Allow me to briefly rebut Charles F Moreira's comments on my earlier letter on the subject of whipping as a punishment.

The purpose of my letter was to speak out against the heinous punishment of whipping - not to suggest alternatives, although I can think of several. It is the government's and parliament's role to do so.

If whipping were an effective deterrent, we should have little crime in Malaysia. Yet, many European nations (Switzerland, for example) have much lower crime rates without having to resort to inhumane punishment such as whipping (and the death penalty).

Does the solution not lie also in effective law enforcement and education? How often does one see policemen on patrol or conducting traffic enforcement in Kuala Lumpur? Or Johor Baru, for that matter?

I remember that the old mission schools placed great emphasis on moral instructions and character building. Is this still the case with our present school system? Do we still teach the young that crime does not pay or do the young learn that crime can pay, depending on who you are and who you know?

A senior judge has now proposed that snatch thieves be whipped 'as a deterrence'. My question is: Can we expect a little more creative thinking here on the part of policymakers (and judges)? What does whipping achieve in itself? Nothing.

Why impose whipping for offences where no violence was used, e.g. immigration offences?

Can't prisoners instead be sent to work camps where they are put under strict disciplinary and work conditions and given counselling so that they can be reformed? They can also earn their own keep rather than be left idle in prison and a financial liability on the tax payer.

I am not an expert on the penal system. All I am saying is that we need more enlightened responses to the problem of crime. I honestly cannot see how ripping the flesh off a criminal can bring about a better sense of security for the common citizenry.

This is akin to medieval thinking when a child could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread.