The Unheard Voices of Child Offenders: Time for Reform for the Youth Justice System
in Malaysia?
Nadzriah Ahmad
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Malaysia acceded to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereinafter referred to as the
CRC) on the 17th February 1995 in order to uphold the legal rights of the children in
Malaysia.1 Subsequently, upon ratification, Malaysia is under an obligation to implement the
provisions in the CRC in order to protect the legal rights of the children (Committee on the
CRC, General Comment 10, 2007). 2 In particular, with regards to the children in conflict
with the law, CRC obliges State Parties to undertake in giving protection to children in
conflict with the law at every stage of the juvenile justice system, in line with the
requirements of Articles 37 and 40 of the CRC in order to uphold the principle of the best
interest of the child (Committee on the CRC, General Comment 10, 2007). 3 While the
former obligates States Parties to uphold the leading principles for the use of deprivation of
liberty, the procedural rights, treatment and conditions afforded to children in conflict with
the law when deprived of liberty, the latter safeguards the legal rights of the children in
conflict with the law by ensuring that they receive treatment and guarantees of fair trial which
could afford protection on them (Committee on the CRC, General Comment 10, 2007).4
This article seeks to analyze pertinent issues surrounding the juvenile justice system in
Malaysia in particular, at the pre trial process. The first objective of this paper is to examine
the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system in Malaysia in protecting the legal rights of
the child offenders particular at the pre trial process. The second objective of this paper is to
identify factors which contributed to child offenders committing criminal acts and to evaluate
the existing crime prevention programs in order to identify whether these programs are
effective in reducing children contact with the juvenile justice system. For these purpose, this
research employs mixed methods where both quantitative and qualitative methods were
employed. In order to achieve the first objective, a quantitative method involving a cross
sectional survey was undertaken and questionnaires were distributed to one hundred and sixty
four (164) respondents below the age of eighteen years old who are detained in institutions at
the Kajang Prison in Selangor, Henry Gurney School in Telok Mas, Melaka and Approved
School in Sungai Besi, Kuala Lumpur. The Kajang Prison and Henry Gurney School are
detaining institutions for child offenders and fall under the jurisdiction of the Prison
Department of Malaysia and the Approved School is governed by the Department of Social
Welfare, Malaysia. In order to achieve the first objective of the research, qualitative method
involving semi structured interviews were also undertaken with nine (9) respondents from the
judiciary body, the Public Prosecutor from the Attorney General’s Chambers, legal
practitioner, an officer from the Royal Malaysian Police and officers from the Legal Aid
Centre in Kuala Lumpur and the Legal Aid Department at Putrajaya. In addition, one
respondent was interviewed from each of the detaining institutions at the Kajang Prison in
Selangor, Henry Gurney School in Telok Mas, Melaka and Approved School in Sungai Besi,
1
A/RES/44/25, CRC was adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 1989 <http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/547/84/IMG/NR054784.pdf?OpenElement> viewed on 8 August
2012
2
General Comment No. 10 (2007): Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice, CRC/C/GC/10 available at
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/comments.htm at para 4.
3
Ibid at para 10.
4
Ibid at para 5.
1
Kuala Lumpur. Qualitative study is also undertaken with officers from the Department of
Social Welfare, Putrajaya and officers from Royal Malaysian Police in order to gain more
insights on the crime prevention programs which are undertaken in order to reduce the crime
rate committed by children in Malaysia.
The findings of the research demonstrate that the majority of the respondents were denied
legal protection at the pre trial process because of the inadequacy of the existing laws in
protecting the legal rights of the children. The results of the research also exhibit that the
majority of respondents committed crime because of influenced from peers and the thrill of
seeking excitement without being aware that their offending acts would be punishable by law.
This paper concludes that there is a compelling need to improve the crime prevention
programs in order to prevent children from getting involved with crime. Effective crime
prevention programs would lead to the reduction of children being in contact with the
juvenile justice system and would minimize the detrimental exposure they will face in the
juvenile justice system. This is especially so when the laws governing the juvenile justice
system in Malaysia may be inadequate in protecting children who came into contact with the
juvenile justice system. Thus, not only the crime prevention programs needs to be effective,
the legal framework of the juvenile justice in Malaysia also needs to be improved in order to
make it in line with the international standards and norms governing the juvenile justice
system.
2.0 THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN MALAYSIA
In the first part of the article, the paper will analyze the effectiveness of the pre trial process
in the juvenile justice system in protecting the child offenders in Malaysia. The juvenile
justice system in Malaysia is governed by the Child Act, in particular in Part X and XIII of
the Child Act. According to the Child Act, a child is defined as a person under the age of
eighteen and in relation to criminal proceedings, a child means a person who has attained the
age of criminal responsibility, set at ten years of age.5 Part X of the Child Act outlines the
criminal procedure in Court for Children and Part XIII of the Child Act elucidate the process
of investigation, arrest, search and seizure of commission of any offence under the Child Act.
The respondents who took part in this survey consist of those whose aged is between 13 -15
years old (5.5%) and the age of the remainder of the respondents (37.6%) are between 16 to
18 years old. The majority (87.7%) of these respondents who took part in this survey were
conscious they have committed wrongful act and realized the consequences of their actions
(71%) when they committed the offending behavior but more than half of the respondents
(59.5%) were not aware that they have committed acts which are legally wrong.
The questionnaires were set in order to examine in greater detail the impact of juvenile justice
system process on child offenders who came into contact with the system from the pre trial
process, trial process and at the disposal stage. However, for the purpose of this article,
emphasis would be given to the impact of the pre trial process on child offenders. When the
respondents were asked whether the arrest process left a negative impact on them, a high
number of them (69.7%) agreed that the arrest process left a negative impact on them. In the
subsequent paragraphs, this article seeks to examine factors which may contribute to the
dissatisfied feelings of child offenders at the pre trial process.
5
Section 2 of the Child Act and Section 82 of the Penal Code respectively.
2
Section 83 (1) of the Child Act provides that child offenders shall not be arrested, detained
or tried except in accordance with the Child Act.6 However, this section does not stipulate
specifically the mode of arrest when dealing with child offenders. This section also does not
explicitly provide for the mode of investigation in the first twenty four hours after arrest has
taken place. The only provision in the Child Act which governs the mode of arrest is
embodied in Section 87 (1) (a) of the Child Act which provides that following an arrest of a
child offender, it is incumbent on the police officer or other person to immediately inform a
probation officer and the child’s parent or guardian of the arrest. However, it is reported that
weak enforcement of police officers in carrying out this duty results in the delay to notify the
child offender’s parent or guardian upon arrest. This problem may be aggravated in particular
when this section does not provide any time limit for the notification to take place between
the police officers and the child offender’s parent or guardian.7
During the arrest process, almost two thirds of the respondents (70%) reported that they were
not treated with respect by the enforcement officers. For example, slightly more than half of
the respondents (53%) reported that they were not brought to the court within twenty four
hours upon arrest. This situation is clearly contrary to Section 28 (3) of the CPC and Article
5 (4) of the Federal Constitution which requires an offender to be brought to the Court
within twenty fours upon arrest. In similar vein, quite a high number of the respondents
(68.1%) reported that they were not satisfied with the enforcement officers who inflicted
force against them when arrest took place. This particular situation is contrary to Section 15
of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) which provides that
enforcement officers may only use force if the offender shows resistance or attempts have
been made to evade the arrest. During the arrest process, more than half of the child offenders
also (55.9%) informed that they were handcuffed upon arrest by the enforcement officers. In
relation to handcuffs, there are currently no laws governing the use of handcuffs by
enforcement officers even though its usage is subjected to the standing instructions on
operating procedures of the police.8 However, in relation to child offenders, the Royal
Malaysian Police has issued a Circular highlighting that handcuffs cannot be used against
child offenders upon arrest but acknowledged that it is commonplace for enforcement officers
to use handcuffs when arresting child offenders.9
A particular important issue which raised concern at the pre trial process is with regards to
respondents (72%) lack of access to contact relatives, friends or a legal practitioner before
enforcement officers commence investigation. Neither were the respondents (68.5%)
informed that they could have access to free legal assistance from the Legal Aid Centre and
the Legal Aid Department. This situation facing child offenders are clearly contrary Section
28 A (2) of the CPC which requires that before commencing any form of questioning or
recording of any statement, a police officer must inform the child offender that he may; (a)
communicate or attempt to communicate with a relative or friend to inform of his
whereabouts; (b) communicate or attempt to communicate and consult with a legal
6
In the case of PP v N (A Child) [2004] 2 MLJ 299 at p.304, the Court of Appeal recognized that Section 83 of
the Child Act prohibits a child offender from being arrested, detained or tried except in accordance with the
Child Act.
7
Nadzriah Ahmad, Habibah Kiprawi “A Critical Study of the Pre Trial process in the Juvenile Justice System in
Malaysia under the Child Act 2001” (2012) Law Reform Committee at p. 12
8
Fook, L.C, Kiprawi, H and Hassan, “The Process of Criminal Justice: Part 1 Investigation and Pre Trial
Proceedings” ( Lexis Nexis 2010) p 74.
9
See Note 2 at p. 27.
3
practitioner of his choice. Hence, it is submitted that failure to allow respondents to
communicate with either a relative, friend or a legal practitioner would undermined the legal
rights of the respondents which are vested them in particular at the pre trial process because
this would be their first point of contact with the enforcement officers. In addition, Section
90 (2) of the Child Act only provides for a defense counsel to render legal assistance to the
child offender before the Court for Children but is silent with regards to the assistance which
could be provided by the legal counsel at the pre trial process.10
In relation to the detention process at the pre trial process, more than half of the respondents
(68.4%) also affirmed that the detention process did not leave any positive effect on them
while a slightly lower percentage of them (62.8%) reported that they were mistreated while
being detained. An area of concern surrounding the detention of child offenders at the pre
trial process is that the Child Act does not stipulate the period of detention governing child
offenders. The absence of this provisions in the Child Act is evident when Section 84 (2) of
the Child Act provides that in the event an arrested child cannot be brought within twenty
four hours before the Court for Children, the child offender shall be brought before a
Magistrate who may direct a child be remanded in a place of detention until the child can be
brought before the Court for Children. Subsequently, an inference can be made that the term
“a child be remanded in a place of detention until the child can be brought before the Court
for Children” found in the above section to mean that a child offender can be detained by an
order of a Magistrate for an indefinite period of time pending the hearing of a charge even
before any charge is made against him at a pre trial process.11 In addition, Section 86 (1) of
the Child Act provides that in the event a child is not released on bail pending the hearing of
a charge for reasons provided in Section 84 (3) para (a) to (c) of the Child Act, the Court
for Children is vested with the power to detain a child in the place of detention specified in
the Child Act.12 However, the wordings of Section 86 (1) of the Child Act also does not
specify the period of detention which can be ordered against an arrested child by the Court
for Children.13 In the event the Court refused to grant bail pursuant to Section 84 (3) para (a)
and (b) of the Child Act, the child offenders could face other grave consequences and this is
10
See Note 2 at p. 15.
Section 84 (1) of the Child Act provides that a child offender who is arrested is to be brought within twenty
four hours before the Court for Children and the child shall be released on a bond pending the hearing of a
charge to secure the attendance of the child as provided in Section 84 (3) of the Child Act. Section 84 (2) of
the Child Act stipulates that in the event an arrested child cannot be brought within the stipulated time, the
child offender shall be brought before a Magistrate who may direct a child be remanded in a place of detention
until the child can be brought before the Court for Children.
