Corporal Punishment in Thai Schools

An old Thai proverb says, “If you love your cow, tie it up; if you love your child, beat them”. It is meant to convey that a loving and responsible guardian should discipline their child and that corporal punishment is an act of care as sensible as tethering one’s cattle so that it does not wander off. For many generations, this proverb and traditional practices have normalised corporal punishment. This attitude is also displayed by teachers in schools.

One year after Thailand legally banned corporal punishment, the law is still undermined by weak enforcement, lack of accountability and entrenched cultural beliefs.

Today, corporal punishment is considered harmful to the physical and mental health of children. The WHO asserts that such punishment increases behavioural problems, impairs socio-emotional development and, crucially, violates children’s rights to good health and physical integrity. Since 2005, the Thai Ministry of Education (MOE) has permitted four forms of punishment in schools: verbal warning, formal written warning, grade deduction and remedial activities to correct behaviour. Punishing students by “violent means” is strictly prohibited. In March 2025, Thailand amended its Civil and Commercial Code Section 1567 to ban all types of violent or corporal punishment in homes, schools and other facilities. This amendment elevates the ban from a ministerial regulation to the legal code, which fully enshrines the protection of children’s bodily autonomy.

Regardless of these recommendations and the ban, corporal punishment has and continues to be prevalent in Thailand. In 2020, the Thailand Development Research Institute found that 60 per cent of Thai students had been physically punished in schools. In June 2025 – three months after Thailand’s ban, UNICEF found that 54 per cent of children in Thailand have been subjected to violent discipline. While the two surveys were conducted by different organisations with different methodologies, a negligible decline is arguably an insufficient rate of progress for something as serious and well-studied as corporal punishment.

Worse, in the past two months, Thailand has witnessed two high profile cases of violent punishment in schools. In February 2026, a 13-year-old student from Lopburi province was hospitalised after a teacher ordered him to perform 800 squats as punishment. A month later, a viral video surfaced when a fifth-grade boy in Chonburi province was beaten by his teacher for failing to submit his homework. Ironically, the teacher had received a teaching award days prior. In both cases, the MOE immediately formed investigative committees to examine the teachers’ conduct. If found guilty, the teachers could be dismissed and lose their teaching licenses. The Lopburi teacher was quickly transferred, likely to prevent him from interacting with the punished student again.

One year after Thailand legally banned corporal punishment, the law is still undermined by weak enforcement, lack of accountability and entrenched cultural beliefs.

This turn of events demonstrates the normalisation of corporal punishment in Thai schools, with the Lopburi case emphasising how corporal punishment can take many forms, including forced exercise, which does not require any physical contact. The schools’ and MOE’s reactions reveal poor monitoring and performative enforcement in place of tangible accountability. These incidents were promptly handled, but only after they captured media attention. The statistics on corporal punishment suggest that a majority of cases in Thailand are never reported or swept under the rug. Despite their detrimental effects on cognitive learning, camera phones and social media have become accountability mechanisms for students, since viral videos and public outrage can force schools and governing bodies to respond. For instance, the activist group Bad Student has been documenting abuse and demanding meaningful reforms for nearly six years.

When these institutions do act, however, accountability can still be evasive. The Bangkok Post, for instance, questions whether these investigative committees deliver meaningful accountability for teachers or if they only manage public sentiments and fade away when the news cycle moves on. Additionally, simply transferring abusive teachers fails to address the root of the issue. As these teachers have not faced any meaningful consequences or undergone retraining, they can inflict the same harm on students in other schools. Notably, that parents in both cases filed police reports suggests a profound lack of confidence in the MOE’s ability to provide the necessary recourse.

Perhaps the most difficult problem is changing the deep-rooted mindset that corporal punishment is a necessary part of education. Remarkably, the teacher from the Chonburi case apologised to the student, his parents and the public for being “excessive” in his actions. Yet, he maintained that his duties as a teacher were not limited to imparting knowledge but extended to instilling responsibility and discipline. This teacher’s attitude exemplifies how deeply rooted Thai traditions of corporal punishment are despite recent legislative changes. It emphasises how the system should treat this ingrained viewpoint with the seriousness it deserves.

Meaningful change requires comprehensive action. The MOE and related institutions should commit to retraining teachers to use positive reinforcement to motivate and correct behavioural issues, which can counteract the norm of defaulting to punishment. Schools should also strengthen internal oversight to address poor enforcement and improve accountability by establishing reporting channels that parents and students can trust and access. Indeed, parents and students must be part of the conversation. Students experience the consequences of these policies every day and can offer a crucial and distinct perspective. Genuine youth participation is necessary to ensure that Thai students can learn from teachers who recognise their human rights and bodily integrity.

2026/129