See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301543703

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: DEFINITIONS, TREND AND GOVERNMENTAL

EFFORTS TO CURB THE PROBLEM

Conference Paper · March 2007

CITATIONS READS

0 19,339

3 authors, including:

Sa'odah Ahmad
Universiti Putra Malaysia
30 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

FAMILY LAW View project

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MEDIATION AND SULH IN RESOLVING FAMILY DISPUTES : A STUDY OF PARTIES' SATISFACTION IN SULH IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sa'odah Ahmad on 21 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Juvenile Delinquency: Definition, Trends And Governmental Efforts
To Curb The Problem

by

Maznah Baba, Ph. D

Sa’odah Ahmad, Ph.D
Juliana Rosmidah Jaafar, M Sc.

Abstract
This paper presents an overview of the juvenile delinquency concept, trends in the
delinquency problem, factors that have been linked to delinquency, governmental efforts
to reduce and/or prevent the problem. Some suggestions are made to improve
prevention and rehabilitation efforts to curb juvenile delinquency.

Introduction
The antisocial acts of our adolescents has always attracted public attention, with the help
our media. These acts range from minor socially unacceptable behaviour such as
“disrespect for others” to major crimes such as “murder, rape, robbery and infanticide”.
Hence, news titles such as “Baby found in trash bin,” “Mat Rempit,” “Bohsia and
Bohjan,” and the like, are some of the antisocial or delinquent acts that frequently make
the front pages of our local newspapers. Although only a small percentage of our
adolescents are involved in negative activities, particularly in major crimes, their
delinquent acts need our urgent caring attention since they are our future.

Juvenile delinquency is a term that has been variously defined both academically as well
as socially. Definitions of juvenile delinquency (JD) tend to reflect one’s academic
training. The three main academic disciplines that subspecialize in the study and
treatment of JD are Law, Sociology and Psychology. Hence, there are legal, sociological
and psychological definitions of the term. Subsequently, conceptions on the causes and
treatment of JD may also differ according to the focus of the aforementioned disciplines.

Definition of Juvenile Delinquency

Who is a juvenile?
Section 82 of the Malaysian Penal Code prescribes that a juvenile is a child who has
reached the age of criminal liability or responsibility, namely ten years of age. Section 83
of the Penal Code however, describes conditional protection for a child who is above ten
but below twelve years of age from being prosecuted, provided that he has not attained
sufficient understanding of the nature and consequence of his act during the commission
of the crime. Further protection for the child offender can be seen in section 113 of the
Evidence Act 1950, which provides that it shall be an irrebutable presumption of law that
a boy under the age of thirteen years is incapable of committing rape. These provisions
illustrate that, children will be made liable for their involvement in crime once they have
attained the age of criminal responsibility.

1
What is delinquency?
Delinquency from a legal perspective refers to any behaviour that violates the criminal
law, committed by a young person below the age of eighteen. Hence, a juvenile
delinquent according to the law in Malaysia refers to a young person who has committed
a crimal offence and given a court order. Offences or crimes committed by juveniles
range from minor to major indexed crimes such as petty theft, traffic violation, drug
abuse and/or trafficking, robbery, and crimes that caused grievous hurt to other persons.
This definition of JD is similar to Bartollas’ (2003) definition,

“Delinquency is typically defined as an act committed by a minor that

violates the penal code of the government with authority over the area in
which the act occurs. (p. 8)

The legal definition has its own shortcomings. There are younsters who ‘escape’ the law
and/or are merely given warnings despite the severity of their offence. Another problem
arising from this definition is that there are also youngsters who are caught committing
petty offences being placed in rehabilitation institutions with other delinquents who have
committed major indexed crimes against persons and/or properties.

A ssociological definition reflects the use of the term in various social institutions. One of
these social institutions is the school. Delinquency in schools includes both violation of
the Penal Code and also school norms. There is no mention of a minimum age of
responsibility in determining school delinquency. However, students in violation of the
criminal law are handed over to the police. A school pupil or student may be punished by
the school authorities for misconducts such as truancy (skipping school and/or classes),
smoking, vandalism, fighting, extortion, and for even seemingly minor misbehaviors such
as improper attire or appearance, disrespect toward others and bringing hand phone to
school (Ministry of Education, 2007).

