Psychologist and Permanent Secretary for Justice, Selina Kuruleca, has voiced strong opposition to corporal punishment, emphasizing its detrimental effects on children during the National Conversation on Corporal Punishment in Suva. She argued that physical punishment not only violates legal protections but also alters children’s brain responses, wiring them for fear and aggression, potentially perpetuating a cycle of violence into adulthood.
Drawing from her extensive experience as both a psychotherapist and a former teacher, Kuruleca noted that even mild physical punishment triggers the brain’s danger response, hindering the learning process. “When a child is struck, even lightly, the brain perceives danger, prompting a surge of cortisol and activating survival instincts. At that moment, effective learning ceases,” she explained.
Her comments align with alarming statistics from various reports indicating that a staggering 81% of children in Fiji are subjected to violent disciplinary measures at home. Kuruleca warned that repeated corporal punishment conditions children to equate love with fear, which can later manifest in violent adult relationships. She urged the community to seek alternatives, referencing Indigenous practices that traditionally prioritized restoration and understanding over punishment.
The discussion around corporal punishment gained traction following recent calls from various community members, including Mereseini Rika, advocating for its reintroduction in schools due to escalating behavioral issues observed in children. However, this perspective has faced strong opposition from legal experts and child welfare advocates. Legal drafter David Solvalu underscored that any form of corporal punishment would violate Section 41 of Fiji’s Constitution, which guarantees children’s rights to protection from violence.
Experts like Nilesh Lal, executive director of Dialogue Fiji, have echoed similar sentiments, affirming that corporal punishment is inherently abusive and counterproductive. He argues that such methods only serve to normalize violence, foster aggressive behaviors, and impede children’s mental health and academic performance. Statistics revealing that five out of six children in Fiji report experiencing abuse or neglect further highlight the urgency of finding non-violent disciplinary methods.
Kuruleca acknowledged the frustrations of teachers who support corporal punishment, suggesting that under-resourced classrooms contribute to their calls for physical discipline. She emphasized the need for the government to invest more in teacher training and counseling to help educators adopt more effective, compassionate approaches to discipline.
In light of these discussions, Kuruleca’s stance advocates for a shift toward nurturing educational environments that reject physical punishment. The movement against corporal punishment in Fiji showcases a growing commitment to prioritizing children’s rights and well-being, fostering hope for future generations to thrive in safe and supportive learning spaces.