11
12
Section 84 (3) of the Child Act vested the power in the Court for Children to deny a child offender from
being released pending the hearing of a charge in the following circumstances; (a) the charge is one of murder or
other grave crime; (b) it is necessary in the best interests of the child arrested to remove him from association
with any desirable person; or (c) the Court for Children has reason to believe that the release of the child would
defeat the ends of justice.
13
Section 86 (1) o the Child Act provides that if a child having been arrested and while awaiting trial before a
Court For Children is not released under section 84, the Court For Children before whom the child is brought
shall cause him to be detained in a place of detention provided under this Act until he can be brought before the
Court having jurisdiction unless the Court For Children certifies that
(a) it is impracticable to do so; (b) he is of so unruly or depraved a character that he cannot
be safely so detained; or (c) by reason of his state of health or of his mental or bodily
condition it is inadvisable so to detain him.
(2) Under the circumstances referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c), the Court For Children shall have the
power to order the child to be detained (a) in a police station, police cell or police lock-up, separate or apart
from adult offenders; or (b) in a mental hospital, as the case may require.
4
evident when slightly more than half of the respondents (52.5%) reported that their parents
were unable to pay the bail amount because the amount set by the Magistrate is too high. As a
result, the failure to pay the bail amount would contribute to high numbers of child offenders
detained in prison at the pre trial stage.
During the pre trial process, slightly more than half of the child offenders (53.1%) reported
that they were detained together with the adult offenders while under remand. This situation
is contrary to the provisions stipulated in Section 85 (a) of the Child Act which provides that
appropriate arrangements shall be made to ensure that a child offender being detained in a
police station or being conveyed to or from any Court or waiting before or after attendance in
any Court to be separated from adult offenders. The weak implementation of Section 85 (a)
of the Child Act resulted in more than half of the respondents (61.2%) reported that they
were mixing with adult offenders while waiting to be transported to the Court. In addition,
slightly more than half of the child offenders reported that they were placed in the same
vehicle while being transported to the Court (52.5%) and they were not segregated from adult
offenders while waiting for the case to be called, before the case is called and after the case is
called by the Court (53%). Even though the laws in the Child Act clearly stipulate for child
offenders to be segregated from the adult offenders, weak implementation by the enforcement
officers resulted in the non segregation of child offenders from the adult offenders.14
This research also seeks to investigate how the pre trial process in the juvenile justice system
affects the child offenders during the investigation process. At this point, it is perhaps useful
to highlight that the Child Act does not stipulate the mode of investigation for child offenders
and does not provide specifically the period of detention for a child offender who is subjected
to detention pending further investigation by the police. Hence, reliance needs to be made by
the enforcement officers on Section 117 of the CPC to enable further investigations to be
undertaken and to detain child offenders for a longer period of time. 15 In response, more than
half of the respondents (61%) agreed that they did not undergo any positive experience
during the investigation process while a higher number of child offenders (64.4%) reported
that they were not given proper treatment during the investigation process. This finding
supports findings in a report which indicates that there is a high number of children under
remand for minor offence because of the inability to pay the bail, lack of alternative programs
available for supervising children whose parents are unwilling to pay the bail amount and the
absence of clear legislative restrictions on the use for remand especially for minor crimes.16
In response to the court proceedings which the child offenders are subjected to, more than
half of them (63.4%) reported that they did not feel satisfied with the court proceedings.
However, almost an equal number of them (61.2%) of the child offenders felt that they were
14
See Note 2 at p. 42.
Section 117 (2) of the CPC, (amended by Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act A 1274 of 2006),
stipulates that the Court has the discretion to grant reasonable period of remand within the time limit prescribed
by the section in the following manner;
(a) if the offence which is being investigated is punishable with imprisonment of less than fourteen
years, the detention shall not be more than four days on the first application and shall not be more
than three days on the second application; or
(b) if the offence which is being investigated is punishable with death or imprisonment of fourteen
years or more, the detention shall not be more than seven days on the first application and shall not
be more than seven days on the second application.
16
The Malaysian Juvenile Justice System: A Study of Mechanisms for Handling Children in Conflict with the
Law. Kuala Lumpur. UNICEF and Child Frontiers 2010 at p. 41.
15
5
treated with respect when they were subjected to court proceedings. This finding is supported
by the results of the survey which indicate that a high number of child offenders (75.9%)
revealed that they were well treated by the Court Officers an almost half of them felt that the
presiding Magistrate cares for them during the court proceedings.
The discussion in the preceding paragraphs demonstrates that the legal framework governing
the juvenile justice system in the Child Act is not adequate in protecting child offenders at
because the Child Act lacks provisions in protecting the legal rights of the child offenders in
particular at the pre trial process. Consequently, the enforcement officers rely heavily on the
CPC when undertaking their duties in dealing with child offenders because the same
provisions in the CPC are also applicable to adult offenders who come into contact with the
criminal justice system. Indeed, this would have defeated the purpose of having a separate
juvenile justice system governing child offenders who are below eighteen years of age when
the same set of laws are applicable to both child and adult offenders when child offenders
need to be treated differently from adult offenders. Even though Section 3 of the CPC
stipulates that in the absence of any legal provisions governing the juvenile justice system,
the legal provisions in the CPC are applicable, it is submitted that specific provisions
governing the juvenile justice system should be incorporated in the Child Act in order to
ensure that child offenders are afforded with adequate legal protection.17 For instance,
explicit provisions governing the pre trial process such as the mode of arrest, investigation,
remand, detention, access to relatives and legal representation, access to free legal assistance
must all be incorporated in the Child Act.
The enforcement officers who are the main gatekeepers of the juvenile justice system have to
be made aware through intensive and specialized training that a child offender has to be
treated differently from the adult offenders and they must be protected at every stage of the
juvenile justice system. However, greater care needs to be undertaken by the enforcement
officers when dealing with child offenders at the pre trial stage because this is their first point
of contact with the criminal justice system. The enforcement officers in particular, not only
need to be informed about the provisions in the Child Act but they also need to be made
aware of the provisions in the CRC and other international norms governing the juvenile
justice system such as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of
Juvenile Justice 1985 (the“Beijing Rules”),18 the United Nations Rules for the Protection of
Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty 1990 (the “Havana Rules”)19 and the United Nations
Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency 1990 (the “Riyadh Rules”) 20.
In light of the preceding analysis, it is submitted that in order to improve the legal framework
of the juvenile justice system, in particular at the pre trial process, not only must specific
provisions be incorporated in the Child Act, these provisions must also meet the standards
prescribed by the CRC as well as the Beijing Rules, the Havana Rules and the Riyadh Rules.
3.0 CAUSES OF DELINQUENT BEHAVIOUR AMONG CHILDREN
Section 3 of the CPC provides that “All offences under the Penal Code shall be inquired into and tried
according to the provisions hereinafter contained, and all offences under any other law shall be inquired into and
tried according to the same provisions: subject however to any written laws for the time being in force
regulating the manner of place of inquiring into or trying such offences.”
18
A/RES /40/33
19
A/RES /45/113
20
A/RES /45/112
17
6
Introduction
The research also attempts to identify the main causes of child offenders committing crime in
Malaysia. However, before this paper investigates in greater detail with regards to the causes
of crime committed by child offenders, the paper will first turn into the trends of delinquent
behavior committed by child offenders in Malaysia. It is reported that cases involving
juveniles delinquent in Malaysia is increasing from the year 1990 to 2000. The statistic shows
that sexual offences increased by 151.3% (39 cases in 1990); offences against person
increased by 65% (283 cases in 1990) and offences against property increased by 20.1%
(2831 cases in 1990).21 In a more recent statistics provided by the Royal Malaysian Police,
the data provides that from the year 2000- 2011, the number of offences committed by child
offenders in relation to offences against property are significantly higher than offences
against persons committed by child offenders.22 This position is supported by the statistics
obtained from the Department of Social Welfare Department which provides that from 2004
to 2012, child offenders who are detained in the institutions under the Department of Social
Welfare pursuant to the Court’s order are those who found guilty for committing property
related offences followed by drugs related offences and offences committed against person.23
At this juncture, it is also important to note that there is an increasing trend of children placed
in institutions all over Malaysia. This trend is in consonant with more recent statistics
provided by the Prison Department of Malaysia which demonstrates that there is an
increasing trend of child offenders placed in prisons and in the Henry Gurney School located
all over Malaysia from 2004 to 2012.24 Similarly, an increasing trend is also recorded for
children placed in probation hostels under the Department of Social Welfare from 2004 to
2012. However, a slight decreased is recorded for number of children placed in the approved
school which also falls under the jurisdiction of Department of Social Welfare from 2004 to
2012.25
Some also expressed concern that the age of child offenders who gets into contact with the
criminal justice system in Malaysia is increasingly younger.26 This is affirmed by the findings
obtained from this research which provides that the first time the respondents committed
crime is between the age category of 13 to 15 years old (40.1%) followed by those who are
between 10-12 years old (13.6%), 7-9 years old (2.5%) and below 7 years old (1.9%). The
remaining of the child offenders (42%) first committed crime between the ages of 16 to 18
years old.
In an earlier study, it was identified that between the years 1997-2006, there is a higher
inclination of boys committing crime compared to girls where 95.6% of boys were found to
Dato’ Meme Zainal Rashid “Juvenile Justice In Malaysia: Role of the Department of Social Welfare” Human
Rights and the Administration of Juvenile Justice (2008) Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, 2009, Kuala
Lumpur at p.34
22
Statistics obtained from the Crime Investigation Department (D4), Royal Malaysian Police on the 5th
November 2012
23
Statistics obtained from the Department of Social Welfare on the 17 th January 2013.
24
Statistics obtained from the Prison Department of Malaysia on the 31 st January 2013 provides that as at 31st
December 2012, they were 324 child offenders placed in prison all over Malaysia and 805 child offenders were
detained in Henry Gurney School.
25
Statistics obtained from the Department of Social Welfare on the 17 th January 2013.
26
Dr Mohammad Akram “A Study of Some Recent Developments in the Rising rate of Delinquent Behavior in
Malaysia” [2007] 7 MLJ xxxvii
21
7
have committed crime compared with 4.4 % of girls.27 The majority of the boys fall into age
category between 16 to 17 years old and committed crimes against property. 28 This findings
from an earlier study is supported by recent data provided by the Department of Social
Welfare which provides that from 2004-2012, a higher number of boys whose age is between
16 -17 years old are detained in institutions for committing offences against property. 29
In contrast, girls came into contact with the juvenile justice system for committing status
offences because of the tendency to sexualize their offences and attempts to control their
behavior. It was identified that between the years 1997-2006, 41.3% of cases involving
beyond control involved girls. Similarly, a higher percentage of girls (66.5%) were found to
have run away from home compared to boys (34.5%) from the total 2,460 children below
eighteen years of age.30 These data demonstrates that the delinquent behavior among boys
and girls differ because girls came into contact with the juvenile justice system mainly due
them committing status offences but there is a higher tendency among boys to commit
criminal offences, in particular offences against property.31
In the subsequent paragraphs, this article will examine the factors which contributed to the
causes of crime committed by the respondents who took part in the survey.
a.To Seek Excitement
The findings of the survey revealed that the main factor which motivates the majority of
respondents to commit crime is to seek excitement (81.4%). This finding may be supported
by the findings that respondents committed crime because of boredom (77.2%) and when
child offenders experienced boredom, they committed crime in order to “seek excitement”.
