Child protection against corporal punishment in myanmar study of provisions and reality

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY MAY THU AUNG CHILD PROTECTION AGAINST CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN MYANMAR: STUDY OF PROVISIONS AND REALITY MASTER THESIS VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY MAY THU AUNG CHILD PROTECTION AGAINST CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN MYANMAR: STUDY OF PROVISIONS AND REALITY MAJOR: MASTER OF GLOBAL LEADERSHIP CODE: …8310210.01QTD RESEARCH SUPERVISORS: Prof Dr KATSUMA, YASUSHI Prof Dr PHAM HONG TUNG Hanoi, 2022 COMMITMENT "Child Protection against Corporal Punishment in Myanmar: Study of Provisions and Reality" is an original work of the researcher, written under the guidance of Dr KATSUMA YASUSHI and Dr Pham Hong Tung (the thesis supervisors) The data used in this qualitative analysis is completely truthful and the findings and conclusions of the thesis were not previously published in any other research or not submitted to any other degree In this thesis, the source of citation is clearly identified, and I am willing and ready to accept responsibility for my work Hanoi, December 2022 Author May Thu Aung ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My gratitude towards my thesis supervisors Dr KATSUMA YASUSHI and Dr Pham Hong Tung are not replaceable Without the guidance from their profound knowledge, this master thesis could not be finished Moreover, I have a special person to appreciate who is Dr Jung Hyun Ryu She is very kind, friendly and ready to support whenever the students ask her for help Her teaching and support positively impacted my academic work and the thesis writing as well Another is Dr Ilju Kim from Waseda University, Japan During the virtual internship period, I could learn the specialized Qualitative Research Method and finally, I could apply it practically for my research methodology I owe my thanks to all professors over the past two years who gave lectures and taught me very important topics about global issues With all their training, I could decide on this topic which needs to be solved urgently to comply with the global norms and SDG Besides, I also express my deep appreciation to my family for their encouragement and the respondents who voluntarily agreed to take the interviews by sharing the unique and essential pieces of information for data analysis ABSTRACT This study explored the factors behind the enactment of the new 2019 Child Rights Law (CRL) in Myanmar, which legally prohibited corporal punishment in homes The national struggles to pass corporal punishment provisions and the challenges to enforcing the law were then inquired about Thus, the following questions were conducted in this study: (1) What factors led Myanmar's Child Rights Law (CRL) to prohibit child corporal punishment by parents at home? (2) What national struggles were encountered to promulgate the provision of child corporal punishment by parents at home in 2019 under the CRL? and (3) What challenges are there to implementing the provisions of child corporal punishment at homes in Myanmar? To be a well-designed case study, even if this is a single unit study, two different methods of data collection, such as in-depth interviews and document analysis, which supplement the sources of interviews (Bowen, 2009), were conducted Specialists in child protection and child rights who worked closely on the national level to reform the law were interviewed Moreover, the reports, the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s summary records, and news were collected for document analysis The significance of this study is to contribute to the limited research on the issue of corporal punishment in Myanmar and to obtain insightful information on the legalization of corporal punishment in homes The analysis shows that UNCRC and domestic-level factors such as political transition, the government’s desire, and the engagement of NGOs drove Myanmar towards law reform to enact the new CRL However, on a regional level, ASEAN’s call for prohibiting corporal punishment in homes is less significant to Myanmar The Myanmar government did not actively respond to the actions of ASEAN in the same way that it did to the CRC The engagement between NGOs and the government in advocating for the CRL was limited However, after 2015, the collaboration between relevant entities such as the Department