The caning debate: More cons than pro
The caning debate: More cons than pro
JAKARTA (JP): The caning of an American teenager as punishment
by the Singapore court has provoked a lively debate among
Indonesian's as to the ethical and moral validity of corporal
punishment.
Many here in Jakarta were swept up in the discussion, a
majority of whom being critical of the punishment but
understanding Singapore's resolve to execute it's judicial
sovereignty.
"I'm against caning ... I think you legitimize torture by
upholding that kind of penal system," said Todung Mulya Lubis,
president of the Jakarta Lawyers Club.
Michael Fay was caned at Queenstown Remand prison on Thursday
after being found guilty of vandalism. He will also serve four
months in jail.
The initial verdict of six lashes was reduced to four by
Singapore president Ong Teng Cheong amid severe American
criticism and a personal appeal from U.S. President Bill Clinton.
Speaking on the topic of human rights during the sixth ASEAN
Law Students Conference here yesterday, Mulya told the multi-
national participants that the punishment was in direct violation
of human rights.
No person, he said, has the right to inflict pain and torture
on another.
His comment received a damp reaction from the conference's
participants, who were obviously unprepared for such a piercing
statement.
Understandably, it was the Singapore students who gave a reply
by arguing the punishment was valid since the boy received due
process of law. Malaysian students also gave their endorsement to
the Singapore action.
Mulya defended his remarks saying that there is no excuse for
torture. "Once you talk about human rights, there is no
justification whatsoever to uphold this kind of cruel and inhuman
punishment."
At a separate event, Baharuddin Lopa, the Secretary-General of
the National Commission on Human Rights, recognized the
preventive qualities of corporal punishment but still regarded it
as degrading to human dignity.
"Only horses should be whipped, not people," he told Antara.
He also said that corporal punishment was a human rights
violation.
The Indonesian legal system does not recognize corporal
punishment. Besides jail terms, certain crimes such as drug
smuggling and subversion can carry the death penalty.
Meanwhile Chief of the National Police Gen. Banurusman
Astrosemitro said he fully approved of the punishment, going so
far as to enthusiastically advocate its adoption in Indonesia.
He told Kompas on Friday that punishment of that nature has
proven to be extremely effective in Singapore and Malaysia and
thus the possibility of its application here should seriously be
considered.
Banurusman explained that whipping comes out of societal
demands where in many places it is part of traditional
punishment.
However Banurusman's statement was refuted by criminologist
Adrianus Meliala who said that whipping was not found in any
chapter of Indonesia's ancient history.
He noted that it was during the Dutch colonial period that
whipping was used to punish the local people, who were either
rebellious or refused to pay taxes.
Nonetheless, Adrianus held the actions of Singapore in high
esteem for being resolute in their decisions despite the strong
objections from the United States.
"The Singaporeans showed that they were consistent in applying
their law even though they were protested by a superpower
country," he said. "This is an attitude we must emulate."
He contrasted Indonesia's decision to drop charges of illegal
trading in fossils against an American professor last year and in
January to let go of two staff of the American embassy after they
were caught selling drugs at a Jakarta discotheque.
"We should have been more consistent in applying our laws in
spite of strong outside pressure and whatever political costs it
entails," Adrianus said. (07)