Subsequently, it can be inferred that the pursuit of seeking excitement is also supported by
the findings which reported that a high number of respondents committed crime without
realizing the consequences of their offending act (64.9%) and unconscious that the offending
act they committed is legally wrong (61.1%).
b.Peer Influence and Financial Difficulties
Closely related to the first two factors which contributed to child offenders committing crime
is influenced from peers which is cited by respondents as the third highest factor which leads
them to committing crime (73.4%). In a study conducted by the Department of Social
Welfare, it is reported that 67% of child offenders placed in the Approved School cited peer
influence as a chief factor which influenced their involvement in criminal activities.32 In
addition, in the absence of parental role models, child offenders are more inclined to seek
companionship from their peers and other adults for emotional support or channel themselves
to electronic or print media which provides the fantasies they need to rebuild their lives.33
The respondents in the survey also reported that they commit the offending act because they
lack money and are financially driven to commit crime (60.5%).
27
See Note 21 at p. 34
Ibid at p. 34
29
Statistics obtained from the Department of Social Welfare on the 17 th January 2013
30
See Note 21 at p.34
31
Ibid at p. 34
32
Ibid at p. 35
33
Ibid at p.35.
28
8
c.Religious and Formal Education
Slightly more than half of the respondents also reported that they committed crime because
they received little guidance in religious teachings which will help to prevent them from
committing crime (54.9%). It is reported earlier that a high number child offenders placed in
institutions have a weak foundation in religion (80%), followed by those who have secondary
level religious knowledge (18%) and only 2% has religious education at tertiary level. 34
Having little interest in studies is also cited by about half of the total respondents as one of
the main reasons for committing crime (51.3%). This research also demonstrates that the
highest number of child offenders had Lower Secondary Assessment (PMR) qualifications
(41.8%) followed by (Primary School Achievement Test (UPSR) qualifications (38.6%) and
Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM) qualifications (17.7%). This findings exhibit that
the majority of respondents lost interest in their studies after they attained the age of 15 years
old. As explained in the Introduction under Section 3.0 above, this is the age category where
the highest number of child offenders committed crime for the first time.
d.Individual Factors
Slightly less than half of the respondents reported that they committed crime because of
influenced from alcohol and drugs (49.6%). Other factors such as feeling of hopelessness
about life in general (49.6%) and feeling that the future is bleak (31.8%) also contribute to
them committing crime (31.8%). Table 1 below illustrates the main factors which contribute
to child offenders committing crime.
Dr Mohammad Akram “A Study of Some Recent Developments in the Rising rate of Delinquent Behavior in
Malaysia” [2007] 7 MLJ xxxvii
34
9
Table 1 Causes of Crime Committed by Child Offenders
Causes Of Crime Committed by Child
Offenders
Response From Child Offenders
Agree
%
n
%
18.5
92
81.4
1.To seek excitement
Disagree
n
21
2.Boredom
26
22
87
77
3.Influence from peers
30
26.4
83
73.4
4.To seek attention from others
35
30.9
78
69
5.Unaware of the consequences of the 40
offending act
6.Unconscious that the offending act is 44
legally wrong
7.Monetary/financially driven
45
35.1
74
64.9
38.9
69
61.1
39.5
69
60.5
8.Committing offending act is perceived as a 45
fun act
9.Lack of religious guidance
52
40.5
66
59.4
45.6
62
54.4
10.Lack of interest in academic pursuit
55
48.7
58
51.3
11.Influence of alcohol and drugs
57
50.4
56
49.6
12.Feeling hopelessness about life
58
51.4
55
48.7
13.No one to share problems with
65
57.1
49
43
14.Relationship with family members are not 73
closed
15.Feeling the future is bleak
77
64
41
39.5
68.2
36
31.8
16.Parents are always busy and always not at
home
17.Parents are always fighting with each
other
18.Family members are not caring and
concerned
19.Influence from family members who have
committed crime before
20.Parents are always using force against one
another
21.Unable to go to school due to financial
problems
22. Influence from family members to
commit crime
78
69
35
30.9
84
73.6
29
25.4
85
74.6
29
25.3
85
75.9
27
24.1
88
77.2
26
22.8
89
78
25
22
96
84.2
18
15.8
10
e.Family Factors
In addition to the factors which contributed to the respondents committing crime as
highlighted above, this research also shed light on the importance of having good family
support in order to prevent child offenders from committing crime. The respondents
expressed the view that they have no one to share problems with (43%), relationship with
family members are not close (39.5%), parents are always busy and not at home (30.9%),
parents are always fighting with each other (25.4%), family members are not caring and
concerned (25.3%) and parents always exhibit force against one another (22.8%). The
respondents who took part in this survey also affirmed that factors which contributed to them
committing crime are influenced from family members who have committed crime before
(24.1%) and influenced from family members to commit crime (15.8%). In addition, child
offenders whose parents are separated and divorced have also been cited as one of the factors
which contribute to juvenile delinquency because there is a high inclination that these child
offenders will feel neglected and would eventually go astray.35
4.0 FACTORS WHICH WILL PREVENT CHILD OFFENDERS FROM
COMMITTING CRIME
In the light of the discussion in the preceding analysis, this part of the paper will continue to
identify factors which will prevent children from committing crime. A high majority of
respondents reported that good relations with family members constitute the leading factor
which will prevent them from committing criminal acts (92.1%). Closely related to this
principal factor is involvement with sport activities which were cited by the respondents as
the second highest factor which contribute to them not committing any offending act
(92.1%). The majority of the respondents also reported that making new friends who engage
in healthy activities constitutes the third highest reason which will prevent them from
committing offending behavior (91.2%). This figure draws attention to the statistic in Table 1
above which demonstrates that peer influence also constitutes the third highest factor which
contributes to child offenders committing crime.
