A HAMMER STORY

YET another case of student violence has occurred. A Form Two student at a Chinese school in Johor was hammered, literally, by an older student on July 18. A female teacher who intervened was also at the receiving end of the hammer, and a spanner, that the assailant wielded. The victims suffered head injuries which required sutures. The number of criminal cases, not just indiscipline, involving students calls for speedy resolution. On July 23, the Dewan Negara was told that 127 juveniles were in jail, and that some of them had been allowed to sit for public examinations. In 2006, a total of 3,358 juveniles were charged for various offences nationwide. Which explains why the debate over "to cane or not to cane" continues. Some parents want a return of the cane. Those against it say it only causes pain and creates fear.But, comes the rejoinder from those for the cane, a "healthy fear" is just the right medicine. Many who went to school prior to the 1970s agree that indiscipline was less of a problem then, chiefly because the school head's motto was "spare the rod and spoil the child".Chef M. Panir Selvam, who studied at the Shaw Road School in Kuala Lumpur in the 1960s, says: "In those days, teachers were free to hit us, but we would never inform our parents for fear that we would get a second beating. "Today, parents are overprotective and run to lodge police reports or complain to the Education Ministry at the slightest infringement by a teacher." Others say students in the distant past were taught how to behave, but not via strait-laced moral or religious classes as now. It has not helped that the innumerable measures to curb indiscipline, including spot checks, formation of school cadet corps, establishment of crime-prevention clubs, increasing the number of counsellors, having police liaison officers and revising the Moral Studies curriculum, have had little impact. On April 9, 1993, the Education Ministry even launched an ambitious programme called "Zero Defect" to create well-rounded pupils and efficient staff. It seems to have had zero effect. In 1996, school heads were allowed to fine misbehaving students. In 2000, teachers were asked to attend "special courses" on communicating effectively with students and handling "extreme" situations. As long as there have been boys, there has been naughtiness, some of which have led to indiscipline and violence. And now, we are told, the girls are giving the boys a tough fight in striving to put their names on the crime records. The rise in indiscipline and violence is, I'm convinced, in tandem with our preference for junk food and fast food. As research shows a link between anti-social behaviour and diet, it is time to junk junk food, lay off the meat and nibble the vegetables. Since it has been determined that indiscipline is highest among students who are not academically-inclined or who are uninterested in formal studies, why not send such students, right from Form One, for vocational, agriculture or related classes where their energy could be put to profitable use? Perhaps a change in stress from reforming the bad apples to rewarding the well-behaved might yield profits. If, that is, it is honestly implemented. The Education Ministry could formulate a method to reward well-behaved students, and hold them up for emulation by fellow students. Teachers who nurture the talents of students -- not just teach a subject, give homework and leave -- could also be rewarded. It should be remembered that students, just like adults, sometimes get carried away and do things which they regret later. In almost all cases, it is neither congenital nor pathological. And don't forget, some of the naughty ones turn up to be great successes in later life. Sure, some students have a propensity for aggression or lying or bullying. But often, it starts with childish pranks. The challenge for parents and the school system is to channel this extra energy into useful pursuits. If school is fun, perhaps there will be less cases of indiscipline