• Would be a significant regressive move, contradicts evidence-based practice
• Signals that public pressure can override children’s rights and safety
• Creates ambiguity about whether State truly prioritises child protection
• Law must be guided first by evidence and international obligations
• Rollback would conflict with CRC obligations, UN Committee’s guidance

The Government backtracking on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill which seeks to outlaw corporal and non-physical punishment against children in educational and institutional settings would be a significant regressive move, said Bandaranaike Academy for Leadership and Public Policy (BALPP) Executive Director, Education Forum Sri Lanka Co-Founder, and a former Secretary to the Ministry of Education Dr. Tara de Mel, in an interview with The Daily Morning.

“After a laudable and clear policy trajectory toward criminalising corporal and non-physical punishments, backtracking would weaken child protection and contradict evidence-based practice. It risks leaving children exposed to harm that global health bodies say is avoidable,” she asserted.

This move would also signal that public pressure can override children’s rights and safety, creating ambiguity about whether the State truly prioritises child protection, she emphasised. “Child protection law must be guided first by evidence and international obligations, not only transient popular sentiment,” she added.

A rollback would also conflict with Sri Lanka’s CRC obligations and the UN Committee’s guidance that states prohibit corporal punishment to fulfil articles protecting children from violence, she noted.

Following are excerpts of the interview: 

Having taken significant strides towards safeguarding children in Sri Lanka, the Government is now signalling that it will rollback the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill which seeks to outlaw corporal and non-physical punishment against children in educational and institutional settings. How do you view this?

This would be a significant regressive move: after a laudable and clear policy trajectory toward criminalising corporal and non-physical punishments, backtracking would weaken child protection and contradict evidence-based practice. It risks leaving children exposed to harm that global health bodies say is avoidable.

What message does this potential rollback send about the State’s stance on child protection and discipline in schools?

It signals that public pressure can override children’s rights and safety, creating ambiguity about whether the State truly prioritises child protection. That uncertainty undermines enforcement and prevention efforts.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s stance, as expressed a few days ago, is that laws must reflect public sentiment, in the backdrop of the proposed amendments creating controversy. How do you view this statement in the context of child rights and protection?

Laws should undoubtedly take account of public views, but rights-based protections exist precisely to protect vulnerable groups when popular opinion lags behind human rights standards. Child protection law must be guided first by evidence and international obligations, not only transient popular sentiment.

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) has also strongly backed the amendment, pointing to the rise in reports of child rights violations and you have emphasised the importance of a firm national stance on corporal punishment. What would this stance look like in practice?

A coherent package: clear, enforceable law banning corporal and degrading non-physical punishments; national guidelines and monitoring; mandatory reporting and child-sensitive complaint mechanisms; support services (counselling); and public education campaigns to change norms. The HRCSL’s recent support illustrates why State institutions should lead this.

Global research, including by UNICEF and WHO, highlights that corporal punishment causes lasting physical and psychological harm to children. Why do Sri Lankans, especially education  sector professionals, insist on continuing this harmful practice? How can this mindset be changed?

Why: deep cultural norms, intergenerational practice, belief in immediate compliance, and gaps in training and alternatives. 

Change: combine mandatory teacher training in positive discipline, community engagement, visible legal consequences, and campaigns showing better outcomes from humane methods. Link training to career incentives and performance metrics.

Despite the Ministry of Education issuing circulars prohibiting corporal punishment in schools, it continues unchecked. What challenges do schools face in implementing non-violent disciplinary methods and what should the Government do?

Challenges are large class sizes, resource constraints, lack of teacher training, absent counselling services, and social/community pressure to ‘maintain discipline’.

Government actions should include investing in teacher capacity building, reducing pupil-teacher ratios where possible, fund counsellors/behaviour-support teams, issuing enforceable circulars supported by inspection and sanctions, and running parent/community outreach.

How does the Government’s stance align – or conflict – with Sri Lanka’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)?

A rollback would conflict with Sri Lanka’s CRC obligations and the UN Committee’s guidance that states prohibit corporal punishment to fulfil articles protecting children from violence. Maintaining or strengthening the ban would align law with treaty obligations.

Could you list the long-term psychological and educational impacts of corporal punishment on children, based on global and local research?

Documented effects include: increased aggression and violent behaviour; higher anxiety and depression; lower self-esteem; impaired cognitive and socio-emotional development; poorer academic outcomes and school disengagement; and intergenerational transmission of violence. Local studies echo these global patterns.

How do positive disciplinary methods compare in terms of effectiveness and outcomes for children? 

Positive methods (restorative conversations, coaching, behavioural guidance, counselling) produce better self-discipline, empathy, school attachment, and long-term behaviour change – and do not carry the harmful side-effects of corporal punishment. They are more effective for sustained behavioural and learning outcomes.

What kind of training or support do teachers need to shift away from corporal punishment?

Practical pre- and in-service training in classroom management and positive discipline, mentorship/coaching in schools, access to school counsellors, clear legal/professional protections for using humane methods, curriculum materials, and ongoing professional development plus incentives and inspection support. Include role-play, case studies, and follow-up coaching.

What are your recommendations for ensuring that child-friendly disciplinary practices become the norm in Sri Lankan education?

Enact and keep a clear, enforceable legal ban on corporal and degrading punishments.

Fund nationwide teacher training and school-based counselling teams.

Run sustained public campaigns (parents, religious leaders, communities) to shift norms.

Strengthen monitoring, complaint and redress mechanisms (child-friendly, confidential).

Link school inspection, accreditation, and teacher evaluation to non-violent discipline standards.

Pilot and scale school models that demonstrate better academic and wellbeing outcomes from positive discipline.