The behavioral definition of school delinquency can also bring unexpected problems to
the healthy personality development of pupils. Although the school pupils are not
formally labeled as juvenile delinquents by the school, they maybe put ‘on display’
during school assemblies before being sent to the counselor. Also, children’s self esteem
maybe hurt by just being called up to the school principal for disciplinary problems such
as “untidy appearance.”

Psychologists, counselors and social workers tend to vacillate between the sociological
and psychiatric definitions that relate adolescents to behaviours that hurt other persons
and/or their properties. These professionals tend to view juvenile delinquency as
‘Conduct Disorder’ based on the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fourth
Edition (DSM-IV-TR). ‘Conduct Disorder’ is described as “repeated violation of the
personal or property rights of others and the basic expectations of society”. The diagnosis
is made only when the misbehaviour has prolonged for more than 6 months. Their
approach to delinquency is more rehabilitative, although prevention efforts are becoming
more prevalent. Psychologists, social workers, and counselors usually deal with

2
delinquent children and adolescents upon referral from other authorities such as teachers,
school principals and the juvenile court.
Although the legal, sociological and psychological definitions vary slightly in terms of
determining who is a juvenile and what constitute delinquent behaviours, the three
professions actually work collaboratively in dealing with juvenile delinquents and the
wider problem of juvenile delinquency. The next section provides data on juvenile
involvement in criminal activities.

Trends in Juvenile Delinquency

The following tables describe the extent of the juvenile delinquency problem in our
country. However, these data only represent official or reported number of juvenile
arrests and/or cases for indexed crimes. These data do not provide any information on
those misconduct that do not constitute criminal behaviour but are nevertheless perceived
as delinquent behaviours by our society. Hence, there are no available statistic on cases
such as “Mat Rempit,” “Baby dumpers,” “Juvenile prostitution,” and the like.

The Crime Index is defined as crimes which are reported with sufficient regularity and
sufficient significant to be meaningful as an index to the crime situation in our country
(PTKPN – D 203 or Inspector General Standing Order). There are 18 offences or crimes
that have been used as a measure of the crime index in Malaysia. generally speaking the
Crime Index refer to two categories of major crimes, namely, crimes against persosns and
crimes against property. These offences include the following: murder, rape, armed gang
robbery, without arm gang robbery, armed robbery, causing grievous hurt / with weapon,
theft, snatch theft, house breaking by day, house breaking by night.

Table 1 below presents data on the number of juveniles arrested for various crimes
between 1998-2006. The percentage of juvenile arrests compared to the total juvenile
population has remained quite constant over the years at about 0.1%, which is much less
than 1%. However, in terms of numbers, there was a sharp increase in juvenile arrests in
year 2006. Using 1998 as the base year, there was an almost 33% jump in juvenile
arrests. Again, readers are cautioned that these are juvenile arrests. The number of
juveniles committed or given orders by the Children’s Court are smaller.

It must also be cautioned that the juvenile population reported is based on the age range
of 10-19 years. The census data referred to does note provide data for 10-18 year olds.
Hence, the actual percentage of juvenile involvement in delinquency maybe lower than
reported in Table 1.

3
 Table 1

Number and Percentage of Juvenile Arrests In Comparison with

Juvenile Population (1998-2006)
____________________________________________________________________
Year Juvenile Population Number of Juvenile Arrests % of Juvenile Arrests
(million) (compared with 1998)
____________________________________________________________________
1998 4,690 6,020 0.12

1999 4,791 6,538 (+518) 0.13

2000 4,859 5,829 (-709) 0.11

2001 4,942 4,747 (-1082) 0.09

2002 5,010 4,200 (-547) 0.08

2003 4,726 5,455 (+1255) 0.11

2004 5,118 5,561 (+106) 0.10

2005 5,169 5,996 (+405) 0.11

2006 5,232 7,971 (+1975) 0.15

(Source: Bukit Aman Police Headquarters, 2007)

