3rd Global Conference on Business and Social Science
conference homepage: www.gcbss.org
Critical analysis on the Children and Young Person Employment
Act 1966 and the Education Act 1996 in relation to causes and
effect of child labour in Malaysia
Nik Ahmad Kamal 1*, Marhanum2, Azizah3, Ashgar4, Yusuff5
1
He is Professor and Legal Advisor, Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University
Malaysia, 50728, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2
She is Assistant Professor, Kulliyyah of Economics & Management Sciences, International Islamic University
Malaysia, 50728, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
3
She is Associate Professor, Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University Malaysia,
50728, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
4
He is Professor, Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University Malaysia, 50728, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia
5
He is Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Accountancy, and International Relations, University Sultan Zainal
Abidin, 21300, Terengganu, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
It is observed that the phenomena of working children is a long standing issue in most underdeveloped and developing countries of the world and the number increases each year in the light of
challenging domestic social and economic conditions. Most of the working children normally worked
informally helping their parents either in the family food businesses, night markets, and small-scale
industries. The question is whether the relevant law has a special exemption to allow children to work
and to what extent the law accommodates scenarios obtained from the empirical study for the purpose
of this research? A survey was conducted among others, to examine the reason children goes to work
instead of pursuing an education. The survey involved interviewing through a set questionnaire 557
working children in six states in Malaysia. Based on the survey, the Children and Young Person
Employment Act 1966 is critically reviewed to evaluate the scope of protections for working children
in Malaysia. Based on the empirical analysis, it is found that the majority of the working children in
Malaysia worked to help their family economically and they are not happy with their current job. The
children in this context reported that they regretted for not attending school as their have to work to
help their family. In addition, by adopting content analysis on the current act, this research discovers
that due to lack of efficient implementation of existing legal regimes, especially the Education Act
1996 to deal with issue pertaining to children not attending schools. This research concludes that
effective implementation of all legislation dealing with working children and their compulsory
education may have a positive impact on overall child labor management in Malaysia.
Type of Paper: Empirical Paper
Keywords: Child Labour, Malaysia, Children and Young Person Employment Act 1966, Education
Act 1996
*
Corresponding author:
E-mail: marhanum@iium.edu.my
She is Assistant Professor, Kulliyyah of Economics & Management Sciences, International Islamic
University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
GCBSS © 2015 GATR Enterprise. All rights reserved.
Nik Ahmad Kamal, Marhanum, Azizah, Ashgar, Yusuff
1. Introduction
The Malaysian government has put lots of efforts to ensure that children are protected and all
kind assistance is provided for their education and overall well-being. However, based on
observations made by International Child Sponsorship NGO (Humanium) in 2012, children
in Malaysia especially those ethnic and religious minorities face many obstacles, and
children’s rights in general are also not fully respected. Among the main problems faced by
children are poverty, right to education, the right to identity, child labour, sexual exploitation,
street children, and others.
With regards to working children, even though they are able to combine work with
education, it is undeniable that work has a negative effect towards their education. Based on
the studies and analysis made by researchers, it is proven that work has affected the child's
school attendance and their level of knowledge absorption. These eventually discouraged
children to pursue their schooling in the future. In addition, a study conducted by Save the
Children on the education planning for working children in India, Peru, and Brazil, it has
been found that general education policies failed to help working children unless it is
structured in a clear manner about the working children’s situations and highlight the
perception of working children towards working environment and their future needs.
The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to provide some of the analysis on the causes
and effects of working children in Malaysia and to review existing laws on the working
children and educational strategies. This paper is structured as follows; introduction, review
on literatures related to Child Labour, research methodology, data analysis, and findings. It
ends with a conclusion and suggestions for future research.
2. Literature Review
Child Labour in Malaysia
Every child deserves the opportunity to learn, to grow and to benefit from his or her
childhood. However, based on recent figures from the International Labour Organisation
(ILO), globally, 1 in 6 children work and 218 million children aged between five (5) to
seventeen (17) years old are involved in child labour. In addition, the highest number of
child labourers are in the Asia/Pacific region, where there are 122 million working children.
