Punishment corporally?

Jul 06, 2008 Features / Columnists

The Parrot during recent reconnaissance trips to assess the price of fruits used the opportunity to conduct an unofficial survey as to people’s knowledge of an issue that has been attracting lots of debate: corporal punishment.

The only reason I resorted to conducting the survey personally was due to the lack of financial resources to contract the services of Guyana’s seemingly “pollster czar”, Vishnu Bisram.

Well there was another reason; even if I was in possession of the financial resources, Bisram’s findings would have been subjected to intense scrutiny by the process of “Freddieism”.

Not wanting to attract any unnecessary attention to the findings, I braved the elements of the weather, the impassable “air space” around the markets, and the occasional abuse to benefit from authentic results.
The question asked was simple, at least so I thought. “What do you think about corporal punishment?”

The answers varied from ridiculous, hilarious, unprintable, and not applicable to “what the hell are you talking about?” I hope in some way to help describe the arduousness of the task I undertook. As an after thought, I should have garnered the financial resources to contract Bisram.

Many having heard the question immediately responded expectantly by saying “he deserves it. He must be punished.”

Obviously I was taken aback the first time I heard this response; it was unexpected. However, it better prepared me for the various replies I subsequently heard.

I discovered that this particular reply was as a result of, those who provided it, interpreting the question to mean if a corporal should be punished which they related to the escape of a high-profile prisoner.

This percentage sampled was adamant in their response and didn’t allow me the opportunity to rephrase or clarify the question. Of course the response was duly noted as one given in the survey.

Another sample, to some extent, expressed sympathy in their response. After carefully analysing these responses, I was able to conclude that the word “corporal” was interpreted to mean all ranks.

Those who provided these replies were apparently in close proximity of areas where ranks are trained and, obviously, after observing the rigorous routines, misinterpreted it for a form of punishment, hence their empathy. I hope by now you would have realised how difficult it was for me.

An elderly male vendor, who apparently was observing me talking to various people, was curious enough to enquire of me after I reached his stall and enquired of him the price for fruits.

After explaining my “mission” and relating the two responses, I got up to that point, which I have alluded to, he enlightened me that I had structured the question too sophisticatedly and that I needed to communicate in simplistic terminology.

For a moment I had difficulty in understanding his comments; not that I couldn’t relate to them, but because I didn’t expect him to be so eloquent.

After a fairly lengthy discussion on how the question should have been framed, I conceded to his experience and wisdom and resorted to colloquial expressions. This was tested on the next person surveyed who was asked, “Should children get ‘licks’ in school?”

The responses that followed were quite revealing and interesting; there were almost equal responses in terms of “no” and “yes” amongst adults. In one instance, some overly-curious and in earshot of the vendor’s stall became embroiled in a verbal altercation as to whether “licks” should be shared in school or not.

The situation became a little “hostile” by Parrot’s standards, causing me to bolt from the area. I decided to target the “horses” so to speak and ventured to the minibus parks to solicit responses from school-goers.

Some responded almost scornfully and dismissively, “what are you talking about?” This was not reflective of them not understanding what was asked; it was more a reflection of the “youth culture” that tends to dismiss thoughts not subscribed to.

Initially, a vast majority seemed not to comprehend the word “licks” in the context asked. Some had a different connotation with responses that cannot be printed in this column.

Since I am constrained for space, the underlying thinking by school-goers is that they are living in a “different world” to what could be compared to “back then” and as such would not succumb to the notion of them being disciplined by the cane.

Some were bold in their revelation that even their parents dare not contemplate punishing them corporally for any transgression. This in itself can serve as indication as to evolution of the act of corporal punishment. “Back then” it was a certainty.

Those who can recall “those days” can speak of a neighbour who was “authorised” to “cut your arse” for misbehaving; a “cut arse” that was invariably repeated when your parents were made aware of your “deed” by the said neighbour.

Of course we have gone past those days, but the argument remains: “licks” or “no licks”? Those who have passed through “those days” can argue that the “rod” effectively kept them on a “straight” path and was basically responsible for whatever successes they now enjoy. In some of these cases a relative is revered, having been the principal administrator of “licks”.

Others would say “licks” is responsible for physiological trauma which can leave lasting scars. Of course this debate seems never ending and should be allowed to continue.

Constables surveyed indicated their desire to be promoted directly to Sergeant and upwards in an effort to bypass the rank of Corporal. This they explained is due to the fact that there are no “sergeant” and other higher rank of punishment.

What I know for sure is that given the difficulties I endured during the survey, I ain’t taking no “licks” to conduct another one. I leaving that to Bisram. Squawk! Squawk!