Note: excluding runaway cases, and juvenile prostitution

Table 2

Comparison between the Number of Juvenile and Adult Arrests (1998-2006)

__________________________________________________________________
Year Number of Total Number of Juvenile % of Juvenile Involved
Criminal Arrests (n)
_________________________________________________________________________

2003 35, 517 5,455 15.3

2004 38,419 5,561 14.4

2005 42,143 5,996 14.2

2006 54,009 7,971 14.7

(Source: Bukit Aman Police Headquarters, 2007)

Note: excluding runaway cases, and juvenile prostitution

4
Table 2 presents available data comparing numbers of juvenile and adult arrests.
Similarly, the percentage of juvenile arrests have remained constant at 14-15% over the
observed years. It cannot be established whether this is favourable news or not since there
is no comparison data with other countries.

Table 3
Number of Juvenile Cases According to Crime Against Persons (1998-2006)
____________________________________________________________________________
Year
Offences 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________

302 (murder) 25 19 16 19 31 35 28 20 22

307 (Rape) 4 0 2 0 1 3 3 2 NA

352 & 354 53 68 37 46 49 51 61 61 98

(molest)

395 & 397 29 17 21 22 6 11 27 5 0

(Armed Gang Robbery)

395 27 19 21 11 29 25 6 31 62
(Gang Robbery)

392 & 397 40 50 64 53 26 40 51 40 0

(Armed Robbery)

392 24 66 36 42 90 105 86 90 156

Unarmed Robbery

384 & 385 36 24 27 11 31 20 33 27 36

(threats)

147 &148 163 190 125 131 145 158 147 164 214
merusuh

324 & 326 244 263 232 223 195 179 150 127 394
(causing hurt)
(Source: Bukit Aman Police Headquarters, 2007)
*NA = data not available

Table 3 show that between 1998 until 2006, the highest number of juvenile delinquency
cases were crimes against persons.The next categories were ‘merusuh’ and ‘causing
hurt’. Fewer juvenile were arrested for ‘rape’. The data also show that juveniles were also
involved in “robbery” either armed gang robbery, gang robbery and also unarmed
robbery. Although the numbers of cases are small in comparison with the total juvenile

5
population, the fact that youngsters below 18 are already involved in such dangerous
crimes that hurt others is frightening

Table 4

Number Of Cases According To Crime Against Property (1998-2006)

____________________________________________________________________________
Year
Offences 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________

379 (Theft) 416 633 506 402 222 259 489 576 1190

379R (heavy N/A N/A 20 41 59 90 60 134 92

machinery theft)

39A (Snatch Theft) 852 971 1028 1172 836 1078 1056 952 1399

454 (House Breaking 200 193 197 134 116 99 117 270 136
by day)

457 (House breaking 316 453 428 518 298 370 336 399 381
by night)

_____________________________________________________________________________
(Source: Bukit Aman Police Headquarters, 2007)
*N/A = data not available

Table 4 show the number of juveniles involved in various major crimes against property.
For crimes against property, juveniles are mostly arrested for ‘theft’ and ‘snatch theft’
offences. Besides these two offences, juveniles were also arrested for stealing heavy
machinery, and house breaking. Thefts, in our opinion require considerable planning, and
experience.As such, how could our youngsters mastermind such crimes? In addition, they
should be busy with tons of homework.

6
 Table 5
Number of Juvenile Arrests by Gender (1998-2006)
_____________________________________________________________________

Year Number of Number of Boys Number of Girls

Juvenile Arrest (%) (%)
_____________________________________________________________________

1998 6,020 5, 942 78

(98.7%) (1.2%)

1999 6,538 6,451 87

(98.6%) (1.4%)

2000 5,829 5,685 144

(98.6%) (2.5%)

2001 4,747 4,649 98

(97.9%) (2.1%)

2002 4,200 4,066 134

(96.8%) (3.2%)

2003 5,455 5,030 152

(97.2%) (2.8%)

2004 5,561 5,393 168

(96.9%) (3.1%)

2005 5,996 5,849 147

(97.5%) (2.5%)

2006 7,971 7,900 71

(99.1%) (1.9%)

(Source: Bukit Aman Police Headquarters, 2007)

Note: excluding runaway and prostitution cases

Table 5 show striking gender difference in the number of juvenile arrests in indexed
crimes. More than 96% of juveniles arrested are boys. Being physically stronger,
certainly more boys were found to be involved in crimes such as gang robbery, causing
hurt or threats compared to girls. Only between 1 – 3 percent of the arrested juveniles are
girls.

7
 Table 6
Number of Juvenile Arrests by Age Group (1998-2006)
________________________________________________________________________

Year Number of 7-12 13-15 16-18

Juvenile Arrest n (%) n (%) n (%)
________________________________________________________________________

1998 6,020 300 (4.9%) 1,636 (27.1%) 4,084 (68.0%)

1999 6,538 264 (4.0%) 1,977 (30.2%) 4,297 (65.8%)

2000 5,829 224 (3.8%) 1,851 (31.7%) 3,754 (64.5%)

2001 4,747 165 (3.4%) 1,474 (31.0%) 3,108 (65.6%)

2002 4,200 113 (2.6%) 1,265 (30.0%) 2,822 (67.4%)

2003 5,455 151 (2.7%) 1,593 (29.2%) 3,711 (68.1%)

2004 5,561 161 (2.8%) 1,501 (26.9%) 3,899 (70.3%)

2005 5,996 161 (2.6%) 1,472 (24.5%) 4,363 (72.9%)

2006 7,971 134 (1.6%) 1,661 (20.8%) 6,331 (77.6%)

(Source: Bukit Aman Police Headquarters, 2007)

Note: excluding runaway cases

The above Table 6 show that most juveniles arrested over the years observed are in the
16-18 age group. This age group probably comprise youth who have dropped out of the
formal education system after Form Three. However, the exact reasons are still unclear.
Based on experience, juveniles sent the STB Sg Besi had dropped out of school much
earlier. Some are even illiterate.

Data also show that of these three age groups, early adolescents are least in number,
perhaps because of their age, and lack of peer influence. However, according to Bartollas
(2003) this situation cannot be ingored as teenagers who become involved in crimes or
delinquency at a very young age tend to become involved in other serious crimes later in
life if not stopped.

8
 Table 7
Educational Status of Juvenile Delinquents (1998-2006)
_____________________________________________________________________

Year Juvenile Population Number of Juvenile Number of Student

(‘000) Cases in Index Crimes Cases in Index Crimes
_____________________________________________________________________
1998 4,690 3,616 1,392 (0.02%)

1999 4,791 4,076 1,528 (0.03%)

2000 4,859 3,826 1,502 (0.03%)

2001 4,942 3,735 1,327 (0.02%)

2002 5,010 2,955 1,136 (0.03%)

2003 4,726 3,647 1,429 (0.03%)

2004 5,118 3,641 1,499 (0.03%)

2005 5,169 3,936 1,607 (0.03%)

2006 5,232 5,007 1,831 (0.03%)

_________________________________________________________________
(Source: Bukit Aman Police Headquarters, 2007)
Note: excluding runaway cases

Table 7 above show that only a small number of students were involved in delinquenct
activities. In fact less than 0.05 % were still studying when arrested. This finding provide
evidence that most of the juvenile criminal arrests were done by youth who have left the
school system or are drop-outs, despite the fact that completing formal education is
mandatory to all Malaysians below 18. This situation must be given due attention Some
form of action or programme must be designed for school dropouts or perhaps the
government must ensure that all youth below 18 years of age must stay in school..

9
 Table 8
Number of Juvenile Arrests in Narcotics Crimes (Section Codes)
2002-2006
____________________________________________________________________
Section Year
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
_____________________________________________________________________
39B 46 71 99 56 59

39A(2) 23 92 136 17 27

39A(1) 44 52 101 53 47

OTHERS 694 1,003 1,173 1,762 322

TOTAL 807 1,218 1,509 1,888 455

_____________________________________________________________________
(Source: Narcotic Department, PDRM)

Table 8 show the number of juvenile arrests in narcotic crimes. Among three major
section of narcotic offences namely as 39B, 39A(2)and 39A(1), data from the Narcotics
Department show that from the year 2002 to 2006, most juvenile arrests were in section
39A(1), followed by offences in section 39A(2) and 39B. Examples of offences in
Section 39A(1) are possession of less than five grams of heroin or morphine. The next
table presents frightening evidence about the huge number of new addicts every year
since 1999.

10
 Table 9

Number of Juvenile Cases Involved in Drug Offences (1999-2006)

(New and Recidivist -13-18 year old)
______________________________________________________________________
Year Case Status Total Cases

New Recidivists
n (%) n (%)
______________________________________________________________________

1999 893 (97.3%) 24 (2.7%) 917

2000 811(97.5%) 20 (2.5%) 831

2001 1,211 (97.1%) 35 (2.9%) 1,246

2002 1,281 (96.6%) 45(3.4%) 1,326

2003 1,305 (98.0%) 26 (2.0%) 1,331

2004 1,215 (96.8%) 40 (3.2%) 1,255

2005 768 (97.3%) 21 (2.7%) 789

2006 647 (97.4%) 17 (2.6%) 664

___________________________________________________________________
(Source: Agensi Antidadah Kebangsaan Malaysia, 2007)

Table 9 above show the number of juveniles involved in drug cases from 1999 to 2006.
Most of the juvenile arrests represent new cases. Each year more than 96% of the total
juvenile arrests in drug related cases were new cases while 4% were recidivists. These
statistics are indeed very alarming, especially since drug abuse is a problem that can
adversely affect the safety and well-being of whole families. The involvement of youth in
drugs will not be further detailed in this paper.

11
 Table 10
Number of Student Cases 2000-2005
(10-17 years old)
_____________________________________________________________________

Year Student Population Number of Students Percentage of Students

Involved in Delinquency Involved in Delinquency
_____________________________________________________________________

2000 4,922,441 47,780 0.97%

2001 4,935,157 50,570 1.02%

2002 5,008,807 63,805 1.27%

2003 5,042,311 59,930 1.19%

2004 5,277,101 55,339 1.05%

2005 5,127,053 45,548 0.89%

_____________________________________________________________________
(Source: Ministry of Education, 2007)

Tables 10 and 11 show data regarding school delinquency. The above table show that
between 2000 – 2005, only about 1% of the total student population were involved in
delinquent acts. Table 11 below show a clearer picture of the types of school delinquency
and number of students involved.

12
 Table 11
Number of Students Involved in School Offences by Category
2002-2006
________________________________________________________________________
Category Year / n (%)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Untidy
appearance
7,057 8,967 9,504 10,367 12,532 9,935
(0.14%) (0.18%) (0.19%) (0.21%) (0.24%) (0.19%)

Vandalism
2,019 2,065 1,976 1,910 2,917 2,367
(0.04%) (0.04%) (0.04%) (0.04%) (0.05%) (0.05%)

Truancy
34,613 35,808 48,407 43,421 33,157 26,663
(0.70%) (0.73%) (0.97%) (0.86%) (0.63%) (0.52%)

Indiscipline
4091 3730 3918 4232 6733 6583
(0.08%) (0.08%) (0.08%) (0.08%) (0.13%) (0.13%)

(Source: Ministry of Education, 2007)

According to the above data provided by the Ministry of Education (2007), most cases of
school delinquency from 1998 – 2006 involved truancy followed by untidy appearance.
Truancy, especially skipping school, is dangerous since the youngster is exposed to moral
danger when he loiters in shopping malls or video arcades during school hours.

Factors Related to Juvenile Delinquency

Previous research done in Malaysia and in other countries have revealed many correlates
of juvenile delinquency. These correlates include the following:

i. personal characteristics of the juvenile

ii. family demographic characteristics
iii. family functioning, parenting and communication
iv. social and environmental factors

A caution must be mentioned regarding use of the term ‘Correlates’. Statistically,

correlations do not indicate causation although clinically, many practitioners find that

13
their juvenile delinquent clients may have a combination of the various factors that
contribute to their delinquent behaviours.

Personal characteristics or attributes of delinquents that have been found to correlate with
delinquency include: self esteem, coping skills, religiousity, personality attributes, low
academic achievement, school failure and illiteracy.

Family characteristics include demographic as well as socioecological factors of the

juveniles’ families. These include factors such as: family income, social status, family
relationship quality, family functioning, parenting quality, quality of parental supervision,
quality of family communication, family structure and family size.

Environmental factors include peer and media influence. Negative peer and media
influences have also consistently been found to contribute to delinquency. Smoking, gang
fights, and truancy are usually committed in groups. Early exopsure to pornographic
materials such as books and videos were reported by adolescents involved in sexual
delinquencies.

Many studies have been done both locally and in other countries. Please see references
section for some of these studies. It is hoped that the findings be used in the design and
implementation of programmes to reduce, if not eliminate, juvenile delinquency among
our youth. The effectiveness of such programmes can be ascertained using a pilot project
approach before programmes are conducted on a wider scale.

Governmental Efforts to Curb Juvenile Delinquency

The following describe some of the efforts made by our government to manage the
problem. Some of these efforts may have been driven by research and/or observations of
the delinquency problem.

1. The Child Act 2001

Even before independence, children in our beloved counrty were legally protected by the
provisions of the Juvenile Courts Act 1947. Juvenile girls were also given protection and
justice under the Women and Girls Protection Act 1973. Later, the Child Protection Act
1991 was enacted. These legal provisions have undergone revisions. Currently, the Child
Act 2001 consolidates the above three previous laws on issues related to the care,
protection, and rehabilitation of children including committed juveniles. Children are
defined as those below 18 years of age under this Act. Although not mentioned,
rehabilitation also includes the detention of juveniles in approved schools.

Apart from being a reactive response to the growing delinquency problem in our country
by providing for childrens’ legal care, protection, and rehabilitation, the Child Act 2001
is also proactive and hence preventive in terms of providing places of safe refuge to
children or juveniles deemed at risk of being physically and psychologically harmed or
exposed to immoral activities. Specifically, this law provides care, protection and
rehabilitation to children at risk of the following dangers:

14
 a. physical, emotional or sexual abuse, by parent/s or guardian/s or a
member of their family,
b. being exposed to the abovementioned dangers but their parents have failed or
will not provide protection,
c. being abused and neglected and unsupervised by parents or guardian, and
hence in danger of falling into bad association
d. being induced to perform any sexual act, or is in any physical or social
environment which may lead to such immoral acts

Apart from applications by ‘protectors’ on behalf of the child, the child himself may
apply to the Childrens’ Court for care and protection against such dangers. Interestingly,
parents or guardians may also apply for a court order to place their ‘incorrigible’
children in rehabilitation hostels or approved schools. Then their children will live in
such facilities for a maximum duration of three years with other juvenile delinquents
who may have committed violent crimes. Another drawback of placement in approved
schools is that the child usually stops formal education. He undergoes whatever
vocational training offered at the approved schools. These approved schools are under the
management of the Department of Social Welfare (JKM), the Ministry of Women,
Family and Community Development.

The rationale behind the establishment of the Child Act 2001 are indeed very noble. The
government acknowledges the following in its establishment:

a. the country’s vision of a fully developed nation that upholds the importance of
social justice, morality, spirituality, high ethical standards and economic
development
b. the child is a crucial component in society’s survival, development and
prosperity
c. the child needs care, assistance and protection without discrimination due to
their nature
d. the family as the fundamental group in society needs to be given assistance to
enable them to fully assume their responsibilities.