Closely related to the principal factor above which prevents child offenders from committing
crime, respondents also reported that receiving continuous support from family members
who are concerned about them will also prevent them from committing further criminal act
(91.1%). Subsequently, a high number of respondents agreed that close relationship with
family members also play a role in preventing them from committing further crime (89.4%).
The respondents have also expressed the view that pursuing academic interest in accordance
with their capabilities and interest plays an integral role in preventing them from committing
crime (90%). In addition, respondents cited that being in a gainful employment in which they
have interest and with remuneration will prevent them from committing crime (89.5% and
88.5% respectively). Similarly, the same percentage is reported by respondents who reported
that besides receiving support from family members, receiving support from others such as
staff from school and employers also play a role in inhibiting respondents from committing
further crime (89.5%).
Dr Mohammad Akram “A Study of Some Recent Developments in the Rising rate of Delinquent Behavior in
Malaysia” [2007] 7 MLJ xxxvii
35
11
The survey also revealed that a high number of respondents reported that being involved in
constructive programs which will address their problems will facilitate and prevent them
from committing further crime (89.3%). Receiving financial assistance from family members
is also cited as one of the factors which will assist the respondents in staying away from
unlawful activities (82.3%).
The survey also demonstrates that fear for not being accepted by the society as a consequence
for committing crime play a crucial role in preventing respondents from committing further
crime (80.5%). Similarly, fear of encountering with enforcement officers contribute to the
prevention of respondents from committing crime (78.3%). Lastly, the respondents also cited
that support and constructive advice from peers contribute the least to preventing them from
committing crime, as opposed to having good relationship with family members who play the
most crucial role and principal factor which contribute to the prevention of respondents from
committing crime (76.3%). Table 2 below illustrates the main factors which contribute to
child offenders committing crime.
Table 2 Factors Which Will Prevent Child Offenders from Committing Crime
Factors Which Will Prevent Child Offenders
From Committing Crime
1.Good relationship with family members
Disagree
N
8
2.Involvement with sport activities
9
3.Making new friends who engage in 10
healthy activities
4.Concerned family members who provide 10
continuous support
5.Continuation of academic pursuit/studies
11
6.Being employed in jobs which are of 12
interest
7.Support from others (employer, teachers, 12
etc)
8.Close relationship with family members
12
9.Participation in constructive programs
12
10.Being employed with remuneration
13
11.Financial assistance from family 20
members
12.Fear of not being accepted by the society 22
13.Fear of enforcement officers
24
14.Support and constructive advise from 27
peers
12
Response From Child Offenders
Agree
%
n
%
7.1
105
92.9
7.9
110
92.1
8.8
104
91.2
9
102
91.1
100
90
9.9
10.5
102
89.5
10.6
102
89.5
10.7
10.8
11.4
17.7
101
100
100
93
89.4
89.3
88.5
82.3
19.5
21.6
23.6
91
87
87
80.5
78.3
76.3
5.0 THE NEXT STEP FOR MALAYSIA: CONCERTED EFFORT TO INTENSIFY
CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN
The high numbers of child offenders placed in institutions in Malaysia as highlighted Section
3.0 above demonstrates that there is a dire need to look into the causes of crime which
contribute to children committing crime in Malaysia. There is also an urgent need to identify
programs which are undertaken by stakeholders in order to examine whether the current
implementation of programs have any positive impact on children and prevent them from
committing crime.
In Malaysia, intervention programs to prevent children from being in contact with the
criminal justice system comes in the form of prevention programs which have been carried
out by the Royal Malaysian Police (RMP) and the Department of Social Welfare under the
Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development. Under the RMP, programs were
conducted in all the thirteen states in Malaysia including the Federal Territory of Kuala
Lumpur and in the states of Sabah and Sarawak located in the East of Malaysia. Information
provided by the RMP in relation to the prevention programs undertaken to instill awareness
in children with regards to the danger of committing crime revealed that even though
programs were conducted, the frequency and the types of programs conducted in each state
varies significantly.36 In order to inculcate the danger of committing crimes in children,
programs highlighting the importance of crime prevention and social issues in general are
conducted. Specifically, programs addressing issues surrounding sexual crime, anti drugs
campaigns, vandalism and traffic offences were also conducted.
In West Malaysia, relatively few prevention programs were conducted by the RMP in the
States of Perlis, Kedah and Pulau Pinang where there were only two (2) programs conducted
for children in secondary schools in these states including the Federal Territory of Kuala
Lumpur which conducts only one (1) program for children in secondary school. However,
there were no record indicating programs undertaken for children in primary schools in these
three states and in Kuala Lumpur to enable them to be exposed to the danger of committing
crime. In contrast, the RMP in the state of Pahang conducted thirty one (31) programs in
2011 alone in both primary and secondary schools. While the former focused on prevention
programs in general, the latter is more oriented towards anti crime campaign, anti drugs
campaign, traffic offences, social problems, sexual crime, vandalism and anti smoking
campaign.37
In addition, the state of Perak also conducted twenty (20) prevention programs altogether.
While the programs conducted for children in primary school focused more on crime
prevention in general and traffic offences, children in secondary school were exposed to
similar programs but with more emphasis placed on social problems and anti drugs
campaigns. Nineteen (19) programs of similar nature were also conducted in the state of
36
Data obtained from the Head of Assistant Director, Division of Sexual Crime Investigation/Children (D11),
Royal Malaysian Police, Kuala Lumpur on the 27th February 2013 which provides the number of prevention
programs conducted by the RMP from 2011-2012.
37
Data obtained from the Head of Assistant Director, Division of Sexual Crime Investigation/Children, Royal
Malaysian Police, Kuala Lumpur on the 27th February 2013 which provides the number of prevention programs
conducted by the RMP from 2011-2012.
