President Duterte has refused to sign a bill prohibiting parents from using corporal punishment—kicking, beating, slapping, as well as non-physical means—to discipline their children.
The bill sought to promote positive and non-violent discipline, protecting children from acts that are physical, humiliating and degrading as a means of punishment for bad behavior. Embarrassing children in public and cursing at them are included in the acts the bill wanted to prevent.
The President believes that when parents use such punishment on their children, it is because of love and a desire to raise them as good and responsible individuals. Corporal punishment, when done in restraint and moderation, has yielded beneficial results as children are raised “to become law-abiding citizens with a healthy respect for authority structures in the wider community."
Mr. Duterte clarified that he in fact supports the notion that children should be protected from humiliating forms of punishment, but does not share the sweeping condemnation of the practices.
The lack of distinction between responsible disciplining of children and resorting to humiliating and degrading punishment was what made the President reject the bill. Prohibiting parents from doing as they see fit transgresses the boundaries of how much the state can intervene in the life of the family.
Then again, these are different times and government should acknowledge that the methods that have worked in the past may no longer do so, to the same extent, in the present. Subtle and positive ways of discipline, done with firmness, consistency and love can achieve better results than unthinking, tough or impulsive forms.
Meanwhile, there is greater urgency for parents to monitor their children’s online activity as the so-called Momo Challenge, an app encouraging viewers to harm and even kill themselves, caused an 11-year-old boy to kill himself.
Numerous government agencies have issued appeals to parents to be more aware of their children’s use of the web. Indeed while the web offers tremendous help and knowledge, it could also be used to advance illegal, nay, evil, ends.
The premise in both these examples is that parents ultimately always know what is best. That is generally true. Parents will want their children to have the best opportunities, secure a good future for them, enable them to achieve full potential and prevent them from harm in any form.
Those who abuse and misuse the duty of guardianship are the exception rather than the rule. It is only in the event of these exceptions that the community and the state are called upon to intervene.
The threats to today’s children have evolved significantly from the ones that confronted the young a generation or two ago. Primary discretion and responsibility falls on the parents who should use their good judgment, rationality and awareness in performing the most difficult, most nuanced job of all.