This Act also protects the identity and dignity of juveniles in court by stipulating that
their identities be kept confidential so that these youngsters can turn over a new leaf or
life minus the social stigma in adulthood. Although the law specifies that a child who has
attained the criminal responsibility age may be held liable for his offence, the procedure
and punishment should be different from those applicable to the adult. This is in line with
the spirit of Rule 2.2(a) of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Administration of Juvenile Justice [The Beijing Rule] 1985 that provides:

“A juvenile is a child or young person who, under the respective legal

systems may be dealt with for an offence in a manner which is different
from an adult”

15
2. Rehabilitation Institutions
The Child Act 2001 provides for the detention and rehabilitation of juveniles given such a
court order. The juvenile is cared for, disciplined and vocationally trained in skills that
will help them earn a living upon release from rehabilitation. Such institutions are
segregated by gender. Delinquent boys and girls between the ages of 14 -18, if ordered to
be sent to “approved schools,” are usually sent to the Sekolah Tunas Bakti (STB).
Approved schools are managed by the JKM. Life in these approved schools are
regimented. However, the unfortunate situation is that there is no academic curriculum to
cater for those youth who were still pursuing their formal education when given the court
order to be detained in approved schools.

Those between the age of 10-14 are sent to “approved hostels” since they are still too
young to be detained in prison-like setting. Unlike the approved schools, school age
pupils continue their formal education in schools located near their hostels.

Juveniles who commit major crimes against persons may be sent to the Sekolah Henry
Gurney, which is under the Prisons Department. The setting and rehabilitation methods
are also ‘harsher’ than the approved schools. Interestingly however, the vocational
training provided for both approved schools and the juvenile prisons are almost similar –
welding, agriculture / horticulture, catering/cooking, and the like. Approved schools and
juvenile prisons for girls provide vocational training more suited to the female gender,
such sewing / tailoring, hair-styling, and also catering/cooking.

The above rehabilitation institutions may also temporarily house juveniles ‘in remand.’
These are juveniles awaiting trial at the Children’s Court. The Children’s Court also face
similar problem of ‘back log’ in cases. It is not surprising to hear of juveniles awaiting
trial for months, possibly missing formal education permanently. Nevertheless, these
efforts are commendable. Juveniles who come into approved schools look physically
better after having stayed there even for a few months (personal observation). Many feel
sad upon leaving these institutions when asked about how they feel during ROL meetings
/ interviews.

3. The National Youth Development Policy (NYDP)

The NYDP revised in 1997 has the following main objective:

“To establish a holistic and harmonious Malaysian youth force imbued with
strong spiritual and moral values, who are responsible, independentand
patriotic; thus serving as a stimulus to the development and prosperity of the
nation in consonant with Vision 2020.”

Governmental programmes for youth development are mainly conducted by the Ministry
of Youth and Sports. Some of these programmes include leadership training, skills
training, entreperneural development, healthy lifestyle programmes, sports programmes,
cultural programmes, preventive and rehabilitative programmes. The Rakan Muda
programme is an example of an ongoing healthy lifestyle programme targeted at youth.
This programme was the outcome of research conducted on loitering youth which

16
showed that our youth are exposed to immoral activities and danger when they loiter
aimlessly in public places.

Although the definition of youth in Malaysia include those between 15-40 years of age, it
is observed that the focus of programmes under the Ministry of Youth and Sports are for
those who have completed or left secondary school. As such, most youth between 17-18
years old are left out.

4. Full Time Counselors In Schools (Ministry Of Education)

Since 1996, the Ministry of Education has placed full time counselors in schools to help
pupils / students with problems as well as conduct prevention programmes that help
students strengthen their social competence and psychological well-being. Previously,
school counselors played dual but contradicting roles of being discipline teachers and
counselors.

5. Premariagge & Parenting Courses (Ministry of Women, Family and Community

Development & Religious Institutions)
Parenting workshops or courses have been ongoing in our country since the early 1990s.
The National Population and Family Development Board (LPPKN) has developed
training modules to help the public become better parents. Recently, the Ministry of
Women, Family and Community Development launched a Parenting course at the work
place to ensure a larger number of participation, especially of fathers. The LPPKN has
also launched the Smart Start premarriage course for all ethnic groups. The course is not
mandatory. For Muslims, the pre-marriage course is compulsory.

