TwoSen

THE use of a cane on children in today’s world, especially the “developed” parts of it, is labelled “violence”. The word covers a plethora of situations: one stroke of a light cane on a hand is violence; hitting a person until he bleeds is violence; killing a person is violence; war is violence; bombing buildings and people is violence.

Much as I am against violence, I feel using a light cane, in a controlled manner, and at appropriate times (when other methods have failed) to drive home a point about one’s behaviour, is not violence per se. Just like the mere use of morphine is not drug abuse per se.

Caning has been done in schools to discipline children, so why do we still have rowdies who slapped and threw chairs at a teacher in Nibong Tebal recently? This incident is only the tip of the iceberg of school discipline. Were the errant students not caned enough and would more caning change their behaviour? The answer is NO. By this age (secondary school), it is too late for caning.  

Character building has to be done early in life. Great teachers of the past used to say “give me a child until he is seven and I will make a man of him”. Very young children learn by imitation. As they grow, their natural desire to discover and explore becomes apparent. However, they are unable to reason until around the age of ten. So how do you teach them good values by seven?

If children were exposed only to good values in their formative years, they would acquire those values in the natural course of learning from their environment. But this is not the reality today.

Their environment is filled with more negative or bad values than the good. TV programmes and movies are the major sources of such negative values, and they deliver those values in such a powerful way that they stick in the minds of children.

When TV and movies glorify violence, children exposed to it grow up with the idea that life is meant to be lived that way. They feel there is greatness, heroism, etc. in such behaviour. And  they start behaving that way from pre-school. 

Some years back, the UK police had said that it was possible to identify among pre-school children potential gangsters or violent adults of the future. If no effective remedial action is taken at this stage, the negative behaviour would become deep-set due to repetition and impossible to change at a later stage.

Use of the cane on children is condemned based on the findings of doctors who see child-abuse cases. This is wrong. In cases of child abuse the fault is not that of the cane but of the person wielding the cane. It is that person who needs help. Such cases can happen when a child is out of control and the teacher or parent, in desperation, loses his senses and starts caning not knowing how to use the cane and when to stop. But why was the child allowed to become so naughty in the first place?

I have seen an experienced kindergarten teacher who wields the cane only when necessary, and works miracles turning “very naughty” children around without injuring them and with the approval of the parents.

Using a light cane judiciously during the early years of a child, if its use is merited, is a forgotten art. It neither causes physical or psychological injury nor leads to children harbouring vengeful thoughts. The purpose is to jolt the children’s mind into remembering that what they did is not to be repeated. Rather than condemning its use, teachers and parents should be taught the proper way of using it during the early years of childhood. It is only effective during this critical period.

Source: The Sun – March 18, 2010

Source: The Sun – March 18, 2010

Source: The Sun – March 18, 2010

Source: The Sun – March 18, 2010

“SQUATTER” means a person who’s occupying space that he or she does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use. In some jurisdictions this is illegal. But Malaysia seems to be rewarding squatters. Squatters are being offered from RM124 monthly rental, to options to buy low-cost houses at a fraction of the cost price and compensation for relocation.

Newspapers report of squatters being handsomely “rewarded” when they agree to relocate. It is hard to comprehend. You have a group of people living on another person’s land illegally, yet they are being paid to move out. All this when some of them are better off than many of us who struggle to pay mortgages, rent and such like.

Squatters today don’t invoke the same emotions in the public as they did years ago. Back then, the word squatter brought to mind images of poor people who could not afford to live anywhere else. Today, some squatters own cars, subscribe to satellite

television and sleep in air-conditioned rooms. If they can afford these luxury items, surely they can afford to rent a place to live.

Why is it that landowners seem to be at the mercy of these squatters? Why are squatters being compensated for relocating from a plot that belongs to someone else? It can be argued that these cases of compensation and other rewards seem to be encouraging the squatter culture.

Granted, there may be cases where they are destitute and can’t afford to live anywhere else. But surely, our social welfare authorities and system provide adequate recourse for deserving cases. Taxpayers, corporations and even the authorities should not bear the burden of compensating those who are out to make a quick buck but rather reward deserving cases.

SA
Subang Jaya

Source: The Sun – March 17, 2010

WE first came to Penang 11 years ago and loved it. Penang was “just right” for us. It had everything for a restful holiday: greenery, beach and quiet. Every year, we came back to Tanjung Bungah for three months.

Every day we enjoyed watching the sunrise from our balcony. But after a few years the green hills started showing big holes and the first skyscrapers appeared. Then more towers came up along the beach and since last year no more sunrise from our balcony. Gone forever. Just ugly

towers, right next to our hotel and close to the beach.

Penang’s skyline is now almost like Hongkong or Singapore. We wouldn’t ever go to such city-states for a holiday. Now that Penang has lost most of its attractions, we decided that we have to start looking elsewhere for greenery and clean beaches. Next year, we’ll go to Thailand.

There are many tourists like us who will not come back. “Development” has killed the goose with the golden eggs.

Henk Hagenzieker
Elly van der Meijden
Zoeterwoude
Netherlands

Source: The Sun – March 17, 2010

WE refer to “First party shock” (Letters, March 11). We advise motor vehicle owners, such as the writer, who face difficulties in obtaining motor insurance coverage for their vehicles to approach the Malaysian Motor Insurance Pool (MMIP) for their insurance requirements.

MMIP was formed in 1992 by the general insurance industry to ensure the availability of motor insurance for vehicles that have difficulty obtaining coverage from the market. MMIP insurance cover can be purchased from any Pos Malaysia outlet.

C.F. LIM
Executive Director
General Insurance Association of Malaysia

Source: The Sun – March 17, 2010

Source: The Sun – March 16, 2010

Source: The Sun – March 16, 2010

Source: The Sun – March 15, 2010