Corporal Punishment from the Jurisprudence Perspective

  • Nur Diyana Kamal Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
  • Nurul Zahida Anuar Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
  • Shahrul Mizan Ismail Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.


To date, Malaysian law does not provide for any offence for those who carry out corporal punishment either at school or at home, unless the punishment carried out leads to physical and mental injury. This is because corporal punishment is considered a tradition and practice that is still widely accepted in our society today. In Malaysia, whipping and some other corporal punishments are still practiced in schools with guidelines and procedures set by the Ministry of Education Malaysia, for example through the Education (School Discipline) Regulations 1959 and Professional Circular (SPI) No. 8/1983. However, the justification behind the implementation of corporal punishment is often disputed and its implementation is often considered unnecessary, as it can have a negative impact on children. Therefore, this article is an important to study concerning the need and rationale behind the implementation of corporal punishment both at home and in school. This qualitative study uses ethnographic methods through analysis via various theories, and the thought of several schools of jurisprudence, such as sociological, naturalist and utilitarianist thought, to tackle the issue of execution of corporal punishment on children. The study finds that corporal punishment is essentially not accepted by the majority of jurisprudents if it leads to injury and harm in children. However, there are exceptions for problematic students and children to be punished for the purpose of educating them, subject to certain guidelines so as not to cause injury to the recipient of the punishment. The implementation of corporal punishment has, in fact, its own advantages and disadvantages, depending on the way the children accept the punishment. However, from the perspective of social education, it is found to have a more positive impact in building moral principles and ethics in children.


Amini, I. (2013). Physical punishment. Ansarian Publication.
Bailey, M. (2003). The corporal punishment debate in Canada. Family Court Review, 41(4), 508–516.
Benatar, D. (n.d.). CORPORAL PUNISHMENT - philosophical study. Social Theory & Practice. Retrieved January 8, 2022, from
BERNAMA. (2015). Tindakan rotan dalam cadangan Akta Kanak-Kanak baharu perlu diperhalusi.
Betham, J. (2001). A fragment on government. In The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. The Clarendon Press.”+by+Jeremy+in+corporal+punishment&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimr5fzy6H1AhVDkNgFHYTHDzYQ6AF6BAgEEAI#v=onepage&q=A Fragment on Government” by Jeremy in corporal punishment&f=fa
Child Rights Coalition Malaysia. (2012). Child rights coalition Malaysia Disember.
Donelly, M., & Straus, M. (Eds.). (2008). Corporal punishment of children in theoretical perspective. Yale University Press.
Durkheim, E. (2006). Durkheim: Essays on morals and education (Volume 1). Taylor & Francis.“Society+can+survive+only+if+there+exists+among+its+members+a+sufficient+degree+of+homogeneity:+education+perpetuates+and+reinforces+this+homogeneity+by+fixing+in+the+child+from+the+b
Giesinger, J. (n.d.). Kant on dignity and education. Retrieved January 8, 2022, from
Hamid, A. H. A., Simin, M. H. A., & Kamri, K. A. (2018). Implikasi hukuman fizikal terhadap anak dalam masyarakat Melayu Johor, Malaysia. Jurnal Kelola: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, 1(2), 131–142.
Ho, K. (2019, Julai 8). Ibu bapa di Malaysia mempunyai pendapat yang berbeza tentang hukuman fizikal di sekolah-sekolah. YouGov.
Hoffman, R. (2015). A new reading of kant’s theory of punishment. ScholarlyCommons, 284.
Konstantareas, M. ., & Desbois, N. (2001). Preschoolers perceptions of the unfairness of maternal disciplinary practices (Volume 25). Child Abuse & Neglect.
Korbin, J. E. (1983). Child abuse and neglect: Cross-cultural perspectives (J. E. Korbin (Ed.)). University of California Press.
KPM. (2021). Kenyataan media berkaitan penjelasan tentang jadual yang bertajuk “unit disiplin kpm: bentuk-bentuk hukuman yang dilarang. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
Negara Merdeka. (2021, Disember 21). GEMPAR!!! Bermula esok, guru boleh dihukum sekiranya berleter terhadap murid. Negara Merdeka.
Okone, S., & Makori, G. (2015). Utilitarian view on persistent use of corporal punishment in secondary schools in kisii central sub county, Kenya. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 28–33.
Palmer, Joy, Bresler, L., & Cooper, D. (2001). Fifty major thinkers on education: From Confucius to Dewey. Psychology Press.
Parke. (2002). Parke, R. D. (2002). Punishment revisited--Science, values, and the right question: Comment on Gershoff (B. T. Johnson (Ed.)). Psychological Bulletin.
Pejabat Ketua Pengarah Pendidikan Malaysia. (2003). Surat pekeliling ikhtisas bil. 7/2003: Kuasa guru merotan murid. 2, 3–6.
Semakan Online. (2017). Senarai denda & hukuman yang dilarang kpm ke atas pelajar sekolah.
Thompson, K. (2017). Durkheim’s perspective on education – revisesociology.
United Nation. (2017). Corporal punishment and the right to education.
United Nation. (2019). Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC): Global initiative to end all corporal punishment of children.
Utilitarianism | (n.d.). Retrieved January 8, 2022, from
Yoshida, T. (2011). Corporal punishment of children: A critical realist account of experiences from two primary schools in urban Tanzania. 293.
How to Cite
KAMAL, Nur Diyana; ANUAR, Nurul Zahida; ISMAIL, Shahrul Mizan. Corporal Punishment from the Jurisprudence Perspective. Kanun: Jurnal Undang-undang Malaysia, [S.l.], v. 34, n. 2, p. 185-200, july 2022. ISSN 2682-8057. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 01 oct. 2023. doi: