The Home Minister, YB Hishamuddin, wished to satisfy himself that the Prisons Department could carry out the Syariah court’s order to cane Kartika, a 32 year old mother of two. He had earlier said his ministry needed to study the proper procedures before caning the model; so, he took steps to determine whether “the department has the knowledge and experience to do it.”
The Minister received one woman officer and the Director General of Prisons in his office and watched as the officer demonstrated how she would cane Kartika; she took out the cane she had brought with her and “tapped the back of a chair.” The Minister observed: “There was little force involved, and it was not going to inflict pain, not even like the caning carried out in schools in those days.” Satisfied, the Minister “cleared” the department to execute the caning, but with the caveat that he still felt the department had no experience to do so – since this will be a first.
The Star newspaper article from which I gleaned the above did not mention whether the Minister reviewed “proper procedures;” neither was there any discussion about the difference between “Syariah caning” and “Non-Syariah caning.” Nor was there any discussion of the value of caning adults, let alone if the pain inflicted is less than that meted out to schoolboys. The Minister declined to discuss the merits of Kartika’s caning, as it’s “a judicial process.”
The Kartini incident made me gather six words which reflect my understanding of punishment.
Deterrence (1). When my father punished me, he did it for my sake, my siblings’ sake and my neighbours’ sake. He beat me with tears in his eyes and welts on my skin; through the pain in my flesh, he wanted me to feel the pain both in his heart and the pain in the person I had wronged by my behaviour. He made sure my siblings knew I was punished – they had been and would continue to be punished similarly for similar offences; he was assuring fairness (2).
Proportionate (3). Beating wasn’t the only punishment; incapacitation and restitution were other options, either used independently or with other forms of punishment.
Incapacitation (4). There were times when my punishment was to have no allowance or to be forbidden from leaving home for any reason other than to go to school – sometimes for weeks.
Restitution (5). Sometimes, e.g. when I stole my brother’s stamps, I was compelled to “make good and more.” This is why I no longer own any stamps – I had to give them all to my brother!
Retribution (6). My father also wanted me to know “the gods will get you.” In his worldview, every action, good or bad – though it seemed to me “especially the bad” – has its reward.
My punishments trained and shaped me, without birthing resentment toward my father.
However, resentment best describes how I feel towards the Home Minister when I reflect upon his actions and pronouncements, which I consider:
1. Mocking. To say what amounts to “we’ve made sure the caning is pain-free,” is just as mocking as saying “if the court says to imprison, we will; but it will be in a 5-star hotel.”
2. Egocentric. To assess caning based on his own criteria (caning a chair in his office) is egocentric; does he think it matters what the Syariah Judges think caning means?
3. Unprofessional. To make pronouncements based upon “observation of staged actions” rather than reviewing and comparing procedures is simply silly.
We have previously been told caning “illegals” is a deterrent. Why so if caning is “tapping, without pain?” Isn’t it a fact that prison caning procedures require the person conducting caning to wear a mask and goggles for protection from imbibing the flesh of the person caned?
The public outcry over caning is based on understandings of theories of punishment. The outcry is about the effectiveness and fairness of the bite. The Home Minister – and UMNO Vice President – thinks he impresses us by using his power to “blunt” the teeth of the Syariah Court Judges. I am not impressed. I am not entertained. I am disappointed. I am offended.
What decides the difference between caning and Islamic caning of a person? Mockery?
The Micah Mandate is a Christian-based public interest advocacy ministry that seeks a transformation of our nation through justice, mercy and humility.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:41 am
Let’s put this in perspective:
1. The caning as it applies in this case comes under Malaysian Syariah Court laws — the Islamic courts that watch over Muslim citizens, so to speak. This is not the same as corporal punishment caning, which is administered by Federal courts. The difference between the two punishments is simple: one is meant to cause pain, while the other is meant to humiliate. The description of the cane here is the cane used in corporal punishment. The cane used in Syariah caning is little more than a stick, and the actual caning itself is little more than a flick of the wrist rather than a full-out whip. As I said, the intention here is to humiliate the offender, rather than cause him or her pain.
2. Under the aforesaid Syariah laws, Muslims may not consume alcohol. Regular laws could not care less, however. Malaysia is a clubbing paradise.
Kartika is simply unlucky enough to be a minor celebrity that the powers that be have decided to use as a case study to deter other potential offenders.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:48 am
The Christian bible also appears to advocate spanking to correct a person (See Proverbs). Spanking is a fairly accurate description of what a Syariah whipping constitutes and in former times, ecclesiastical courts could administer light corporal punishment in the Syariah manner. Also this process applied in places such as monasteries, where it would be applied with a small stick, or in convents, where a cloth strap or miniature cloth based “cat of 3 tails” applied by means of a light flick of the wrist was the standard penalty. As is obvious, the intention is not to cause a lot of physical pain, only very little, but to serve purely as a means of correction, the pain mainly being in the form of shame. So really Syariah is no different from our own former ecclesiastical penalties. In short, it is a symbolic punishment.