Having read the most recent letters about corporal punishment in these columns, I would like to offer a slightly different perspective of corporal punishment.
First, I think Leung Yee-mei is right about the ineffectiveness and the possible repercussions of corporal punishment ('Parents' role so important', South China Morning Post, April 17). The intent to challenge established rules and authorities for challenge's sake is common among teenagers.
Corporal punishment will probably be seen as something to be challenged rather than a deterrent.
Nevertheless, I agree partly with Chan Bing-choi that corporal punishment will be an effective deterrent ('Bring back ultimate deterrent', Post, March 16). Of course, it would be grossly unacceptable to revert to the old school of brutalisation, but I do believe that a limited version of corporal punishment should be allowed and would work in primary schools. I have a theory about corporal punishment. In my opinion, most children nowadays are too pampered. They can get what they want quite easily and they do not get punished for things they do wrong.
By contrast, older generations can remember receiving corporal punishment when they did something wrong, both in school and at home. They learned to take the punishment, it made them more resilient and when they grew up that resilience helped them to cope with whatever reversals of fortune they encountered.
I am neither a psychologist nor a sociologist, but I would venture to suggest that the high suicide rate of today's young generation is largely attributable to the fact that they have been pampered too much from the day they were born and they have therefore not learned to cope with failures in life.