of Social Welfare (DSW), Parliament, and NGOs improved Furthermore, it is discovered that most parliamentarians and the Ministry of Education (MoE) were unwilling to prohibit corporal punishment Then, when the implementation stage arrived after CRL had been enacted in 2019, unexpected circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic and a military coup took place As a result, the further implementation of the CRL Rule has been delayed It is necessary to guide who, and which committees and subcommittees, undertake the implementation of the CRL and how Without it, a child policy and child protection plan cannot be developed, and thereby, the human, technical, and budgetary resources for the child protection sector will not be resolved Moreover, the traditional child chastisement has also been widely accepted and practiced in the community, even to this day Overall, the CRC is a more powerful international actor in promoting child rights law in Myanmar, which includes the prohibition of corporal punishment In contrast, the regional actor, ASEAN, which is less effective in pushing Myanmar to eliminate corporal punishment at all setting including home As part of the national struggle, the government is reluctant to adopt the legal prohibition of corporal punishment, while child-focused NGOs unanimously support it Although the CRL was successfully enacted, enforcing the prohibition on corporal punishment in the home remains challenging Keywords: Child Protection, Corporal Punishment, Parents, Provisions, Myanmar TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES i LIST OF FIGURES ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study 1.2 Problem Statement 1.3 Purpose of the Study 1.4 Significance of the Study 1.5 Operational Definition CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Global Perspective on the Children and Family 2.1.1 Theoretical Perspective on the Child Rights 2.2 The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 2.2.1 Child Protection and Physical Violence 10 2.3 ASEAN and Child Protection 11 2.4 Corporal Punishment and Negative Consequences 12 2.5 Corporal Punishment at Homes 13 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 15 3.1 Case of Myanmar 15 3.1.1 Child Focused NGOs in Myanmar 15 3.2 Conceptual Framework 16 3.3 Analytical Framework 17 3.4 Qualitative Design and Data Collection 17 3.5 Data Analysis 18 3.6 Expected Findings of the Study 19 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 20 4.1 What factors led Myanmar's Child Rights Law (CRL) to prohibit child corporal punishment by parents at home? 20 4.1.1 International factor 20 4.1.2 Regional factor 22 4.1.3 Domestic factors 24 4.2 National struggles for provisions of corporal punishment by parents at home in CRL 28 4.3 Challenges after enacting CRL 33 4.3.1 Budget Allocation 36 4.3.2 Human and Technical Resources 37 4.3.3 Case Management System (CMS) 38 4.3.4 Law Enforcement 40 4.3.5 Cultural and Social Norms 4.3.6 Public Education CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Limitation and Future Research REFERENCES APPENDIX States achieved in prohibiting CP at homes APPENDIX States committed to prohibiting corporal punishment at homes APPENDIX Consent Form APPENDIX Interview Guide in English APPENDIX Interview Guide in Burmese APPENDIX Lists of Interviewees APPENDIX Selection and Data Analyzed APPENDIX Coding 40 42 44 46 47 50 52 53 54 56 60 61 63 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.3 Analytical Framework ……………………………………………… 16 i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.5.1 Percentage of Global Legal Prohibition to Corporal Punishment…… 13 Figure 3.1 Conceptual Framework ………………………………………………… 15 ii 21 Greece 2006 22 23 Guinea Honduras 2020 2013 24 25 26 Hungary Iceland Ireland 2005 2003 2015 27 Israel 2000 28 Japan 2020 29 30 31 32 Kenya Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania 2010 1998 2008 2017 33 34 35 Luxembourg Malta Mongolia 2008 2014 2016 36 37 38 39 Montenegro Nepal Netherlands New Zealand 2016 2018 2007 2007 40 41 2014 2013 42 Nicaragua North Macedonia Norway 43 44 Paraguay Peru 2016 2015 45 Poland 2010 1987 Law 3500/2006 on the Combating of Intrafamily Violence 2006 Children’s Code 2019 2013 amendments to Family Code and Civil Code 2004 amendment to Child Protection Act 1997 Children’s Act 2003 2015 amendment to Offences Against the Person (No Fetal) Act 1997 2000 repeal of “reasonable chastisement” defense 2019 amendments to the Child Abuse Prevention Law 2000 Constitution 2010 Children’s Rights Protection Law 1998 Children and Youth Act 2008 2017 amendments to Law on the Fundamentals of Protection of the Rights of the Child 1996 Law on Children and the Family 2008 2014 amendment to Criminal Code Law on the Rights of Children 2016 and Law on Child Protection 2016 2016 amendments to Family Law 2007 Act relating to Children 2018 2007 amendment to Civil Code Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 Family Code 2014 Law on Child Protection 2013 Law on promotion of good treatment, positive parenting and protection of children and adolescents against corporal punishment or any type of violence as a method of correction or discipline 2016 Law prohibiting physical and other humiliating punishment against children and adolescents 2015 2010 amendment to Family and Guardianship Code 1964 51 46 47 2007 2021 50 Portugal Republic of Korea Republic of Kosovo Republic of Moldova Romania 51 San Marino 2014 52 53 Seychelles Slovenia 2020 2016 54 South Africa 2019 55 South Sudan 2011 56 57 Spain Sweden 2007 1979 48 49 2019 2007 amendment to Penal Code 2021 amendment to Civil Act, de facto application of Child Welfare Act Law on Child Protection 2019 2008 2008 amendment to Family Code 2004 Law on Protection and Promotion of the Rights of the Child 2004 2014 amendments to Penal Code and Law of 1986 No.49 on Family Law Reform 2020 amendments to Children Act 1982 Law Amending and Supplementing the Law on Prevention of Family Violence 2016 2019 Constitutional Court ruling the common law defense of “reasonable chastisement” to be unconstitutional Transitional Constitution 2011 2007 amendment to Civil Code 1979 amendment to Parenthood and Guardianship Code 58 Togo 2007 Children’s Code 2007 59 Tunisia 2010 2010 amendment to Penal Code 60 Turkmenistan 2002 Law on Guarantees of the Rights of the Child 2002 61 Ukraine 2004 Family Code 2003 62 Uruguay 2007 2007 amendments to Civil Code and Children and Adolescents Code 2004 63 Venezuela 2007 2007 amendments to Law for the Protection of Children and Adolescents 1998 APPENDIX States committed to prohibiting corporal punishment at homes Armenia Kyrgyzstan Bahrain Mauritius Bosnia and Herzegovina Mexico Cambodia Mozambique Chile Myanmar 52 China Namibia Cuba Niger Dominican Republic Panama Ecuador Philippines Ghana Serbia Indonesia Sierra Leone Jamaica Somalia Sri Lanka Timor-Leste United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan APPENDIX Consent Form Dear Participant I truly appreciate your interest in this study Now, I would like to ask for your consent to cooperate in this interview The purpose of the interview is to analyze the data you shared for the completion of master thesis with the title of “Child Protection against Corporal Punishment in Myanmar: Study of Provisions and Reality” As this is the academic purpose, all your information will be kept confidential and there is a guarantee that your name and organization will be anonymous in the thesis report and/or any publications if you not agree You understand that this is voluntary and if you no longer wish to continue during the interview, you can withdraw at any time as I respect your opinion and decisions Thank you so much for your time to participate in the interview If you have any queries relating to this interview, you can contact me via 20117034@st.vju.ac.vn I understand and agree to give my consent to take part in this activity YES NO Name: …… 53 APPENDIX Interview Guide in English Date: Time: Interviewer: Location: Introductory Remarks I am a graduate student of a master of global leadership program I truly appreciate you for giving your time to take the interview This interview is for studying the Child Protection against Corporal Punishment in Myanmar and through this interview’s information, provisions for child corporal punishment at homes in Myanmar, factors which promoted to enact those provisions in the 2019 Myanmar Child Law and the challenges in implementing the CP at homes in reality will be explored Before we begin, I want to provide the following document link and give your official consent for participating in the interview if you understand and agree with it https://forms.gle/aLM24RHdR7qjbznq8 In addition, I’d like to request your permission for video recording with the purpose of data analysis Hence, if you have any questions regarding the