15 p.m., now it is at 7.15 p.m., effectively allowing 1 extra hour of daylight. Therefore, an estimated 60% of our population will feel this benefit.
However, we should not forget that well over 50% of the working population still make their livelihood in farming and associated outdoor work. They will have no benefit from an advanced clock.
The second benefit, associated with daylight saving is the expected electricity saving. Electricity is used by an estimated 45% of the people in this country for artificial lighting in the evening. As such, there is a heavy demand for electricity for household lighting in the evening. The demand for electricity is usually at about 600 MW by 5.30 p.m. and rises sharply to reach a maximum of about 1000 MW by 7.15 p.m.
Then the demand drops, at a rate slower than it rose, to reach about 500 MW by midnight. If the sun sets at 6.15 p.m., causing the demand to begin its ascent from 5.30 p.m., then if the sun sets at 7.15 p.m., people would still switch on the lights, but now at 6.30 p.m..
Now, if it is assumed that the drop in demand after 7.15 p.m. is because people wind up their activities for the day, subsequently going to bed at various times, then advancing the clock or the sunset time will have no effect on bedtime, as long as they look at the clock and go to bed. So, a person who previously switched on the lights at 6 p.m. and went to bed at 10 p.m., used 4 hours of electric lighting. Now, with the clock advanced by one hour, he switches the lights on at 7 p.m. and goes to bed at 10 p.m., by which time he has used only 3 hours of lighting.
So, he now saves a quarter of the units of electricity used for evening lighting. The country also saves the equivalent amount of electric energy. For an energy deficit electricity generating system like that of Sri Lanka, this saving at certain times of the year, is from the most expensive generating unit, the gas turbines. Thus, one unit of electricity saved at the point of generation, may be valued at about Rs. 4.50. Each unit of electricity saved by the households causes a reduction in their bills.
However, now that the sun rises one hour later on the clock, there is additional lighting required by some people in the morning. So, the net saving to a household is less than a quarter of electricity used for lighting.
The third benefit, which was ignored in the May 24th decision, is that of being at a whole number of hours ahead of GMT. There are only a few countries where the time difference from the GMT is not an integer, notably India and Sri Lanka. As repeatedly pointed out by various writers, this GMT+5 1/2 or GMT+6 l/2 causes confusion and inconvenience in international travel and communication.
A closer examination of the electricity demand profile of Sri Lanka shows that energy savings from GMT+5 I/2 to GMT+6 would be in the range of 0.6%. Saving from a one hour advance from GMT+5 1/2 to GMT+6 l/2 will be just under 1%. Note that savings at GMT+6 1/2 are not twice the savings at GMT+6. Thus, the savings are not proportional to the amount by which the clock is advanced. Doubling the shift does not double the savings.
Furthermore, now that the office and school times were also delayed by half-an-hour, the benefits of daylight saving and electricity saving, are effectively that of half an hour. This means that the one hour advanced, causing a lot of confusion, only served the purpose of a half hour advance.
While the ministry of energy requires to seek detailed calculations from the CEB about expected savings, before rushing into such technical decisions, the case for the present clock to be put back by half an hour is very clear. School and office times will then be required to be put back to their pre May 24 status.
Then Sri Lanka would be at GMT+6. Optimum savings of electricity would be achieved. There will be half-an hour of additional daylight. The mornings will not be too dark. Virtually everybody will be happy.
It appears as if there is nobody to make the decision to put the clock back, especially when it is apparent that the first decision of May 24 had serious flaws. If the authorities are looking for a good day to put the clock back (by half an hour), the midnight of October 26/27 should be appropriate, when some countries in Europe too adjust their clocks. But, please announce it well in advance.
Continue to Plus page 2 - Tapping for an extra bounce: the RRI * A league, a league
Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to
info@suntimes.is.lk or to
webmaster@infolabs.is.lk