13
Johore followed by eleven (11) programs carried out in Negeri Sembilan, nine (9) programs
conducted in Selangor and six (6) programs were conducted in Melaka.38
Compared to the states located in the West Malaysia, the States in East Malaysia recorded a
higher number of prevention programs undertaken for children. For example in Sabah alone,
they were twenty three (23) programs focusing on children studying in primary and
secondary schools in 2011. They were eight (8) programs conducted in primary schools by
the RMP which focus on crime prevention programs while making the children realise the
danger of committing sexual crime. The RMP also highlighted current social issues to the
children in the primary school. Programs of similar nature were also carried out in fifteen
(15) secondary schools but with special emphasis given on anti drugs campaign. In 2012, the
RMP in Sabah also conducted programs of similar nature through twenty six (26) programs
which were conducted in both primary and secondary schools to enable students to be
exposed to the danger of committing crime. In addition, the RMP in Sarawak carried out
eight (8) programs altogether from 2011-2012 on general prevention of crime programs with
emphasis given on sexual crime.39
The analysis made in the above paragraphs demonstrates a great disparity which exists in
relation to the number of crime prevention programs conducted by RMP in every state. This
current situation may be attributed to the fact that the RMP in every state has the discretion to
conduct crime prevention programs and subsequently, this leads to non uniformity in the
types of crime prevention programs conducted in all the states in Malaysia. In addition,
limited time was also cited as one of the limitation factors in conducting these programs due
to the commitment of the police officers in discharging their main duties as enforcement
officers.40 The analysis also revealed that they were more programs conducted for children
who are studying in secondary school and less exposure was given to younger children who
are pursuing their studies in primary school. It is submitted that even though the effort made
by the RMP in conducting programs in secondary school is commended because the majority
of child offenders who are placed in institutions currently are from sixteen (16) to seventeen
(17) years old, the needs of younger children to be exposed to crime prevention programs
cannot be undermined.41 However, the RMP is now in the process of making plans to
organise more crime prevention programs for children below twelve (12) years old so that
they could be exposed earlier to the adverse consequences of getting involved with crime.42
In addition to crime prevention programs conducted by the RMP, the Department of Social
Welfare under the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development also conducted
various crime prevention programs which are specifically designed for child offenders who
are already placed in the Probation Hostel under the Department of Social Welfare pursuant
to Court’s Order in order to prevent them from committing further offences upon release.
38
Data obtained from the Head of Assistant Director, Division of Sexual Crime Investigation/Children, Royal
Malaysian Police, Kuala Lumpur on the 27th February 2013 which provides the number of prevention programs
conducted by the RMP from 2011-2012.
39
Ibid.
40
Data obtained from Division of Sexual Crime Investigation/Children, Royal Malaysian Police, Kuala Lumpur
on the 4th March 2013
41
Data obtained from the Royal Malaysian Police on the 5th November 2012 and data obtained from the
Department of Social Welfare on the 20th December 2012 indicating the numbers of crime committed from 2000
to 2011and the numbers of child offenders placed in the Probation Hostel and Approved School respectively.
42
Data obtained from Division of Sexual Crime Investigation/Children, Royal Malaysian Police, Kuala Lumpur
on the 4th March 2013
14
There are altogether ten (10) Probation Hostels located all over Malaysia and the various
crime prevention programs conducted in these hostels vary from one institution to another
and subject to the decisions of the management in each institution. The Probation Hostels
receive assistance from the Child Welfare Committee (hereinafter referred to as he CWC)
whose members are appointed by the Department of Social Welfare. 43 One of the
responsibilities vested in the CWC is to conduct crime prevention programs for children who
are released earlier from institutions such as the Approved School, Probation Hostels and
Henry Gurney School in every state due to good behaviour.44 Among the crime prevention
programs which are conducted by the CWC are the mentor mentee system where this
program gives opportunity to the members of CWC to strengthen their relationship with
children who are released from the institutions early. In addition, members of CWC can also
informally adopt the child offenders who are released from institutions to give them the
opportunity to stay in a conducive and happy family environment although temporarily.45
However, it is recognised that one of the limitations in implementing the crime prevention
programs in every state by the CWC is that there are no specific guidelines which detailed the
objectives and desired outcomes for the activities undertaken by the CWC.46 It is submitted
that in the absence of specific guidelines governing the CWC, it would make it difficult for
the CWC to asses and evaluate crime prevention programs which they have conducted
because there are no uniformity in implementing the crime prevention programs in all the
states in Malaysia.
In light of the above discussion, it can be seen that some effort have been made by the RMP
in trying to reduce crime rate by conducting prevention programs for children below eighteen
(18) years old. However, while these efforts are commendable, the following intensified
effort must be undertaken by the RMP in order to ensure that crime prevention programs are
effective in reducing the crime rate in Malaysia:
1. To increase the numbers of prevention programs targeted for younger children whose
age are between seven (7) to twelve (12) who are studying in primary school.
2. To intensify programs for children who are thirteen (13) to seventeen (17) years old in
particular because statistic demonstrates that children in this age category has the
highest rate of crime involvement in Malaysia.
3. To conduct specific programs which fulfil the needs of older children in particular
whose age are between thirteen (13) to seventeen (17) years old who are involved in
substance abuse such as drugs and sexual crime.
4. To give high commitment in conducting joint specific programs with both primary
and secondary schools in order to identify and monitor school children which are
involved in anti social groups.
5. To forge closer links with the Department of Social Welfare in order to identify and
monitor school children who comes from dysfunctional, broken and troubled families.
43
The Minister has the power to prescribe the constitution and duties of the Child Welfare Committee pursuant
to Section 128 (1) and (2) d of the Child Act 2001.
44
Data obtained from the Children Division, Social Welfare Department on the 4th March 2013.
