KUALA LUMPUR: The return of caning in schools, if carried out responsibly, could help instil accountability and self-discipline among students, said an expert.
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) Counselling and Services Centre senior psychology officer Dr Zulfikar Ahmad said the practice should not be viewed as punishment, but rather as an educational tool.
“When disciplinary responsibility is entrusted to teachers, the intention is not to hurt, but to educate.
“Caning, when done with the right intent and within clear boundaries, teaches students that every action has consequences. It builds accountability — if you are bold enough to act, you must also be ready to face the outcome,” he told the New Straits Times.
He was commenting on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s recent support for the controlled reintroduction of caning in schools.
Anwar told the Dewan Rakyat that he personally believed caning should be reinstated, provided it is conducted within limits — never in public, only in a designated room, and never to the point of abuse.
Zulfikar said that since caning was gradually phased out over the past decade, many students had begun to lose a sense of responsibility for their actions.
“Parents must understand that if they cannot discipline their children at home, they should trust teachers to do so — within appropriate limits.”
He said traditional respect for teachers had also diminished, as educators today faced greater scrutiny and even legal consequences for disciplining students.
“In the past, when parents entrusted their children to teachers, they also entrusted authority and respect. That respect must be restored.”
From a psychological standpoint, he said, moderate corporal punishment could activate awareness mechanisms in the brain that reinforced behavioural learning.
“It helps children understand that every wrongdoing has implications. The sense of hesitation or fear that arises from that awareness can be healthy — it encourages better self-control,” he said.
Zulfikar, who himself experienced caning at school, said he did not consider it abuse.
“I was mischievous, but being caned taught me boundaries. The problem today is that many misunderstand what constitutes abuse. We need to define it clearly — a light disciplinary act is not the same as violence,” he said.
He also questioned why some parents, who were shaped by such disciplinary practices, now rejected them for their own children.
“Many of us became who we are today because of that educational process. So, it’s worth asking — why do we not want the same for our children when it worked for us?” he said.
The Education Ministry’s Circular No. 7/2003 — Power to Cane, issued on Oct 29, 2003, sets out strict procedures for corporal punishment in schools.
Under the circular, only headmasters or principals, or teachers given written authorisation by them, may administer caning — and only to male students.
Caning must be limited to light strokes on the palm or over clothed buttocks, and every case must be recorded confidentially, detailing the offence, number of strokes, and witnesses present.
Public caning, including during assemblies or in classrooms while lessons are ongoing, is strictly prohibited to prevent humiliation.
The circular emphasises that corporal punishment must serve as an educational measure, not one driven by anger or revenge, and should always be used as a last resort.
Only one version of the circular was found on the Education Ministry’s official website, published on March 20, 2019.
When contacted, the Education Ministry confirmed that the circular remained in force.
© New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd
