[kelsiana]

Hi, as a Mum of five children, I've hardly ever needed to smack my kids, and believe that as parents, we do at the least, need to take five before raising a hand to smack. But realistically, there are times when a light smack can save a child from greater harm. If used very rarely, a light smack does reinforce to a child, that they need to stop doing what they are doing or they may put themselves in danger. In this sense, I do not support the anti-smacking bill as, like already mentioned, innocent parents will be affected. But I do support the bill, when smacking is overused in the home. It should always be considered a last resort and not an instant remedy.

Raising five kids hasn't been easy, as they are certainly not angels, but neither am I, so I do keep this in consideration when disciplining my kids. Often their punishment may come in the means of writing lines, extra chores, loss of privilege ie no playing the playstation etc, often they or myself are encouraged to walk off their frustration or just chill out in a different room for a while. It's time-consuming, but it works, and with five children who all have a good self-esteem, positive attitude and active lives, it's definately worth the time it takes. But my parenting methods are a result of trial and error. As a younger Mum although I still didn't smack very often, I did fly off the handle a lot, with biting words that didn't help much either. Fortunately, I loved my children too much to risk hurting them, and wised up, finding better ways to deal with discipline. If the anti-smacking bill aims to educate parents of tried and tested alternative methods of discipline, which are not too hard to implement - then where's the harm in giving it a try?