<B>By Andre WAN CHOW WAH</B> <I>Associate Professor</I>

Society consists of rules and values that are well spelt out for all human beings who are members of it. Different social formations may have different sets of rules of discipline handed down for the benefit of their members. Any diversion from the established mode of behaviour is considered a breach. This is followed by reprimand or punishment by the specific institutions of the individuals who, as members, by their actions, have gone against the said code of desirable behaviour.

An offence is primarily deemed to have been at first committed against the institution, before the consequential punishment to follow. This punishment may be inflicted by an individual who has to be compulsorily representing the authority of the institution. An individual in his own capacity cannot ?punish? someone. For example, an adult member of the family may punish a child for the latter?s misconduct; this adult being representative of the values of the family.

On the other hand, an offence committed should always be preceding the punishment. It cannot be the other way round; that is, an authority cannot punish one member who has committed no offence. Whatever be the truth about its psychological history, there is an absolute difference between punishment and anything in the way of ?hitting back? or vengeance. One man may hit back at another, in a spirit of revenge; but, so long as he is acting simply as a fellow citizen, he cannot punish the other.

Punishment is an activity that can only exist between a community and one of its members. No human being can possibly act in a purely individual capacity. Thus the ?punisher? should a priori represent the community. Punishment is an important signal that means the disowning of unwanted acts of members of the community.

To be effective, punishment by its very nature must be unpleasant and/or painful - the nature of which I leave to readers to define on their own. I am not talking of physical pain or torture, which are against common decency or the laws of education, and cannot and should not be approved. The pain to be inflicted can take the form of deprivation of privileges, limitation of freedom, forced labour, among others - it is not the purpose of this paper to break down into further explanations.

There are many questions regarding the effect of punishment. One of them is whether the punishment can bring about reform in the individual, or whether potential offenders are at all deterred from committing the same offence for which one individual is being punished. Hence we talk of punishment as ?reformative? or as a ?deterrent?. One may not be sure about the positive effects of punishment. One belief is that punishment can result in the individual revolting against authority, and becoming worse rather than being reformed.

Conversely, a reward in the form of praise from the teacher (or representative within the community) for good work done, does help improve performance and motivates the individual. Whether punishment can work as a deterrent (preventing other potential offenders) on others, is a debatable question. Nevertheless, according to common beliefs, deterrence there is, although it sounds quite hypothetical. The reason is that we know that people can be punished without being prevented from repeating the same offence, and without being reformed. What we are certain about is that punishment involves ?retribution?, involving unpleasantness or pain. So we talk of ?retributive theory?.

In a school situation, there are elements called ?punishment? , which are not strictly cases of it. Suppose a boy has not done his work properly. He may be asked to do it over again. The boy may be deprived of privileges, but the command is rather a moral exhortation, although there is some blame from the teacher. Again, a window pane in class is broken and a teacher decides to detain the whole class. The students may protest and complain about the detention; and they are right. In this case the teacher is ?unfairly? keeping the whole class.

Logic requires that the offender who has smashed the glass (deliberately or accidentally), has to be identified beyond any doubt and punishedThe conclusion in this case points towards punishment being appropriate only when inflicted upon the offender.