Forum: Discipline at school should reinforce rather than contradict values

I am the mother of a six-year-old boy and write in reference to the recent opinion piece “Can schools teach kindness and respect while practising caning?” (April 24).

Like the writers, I support the Ministry of Education’s intent to respond decisively to bullying through its updated disciplinary framework. The framework reflects an understanding that bullying is complex and requires coordinated responses across schools, families and the wider community.

However, it is precisely because bullying is complex that the inclusion of caning within the disciplinary framework is concerning.

Beyond the substantial body of research linking physical punishment to negative developmental and behavioural outcomes, there are also implications for how discipline is experienced by students and families.

Bullying often reflects deeper underlying issues, including emotional distress, social pressures or learnt behaviour. Addressing it effectively requires sustained intervention intended to resolve root causes, not escalation to punitive measures that culminate in physical punishment. There is a risk that such measures reinforce the logic of power and force that schools are trying to discourage.

There are also broader questions of alignment with values of individual families. As a parent of a young child, I spend time teaching values such as empathy, self-regulation, and resolving conflict without the use of force. The use of caning in schools sends a contradictory signal, that while children are expected to manage conflict constructively, those in positions of authority may still rely on physical punishment.

Societal attitudes towards physical punishment are also evolving, and many parents no longer believe it is an effective or appropriate form of discipline. When schools retain the authority to administer physical punishment, it raises questions about how far schools should override the values families may seek to instil at home.

Questions of fairness and consistency also arise. While the ministry aims to standardise disciplinary approaches, schools retain the discretion in assessing intent and impact. These are inherently subjective, raising the risk of uneven application, and there are no recommendations for a review process. The explicitly gendered nature of caning, which is applied only to boys, is also difficult to justify, and sits at odds with a principles-based approach to discipline.

The ministry’s review is a thoughtful step forward. However, if the broader goal is to build a culture grounded in empathy, respect and inclusion, it may be worth considering whether physical punishment is aligned with that direction.

I believe firm discipline is necessary, but methods used should reinforce rather than contradict values that schools seek to teach. 

Michelle Goh