Licks for children? No

THE EDITOR: I believe in “licks” for children’s deviant behaviour yes, but it is “licks” for the parents, not the children. Parents must stand up to their responsibilities if they want their children to be well-behaved. A child learns good from evil, right from wrong in its first formative years before they officially start school at five years old. Children are much more receptive of information than we had imagined. Poverty must not be used as an excuse for not to train one’s children properly. There are many examples of very well-behaved children of poor families. Parents are the ones who have to establish the guidelines on behaviour, including good manners, in order to have a harmonious family life and to have acceptable social interaction by the children towards the parents, siblings and the general population. Deeply religious families seem to have a beneficial effect on their children’s outlook and behaviour because they fear retribution from God. The parents must show the way by example.

Discipline (love and welfare of the children are the reasons for teaching discipline) should be effected in different ways, depending on the circumstances. For instance, deprivation from attending a desired event, withholding pocket money and gifts, assigning unwelcome tasks, preventing them from socialising with their friends, and even occasional judicious corporal punishment, if warranted. Parents must explain to the children why their behaviour is wrong. But the children must feel loved and must be praised for good deeds. The child must be able to love his parents as well as to be a little “afraid” of them, to respect their authority and to have confidence in them. Parents must take an active interest in their children’s early education and interacting with them so as to propagate communication to the fullest.

They must also teach the children about the common dangers that they may encounter and how to deal with them. Parents must restrict the times when they both leave the children at home, when they have to go out for business or pleasure. Whenever possible they should have someone (a neighbour) supervise the children in their absence. The Government should sponsor programmes on TV illustrating expected and proper behaviour within the family group and towards the wider community. The programmes could focus on honesty, good manners, consideration for others, littering and road safety. Parents must remember that with acquisition of children they forfeit some of their selfishness and independence. If the above are observed we would produce better behaved students and a better, safer, less violent society.

H RAYMOND
Laventille