Although never described as preventive measures to reduce the delinquency problem,

both the pre-marriage and parenting courses impart skills to citizens so that they can
improve or enhance family relationships. As such, chilldren have a reliable shoulder to
lean on when they face the turmoil of adolescence.

6. The PROSTAR Programme (Minsitry of Health)

The PROSTAR (Healthy without Aids Programme for Youth) is a preventive programme
designed to promote a healthy lifestyle and prevent HIV/AIDS among our youth. This
programme is usually conducted in schools and represents a collaborative effort between
the Ministriy of Education and the Ministry of Health Malaysia.

7. Police Involvement In Helping Schools Deal With Delinquent Students

The Police and schools have always worked collaboratively in dealing with delinquent
students. Recently, the media has reported on the greater involvement of the police to
help the public and schools in particular to curb crime.

8. Establisment of th Malaysian Crime Prevention Foundation (MCPF)

The establishment of the MCPF in the early 1990s has facilitated work in crime
prevention in our country. Please visit the MCPF website for details of this organisation.

17
 Conclusion
The care, health and positive development of our youth in society lay not in the hands of
just the parents who gave birth to them but also to ALL CARING CITIZENS. In fact, we
now live in a digitally borderless world where all sorts of information, both negative and
positive, are readily available at the touch of a button. As suh our youth need both
internal and external strengths to help them develop into positively well-functioning
individuals, our pride in this world and the hereafter.

In conclusion, I would like to recommend that govenrmental efforts be more

collaborative and based on the needs of our youth, and the capabilities of a borderless
world. Prevention efforts must reach a wider spectrum of the population. Rehabilitation
must include strengthening the “inner” characteristics of the juvenile apart from provision
of vocational skills more desirable to our contemporary youth.

References
Bartollas, C. (2003) Juvenile Delinquency.6th ed. NY: Allyn & Bacon.
Child Act 2001. (2006). Malaysia: International Law Book Services.
Hamdan, A.A. (2003). Gejala Ponteng dan Hubungannya Dengan Tingkahlaku Devian:
Satu Kajian di Beberapa Sekolah Menengah di daerah Kuala Pilah, Negeri
Sembilan. M.Sc Thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia: Serdang, Malaysia.
Juliana, R.J (2006) Kualiti Hubungan Ibu Bapa Dengan AnakDi Kalangan Remaja
Perempuan Terlibat Salah Laku, MSc Thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia: Serdang,
Malaysia.
Kasmini, K.,Teoh, H.J,. Lim, G.S. & Zaireeni, A. (2002). Delinkuensi Juvana. Malaysia:
Yayasan Pencegah Jenayah Malaysia.
Penal Code. (2006). Malaysia: MDC Publishers Sdn.Bhd.
Population and Housing Census of Malaysia. (2000). Malaysia: Department of Statistics
Malaysia.
Rakanmuda.(2007). www.rakanmmuda.org.my . Retrieved on March 20th, 2007.
Suhaimi, M.S (1999). Sebab-Sebab Utama Penagih Mula Mengambil Dadah: Satu
Kajian di Pusat Serenti. M.Sc Thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia: Serdang,
Malaysia.
Social Statistics Bulletin. (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006). Malaysia: Department of
Statistics Malaysia.
Suria, M. (2005). Kecerdesan Emosi (EQ), Personaliti dan Persepsi Pelajar Terhadap
Faktor Psikososial Dalam Salah Laku Jenayah di Sekolah Menengah Luar
Bandar. M.Sc Thesis. Universiti Putra Malaysia: Serdang, Malaysia.
United Nations Report. (2002). Youth in Malaysia: A Review of the Youth Situation and
National Programmes.
Zainab, T.(2002). Hubungan Keibubapaan Dengan Salah Laku Seksual Remaja
Perempuan di Taman Seri Puteri. M.Sc Thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia:
Serdang, Malaysia

This paper was presented in the Round Table Discussion Organized by The
Ministry of Youth, Culture and Sport, 2007.

18

View publication stats