Caning for Clinton

Within a few days the U.S. Senate begins the trial of President Clinton. The fate of the U.S. president will be in their hands. I hope they will get it right. But I just don't understand whether what Clinton did was really worth all the efforts the U.S. Congress has put into it. They say that America is going through a great debate on morality. Is that true? I doubt it. Instead, I see a lot of hypocrisy in the whole process.

President Clinton certainly is not a moral model, but it does not mean that he is automatically a failure as a president. In fact, he is one of the best U.S. presidents, although I personally do not approve of his recent sending of planes to Iraq.

Some Americans might be overwhelmed by a sense of freedom, honor and dignity and political maturity if the nation had rid itself of a disgraced president. They are proud that the system works. In my opinion, however, that system is sick.

The former judge Henry Hyde and the House Speaker-to-be Bob Livingstone are vivid examples of this hypocrisy. Many others in the Congress, I believe, have had their own affairs as well. It seems absurd for those people to judge a person on the issue while they are not free from the sin themselves. Therefore I see hypocrisy in U.S. establishment and Clinton unfortunately falls as the sacrificial victim.

It would have been a more suitable punishment for Clinton, in my opinion, if the U.S. could adopt Singapore's justice as was suggested by Edward Neilan, a Tokyo based reporter and Stanford graduate, in his article "Can caning end impeachment?" (The Jakarta Post, Dec. 18, 1998).

At a glance, caning may sound shocking, ridiculous, primitive, vulgar or whatever bad connotation one can think of, especially to the American people and the western world. They may think that physical punishment is "illegal" and against human rights. However, if we are willing to give a thought, and without any prejudice, to penetrate Neilan's arguments and "inspirations" in the matter, then we will find some logic in his ideas.

The Clinton-Lewinsky case seems to be exceptionally controversial, although it looks very ordinary to me. It has caused a dilemma and debate among the American people that has taken them nowhere but into a tiresome conflict.

According to a poll taken in the U.S., President Clinton's popularity remains high. And the majority of American people still want him to stay on and finish his term. However, the system is not willing to let President Clinton live without any punishment for what he did.

In time of a dead-end where no final solution seems to be available in the western system, Asian values seem to be a wise way-out.

Caning with five strokes as adopted in Singapore justice would be a perfect punishment for President Clinton. I believe that Clinton and his supporters prefer caning to impeachment. For it gives a fair opportunity for President Clinton to take his punishment as a man. While impeachment only makes the president look like a sacrificial lamb.

I feel sorry for President Clinton being a victim of his people's hypocrisy. I personally think that the humiliation that Starr has brought upon Clinton is already sufficient punishment. However, caning could be a more impressive and effective punishment, not only for the people who demand Clinton pays for his sins, but also as a lesson for Clinton himself. I believe that Asian values have a deeper understanding of human conscience.

JENNY LAURITZ KHOENG

Jakarta