45
Ibid
46
Ibid.
15
6. To engage in close cooperation with outside agencies such as UNICEF in order to
implement programs which address children specific needs.
7. To ensure that there are sufficient human capital and financial support to enable
programs to run continuously in each state because a “one-off” program would not be
adequate in addressing the causes of crime among children.
8. To undertake research in order to determine the effectiveness and impact of the
prevention programs on children in both primary and secondary schools. Currently,
no research has been documented in order to examine the effectiveness of these
programs on children. In the absence of research evaluating these programs,
conducting crime prevention programs would be wasteful of resources because a huge
sum of money and human capital would be wasted in conducting programs which are
not effective in preventing children from getting involved with crime.
In addition, the Department of Social Welfare also need to step up effort in order to ensure
that crime prevention programs conducted to combat crime among children are effective.
Special attention need to be given in the following aspects of crime prevention programs;
1. To engage the involvement of family members in all the crime prevention programs
conducted in order to strengthen the relationship between children and their families.
2. To identify children who come from troubled and broken families’ background in
order to provide individual and joint counselling session to both children and family
members. These sessions would also encourage open discussion between family
members which will lead to the identifying of the causes of children committing
crime.
3. To identify specific guidelines for the CWC to enable them to conduct various crime
prevention programs which meets the objectives set by the Department of Social
Welfare. The uniformity in the implementation of the various crime prevention
programs by CWC in every state is pivotal to enable the Department of Social
Welfare make assessment on the impact of the crime prevention programs on
children.
4. To ensure CWC in every state make follow up to all the crime prevention programs
already conducted in order to ensure continuity of the programs already conducted
with the children.
5. To ensure CWC in every state conduct specific programs which address the specific
needs of children who were earlier involved with drugs, alcohol and sexual crime.
6. To ensure that CWC assist the children in having access to gainful employment and
education or any form of vocational training.
7. To engage the children with the society by conducting more programs in collaboration
with the community. This exposure is needed by these children in order to reintegrate
those who are released early from the institutions with the society.
16
8. To ensure CWC develop closer links with other agencies and stakeholders in every
state such as the RMP, UNICEF to enable more crime prevention programs to be
conducted.
9. To undertake research in order to determine the effectiveness and impact of the crime
prevention programs on children. Currently, no research has been undertaken in order
to examine the effectiveness of these programs which are conducted by the CWC. The
findings of such research are integral in developing programs which are of value to
the children and would eventually make them realise the adverse consequences of
getting involved with crime.
The discussion in the preceding paragraphs demonstrate that the stakeholders, in particular
the RMP and the Department of Social Welfare had conducted many programs for children in
their effort to prevent children from committing crime. While these efforts are praiseworthy,
recommendations have been made above in order to ensure that the programs undertaken are
effective, continuous and are able to address the root causes of crime committed by children
by engaging the cooperation of family and schools. The need for continuous crime prevention
programs is essential because it will help to make children realise that their offending acts are
not only morally wrong but are also legally wrong. As highlighted in Section 2.0 above, the
majority of child offenders who committed crime and placed in institutions did not realise
that their offending acts have legal consequences and they will be brought into contact with
the criminal justice system. This is supported by the findings described in Section 3.0 above
which demonstrates that the first and foremost factor which contributes to child offenders
committing crime is the excitement of committing such offending acts. As such, schools
would have to provide constructive and beneficial activities at school which could include
sporting activities, clubs and societies and community work which will engage children in
healthy activities. Subsequently, all effort must be made to minimise children’s contact with
the juvenile justice system because as discussed in Section 2.0 above, their legal rights were
not adequately protected and some were subjected to many forms of abuse at every stage of
the juvenile justice process.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The crime rate in Malaysia has not witnessed any decreasing trend in recent years and the
numbers of children placed in institutions all over Malaysia are still high. The first part of the
article demonstrates that the majority of the respondents were not adequately protected by the
legal framework governing the juvenile justice system in particular at the pre trial process. It
has been recommended above that specific provisions governing the pre trial process need to
be incorporated in the Child Act and these provisions must also comply with the requirements
of international standards. In order to prevent children from being in contact with the criminal
justice system, effective crime prevention programs are integral to ensure that children are
deterred from committing offending acts. The high number of children placed in institutions
raises the question as to the effectiveness of the crime prevention programs which are
undertaken by the stakeholders in Malaysia in order to prevent children from committing
criminal offences.
In order to reduce the crime rate in Malaysia, the work of one institution will not be enough
because it needs the concerted effort from all stakeholders. The family institutions would
have to be strengthened first because this is cited in the discussion above as first and foremost
17
reason which will prevent children from committing crime. Weak family institutions would
have to be supported by the Department of Social Welfare in order to ensure that they receive
appropriate form of assistance. In addition, close cooperation between the family institutions
and the schools will ultimately benefit the children because this will help to decrease the
numbers of school dropouts and minimise their contacts with anti social groups. This would
also ensure that children would continuously be engaged in the process of learning.
Stakeholders which play an integral part in preventing crime from happening such as the
RMP and the Department of Social Welfare have to ensure that continuous programs are
conducted in every state in Malaysia. Consequently, failure to do so would not result in the
reduction of crime rate committed by children because a “one off” program would most
likely have a very minimal impact on children.
The discussion in the preceding paragraphs demonstrates that the numbers of child offenders
placed in institutions are increasing and perhaps this may be contributed by the existing crime
prevention programs which are not adequate in preventing children from committing crime.
Detaining child offenders in institutions would also not benefit them because they are not
made accountable for their offending actions. Hence, genuine and concerted effort by all
stakeholders including the family institutions in combating crime by addressing the root
causes of crime would perhaps be the most effective way in reducing crime and minimise the
contact of children with the criminal justice system.
18