interview and study now, you are welcome to raise your voice I General Information Interviewee Name: Interview Code: Position: Organization: How long have you worked in the child protection fields including corporal punishment at homes? Did you take some responsibility for provisions of CP at homes during the Child Rights Bills started in 2017? if Yes, how If not, what did you know about it through your workplace or colleagues? What you think of the provisions of CP at homes in 2019 Child Law? Why you think child corporal punishment at homes should be involved in the new Child Law in 2019 together with other sectors like schools, alternative care and penal system? II Legal Provisions of Corporal Punishments at homes What were the prime factors to promoting the child corporal punishment at homes in the 2019 Child Law? How was the international enforcement? How was the regional enforcement? How was the domestic level? 54 Why was CP at homes started to prohibit in 2019 Child Law even though there were several recommendations since the first concluding observation in 1997? III Struggles to achieve domestic provisions for Corporal Punishment Were there any struggles to enact the provisions of corporal punishment at homes in 2019 Child Law? And what are they? Were there any reluctance made by the government side for the provision of child corporal punishment at homes during the Child Rights bill? What were they? Were there any struggles between the government and NGOs for the provisions of corporal punishment at homes during the bills? What and how? IV Challenges for implementing the Corporal Punishment What challenges you think or are you facing to achieve the prohibition of Child Corporal Punishment at homes? Do you think that national budget allocation for child protection is enough? and you know is there any specific allocation of child corporal punishment programs? Do you think the manpower and technical resources are enough to implement the prohibiting CP at homes? What you think of the cultural norms or beliefs of using corporal punishment by parents at homes? Closing Remarks This is the end of the interview and thank you for agreeing to speak to me today I received a lot of important information from you relating to the CP at home What questions should I be asking to really get at provision of CP at homes in Myanmar and challenges facing right now in Myanmar Can you recommend any other people I should speak to? If you think of anyone else, I should speak to about the provision of CP as well as challenges, please pass on my name and contact information If you have any other questions or comments, please feel free to contact me My contact info is included in your consent form copy THANK YOU SO MUCH 55 APPENDIX Interview Guide in Burmese - Master of Global Leadership program (Child Protection against Corporal Punishment in Myanmar) (data analysis) video recording ၁။ / 56 ( ) ( ) ( ) ၂၀၁၉ (ဃ) ၂၀၁၉ ( ) ၂။ ( ၂၀၁၉ ) ၏ ( ) ( ) ( ASEAN) (ဃ) ( ) on the Rights of the child Committee ၁၉၉၇ 57 ၂၀၁၇-၁၈ ၂၀၁၉ ၃။ ( ) ၂၀၁၉ ( ) ( ) NGO ၄။ ( ) ( ) 58 ( ) ၏ (ဃ) (Consent Form) ၏ email 59 APPENDIX Lists of Interviewees No Position Organization Advocacy Advisor - Child Rights Governance NCRWG Child Rights and Child Protection Program Manager NCRWG, Plan International Myanmar Senior Child Protection Specialist NCRWG Lawyer and UNICEF National Consultant NCRC, UNICEF NCRWG member - Child Protection NCRWG National Campaign Coordinator NCRWG, World Vision Myanmar Child Protection Advisor NCRWG, Childfund Myanmar Assistant Program Manager NCRWG, Social Care Volunteer Group (SCVG) Project Officer NCRWG, Child Right Governance Social Care Volunteer Group (SCVG) 10 Child Protection Advisor NCRWG 11 Independent Consultant (Thematic areas, Training, Research Area) 12 Former Child Protection NCRWG Coordinator, Risk and Compliance Coordinator 60 APPENDIX Selection and Data Analyzed No Selected Documents A Review of NGO Coordination in the Field Case Study: Myanmar 2008-2010 Formative Evaluation of UNICEF’s Strategy and Approach to Child Protection Systems Buildings: Final Report (Volume I) Children’s Rights from Theory to Practice Yangon Seminar 2001 (Working Report) Documentation of Good Practices in ASEAN Member States on the Elimination of Violence against Women and Children (EVAWG) Myanmar Child Rights Law needs further reform, effective enforcement HRW (Human Rights Watch) - Burma News Myanmar National Laws - CRIN Myanmar - National Plan of Action for Children (2006-2015) Myanmar’s New Children’s Law a Step Forward - HRW (Human Rights Watch) Myanmar - Legal Review 10 Support the Development of the New Child Rights Law in Myanmar - IDLO (International Development Law Organization) 11 Report of the Secretary - General on children and armed conflict in Myanmar, 2017 12 Myanmar to defend child rights, abolish corporal punishment 13 State Party’s (Myanmar) initial report to CRC 14 State Party’s (Myanmar) second periodic report to CRC 15 State Party’s (Myanmar) third and fourth periodic report to CRC 16 CRC’s Concluding Observation - initial report 17 CRC’s Concluding Observation - second periodic report 18 CRC’s Concluding Observation - combined third and fourth periodic report 19 Lists of Issues for combined third and fourth periodic report 61 20 Replies to lists of Issues for combined third and fourth periodic report 21 CRC’s Summary Record (Morning Session) of the 1675th meeting for combined third and fourth periodic reports of Myanmar 22 CRC’s Summary Record (Afternoon Session) of the 1675th meeting for combined third and fourth periodic reports of Myanmar 23 CRC’s Summary Record of the second part (public) of the 1675th meeting for combined third and fourth periodic reports of Myanmar 62 APPENDIX Coding Name Description Activities after 2019 Child Law - Approaching New Strategy - Beliefs on legal prohibition - Challenges Challenges in reality to implement the corporal punishment provisions in CLR 2019 Action Plan Action Plan for child protection - child rights Budget Allocation how the situation of budget for child protection - corporal punishment Case Management Before 2019, there is a good systematic case management How was it done? and now? Child Policy Conditions of child policy which will positively impact to the prohibition of child corporal punishment Child Rights Rule Rule after Child Rights law was enacted Cultural Norms What and how hinders the prohibition of corporal punishment in CLR 2019 for implementing on ground Afraid of losing friendship - Parents' The ideas of parenting are challenging to implement the conservative idea corporal punishment at homes Educating Children - Data of child corporal How many children are being punished physically at homes and punishment where does it happen the most? Human and Technical Real situation of employees and technical resource for Resources prohibition of child corporal punishment in CLR 2019 Human Rights Commission Protecting child rights - child corporal punishment Impact of unexpected changes - 63 Name Description Law Enforcement - Monitoring System Committees from national level to township level for child protection including corporal punishment Project Coverage Governments, CSO's on ground projects for educating the positive discipline and prohibiting corporal punishment Public Education Relating to the educating parents, guardians, administrators for positive discipline Public Services Government's services to public - from the side of INGO, INGO Changes Legal changes from 1993 to 2019, specifically corporal punishment by parents Current ASEAN Worries - Factors Provision for the prohibition of Corporal Punishment at homes Domestic factor Internal circumstances which encourage Myanmar to prohibit the child corporal punishment at homes Behavioural Change Their acceptance of the ideas of social change along with democracy eg Human Rights, Chid Rights Desire of Government - INGO NGO's Efforts - MSDP Myanmar Sustainable Development Plan (MSDP) - a part of why 2019 child right law created? Need for law amending - Socio-ecological reason - International factor International treaties and global matters which motivate or force to prohibit the corporal punishment to children at homes in Myanmar Regional factor ASEAN 's plan and action and other agenda which motivate or force Myanmar to prohibit the child corporal punishment at homes Struggles struggles to provisions for prohibiting child corporal 64 Name Description punishment at homes in child rights law Government Side For the case of child corporal punishment at homes, what departments disagreed it and how? Parliamentarians' Their way of thinking for making provisions for corporal social acceptance punishment in law Individual Some persons gave great efforts to draw up the provision of corporal punishment to children in CLR 2019 NCRWG Side what and how Weakness of 1993 Child Law - 65