“Thou Shalt Not Steal”

Whippings Would Reduce Activities of Numerous Native Thieves

Contributed By A Resident Of Papua.

IF there is one subject more than an other that is likely to receive promin ence every month in the columns of the P.I.M., it is the increasing complaint that the natives of certain Pacific territories — notably the Mandated Territory, Papua, and the Solomons —are getting out of hand.

Of the many references made to this important matter, it is only necessary to mention two that appeared in the December issue—the reported remarks of Judge Phillips under the heading “With Intent to Insult”; and the convincing article by a New Guinea resident dealing with the white man’s reaction to native lawlessness. Both were read with in terest, and both seem to be representative of present-day opinion in those countries.

It is now an established fact that the natives are becoming more insolent; and, as this is difficult to check in countries where the white man dare not raise his hand to natives, the insolence grows into crimes of violence against white men, and sexual crimes against white women. It becomes apparent that the old way of giving a native a slap on the jaw for cheek had its merits.

The causes said to be responsible for this change of conduct are various and seem to be reasonable. But, funda mentally, they can all be summed up in

the unfortunate fact that the native is losing his fear, and hence his respect, for the white man. Psychologists tell us that fear (of consequences) is one of the most, powerful agents in governing human con duct, and it is likly to remain so till the coming of the Millenium. Some way of restoring the old fear of the white ruling race must be sought, if we are not to allow the native to drift into further law lessness.

Are We Too Goodnatured?

Apart from this psychological explana tion, we can find a cause among white people themselves. Civilised humanity has, to its credit, become more good natured and tolerant of late years. The native is taking advantage of this. What is a progressive improvement in our English character is producing unex pected and alarming sequences in the un discriminating mind of subject races in the Pacific.

This change was bound to come. Had the Germany retained control of their late colony they must have felt it too.

And, quite possibly, as suggested by more than one of your correspondents, they would have dealt with it more effectively.

It has long been suggested in the P.I.M. that these major crimes should be coun tered by the introduction of corporal pun ishment. Administrative bodies, formerly

strenuously opposed to such a course, have now adopted it. The P.I.M. has played no small part in introducing these penalties, and we may expect in conse quence a diminution of such crimes in the future.

Thieving Natives

But no mention has so far been made of stealing by natives. Possibly it is too common to attract attention.

Speaking for one small part of New Guinea, the western division of Papua, it is no exaggeration to say that every three out of four natives there are thieves, a statement that is founded on long and painful experience, shared with every white man in that community. The practice is universal, and the details too well known, alas, to need repeating here.

Suffice it to say that the white man’s money, possessions, his food and clothing, tools, fowls, and fruit are at the mercy of every native who may covet them.

Australians cannot be described as good "lock and key” men, but they do guard their belongings as well as their national carelessness permits. In spite of this, we are always being robbed. Why? Have the natives ever been taught the rudi ments of honesty?

I confine my accusations to those parts of Papua of which I can speak with accuracy. That natives differ in many districts is true, for here, in the western division, we have no experience of the crimes of violence so common else where. Insolence is so rare as to make it apparent that it is only induced by tactlessness on the part of white men.

Assault on the ruling race, so far as I am aware, is unknown. Sexual crimes on white women are non-existent. This speaks well for the good behaviour of local natives. But the everlasting com plaint of having been taken down echoes through the land, and distinctly is not conducive to that harmonious feeling that should exist between the two races.

The existing legal penalties for thiev ing are fine or imprisonment. The fine is probably more deeply felt, especially among the Western Papuans, who have Jew-like noses and a fondness for money equal to an Aberdonian’s. Neither is im prisonment lightly thought of, for Papuan prisons are not the “cushy” places they are sometimes said to be.

Unfortunately imprisonment brings very little sense of shame and for that reason fails. Neither form of punishment is deterrent. The magistracy of Papua now impose long terms of imprisonment on natives convicted of stealing. But steal ing does not cease.

In the eighteenth century, people in England were hanged for thieving. This is a page of history that few people care to read nowadays, though fully in accord with the spirit of the time. Such severity is unthinkable to-day; but can there be any doubt that the general honesty of the English race is partly founded on the harshness of a former generation? Our ancestors were forced to be honest by the fear of death; Western Papuans must be forced into a higher standard of pro bity on the same principle by a penalty they find unpleasant. And that penalty is corporal punishment as a routine in all cases of thieving.

A Plea For Whipping

The very mention of the words corporal punishment will bring down a flood of re crimination on the head of anyone rash enough to advocate it. It remains, how ever, the time-honoured and most effec tive way of training the young, and the adult Papuan holds very similar views

regarding discipline as an English boy in adolescence. He understands the lash, is impervious to moral suasion, and is not greatly put out by imprisonment.

These are valid reasons in favour of its adoption, though they may not prevent an outcry.

If the arguments of those who oppose corporal punishment, however, are analysed, it will be found that their ob jections are invariably based, not on the principle, but on the technique. It is perfectly reasonable to insist that no

native be thrashed in hot blood (as in the case of Larkin), or with undue severity (as in another M.T. instance): or unless full proof of guilt has been established.

It is purely an administrative matter to attend to these details, and it may be left at that. Provided that, from very light ness, corporal punishment does not be come a farce.

In the case of Western Papua, stealing would be quickly checked if the Govern ment were to make it known that a thrashing would follow on conviction, and

were to administer the first dose of medi cine in public. The Western Papuan is a very reasonable individual and very few examples would be needed. As things are, the prevailing dishonesty is a re flection not only on the character of the natives, but on the Administration.

In a well-conducted public school, cor poral punishment is administered by the headmaster. This adds greatly to the effect on the schoolboy, and adds pres tige to the man who wields the rod. The results would be similar if applied to Papua. White officials and not native underlings should be entrusted with such matters. In their hands there could be no suspicion that it was applied in too harsh a manner.

Native Procurers

One aspect of stealing often escapes notice. The actual thief is not always the most blameworthy.

The comparative honesty of a young house boy often breaks down on the arrival of some swaggering bigwig from his village, who induces him to steal and promises all sorts of disasters at home if he does not comply. These modern Fagins, who exist everywhere through out this division, are the fellows who

should be caught, and, if so, given such a public hiding as to put an end to rob bery by proxy. They are twice guilty, offending both against the white man whose goods they consume, and the un fortunate boy in their power. A little infusion of the third degree in the inves tigation of these cases would often bring the true culprit to light.

Another local method is for some old man to “adopt” young house boys brought from the bush, where they are compara tively honest; or from Moresby, where they are not; and get paid for their pat ronage by thieving from the unsuspect ing white master. This is an unpardon able sort of meanness. Surely no opponent of controlled corporal punishment could have any sympathy with them.

An intensification of educative methods should be introduced, side by side with more effective penalties. Education of natives is in Papua largely placed in the hands of missionaries. The missionary no doubt has his hands full in combating the many other faults of Papuans, but their influence might be sought to launch a campaign directed particularly against dishonesty. The subject needs more than the usual attention that no doubt is given to it.

In conclusion; corporal punishment for major crimes is now recognised in the territories under review, and it is hoped that abler pens than mine will add their opinions as to its advisability in checking stealing also.

These columns are always open to opposing opinions, and herein lies an in vitation to discuss the matter among those concerned.

Interested Australians may need re minding again that pilfering and petty swindling are so common here that com parison with the conditions in their own country cannot be made. The system is only advocated for a race who can under stand the rod and who are not unduly sensible of any great stigma attached to it.

Thanks to an unwise leniency, which has been a feature of civilised adminis tration since the war, there is a world wide increase of crime. Heavier penal ties have been called for in other lands, and New Guinea is no exception.