In Malaysia, although the Children and Young Persons Act (Employment) Act 1966
does not encourage the employment of children, past studies indicate that there are children
working in various sectors in the world (Nik Ahmad Kamal et al., 2015). Hence, the real data
on the total number and background of the working children are not captured by the relevant
authority in the country. Thus, it is pertinent that more efforts have to be undertaken to
investigate the overall issues on working children including their population, occupation
sectors, reason for working, and many other related information.
'Child' or 'juvenile': An Overview
A 'child' or 'juvenile' are treated differently than an adult particularly in employment and
when charged with criminal offences. In relation to criminal offences, rule 2.2(a) of the
Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice 1985 ("The Beijing
Rules") states: "A juvenile is a child or young person who, under the respective legal
system, may be dealt with for an offence in a manner which is different from an adult".
Article 1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 provides: "For the purpose
of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years
unless, under the age applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." Likewise, in
Malaysia, a child is a person below the age of eighteen. Section 2 of the Child Act 2001
defines a child as: "(a) a person under the age of eighteen years; and (b) in relation to
criminal proceedings, means a person who has attained the age of criminal responsibility as
prescribed in section 82 of the penal Code [Act 574]".
|P age
Nik Ahmad Kamal, Marhanum, Azizah, Ashgar, Yusuff
In criminal proceedings, a 'child' for the purpose of the Child Act 2001, must be a
person who has attained the age of criminal responsibility but below the age of eighteen.
Sections 82 of the Penal Code states that: "Nothing is an offence which is done by a child
under ten years of age". In other words, the child below ten bears no criminal responsibility.
The rationale of this rule is that the child under ten is incapable of understanding the nature
and consequences of his acts and thus incapable of committing a crime. Further, section 83
of the Penal Code provides: "Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above ten years
of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge
of the nature and consequence of his conduct on that occasion". In other words, there is a
presumption, which is rebuttable in this case, that a child above ten and below twelve is doli
incapax. Unlike section 82, doli incapax presumption in section 83 can be rebutted if it can
be proven that the child understands the nature and consequences of his act. Apart from the
above, section 113 of the Malaysian Evidence Act 1950, provides that it is an "irrebuttable
presumption of law that a boy below the age of thirteen is incapable of committing rape".
This effectively means that a boy under thirteen is incapable of committing rape because he
is incapable of performing sexual intercourse. This presumption of law cannot be refuted.
However, that does not mean that a boy cannot be charged and convicted for other related
sexual offences such as aiding and abetting others to commit rape, indecent assault,
molestation, or attempted rape.
The Child Act 2001 acknowledges: "that a child, by reason of his physical, mental
and emotional immaturity, is in need of special safeguards, care and assistance, after birth, to
enable him to participate in and contribute positively towards the attainment of the ideals of a
civil Malaysian society." Hence, criminal act committed by a child will be tried in the 'Court
For Children' constituted under the Child Act 2001. The court confers jurisdiction to try all
offenses except the offenses punishable with death. The child's private details are protected
throughout the pre-trial, trial or post-trial stage. In fact, the Act prohibits publication of the
child's name, address, or educational institution, or any particulars that could lead to the
identification of the child so concerned by any newspaper or magazine or transmitted
through any electronic media. While child is in a police station or court, he/she should be
treated differently from an adult accused. The Act also prescribes that the words "conviction"
and "sentence" cannot be used in relation to a child and they must be replaced with terms
such as the "child found guilty", "a finding of guilt", "an order made upon a finding of guilt".
Child Employment: Children and Young Person Employment Act 1966
Children’s right has always become a subject of global attention for decades. This growing
attention has also attracted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC). In 1989 and by virtue of Article 32 of the Conventions, it has identified children
protection from economic and work exploitation that have affected their health, education or
development. The article stresses that “The State” shall set minimum ages for employment
and regulate working conditions. Children basically have rights to education, to receive
attention from their parents, to play and have enough freedom to grow up. All of these need
to be scarified by them due to various factors that urge them to work. In this respect, Article 6
of the Federal Constitution stipulates that no person shall be held in slavery and that forced
labour is prohibited.
In the context of Malaysia, Children and Young Persons (Employment) Act 1966 has been
enacted to defend children and young persons who are engaged in employment in terms of
working hours, type of work and others. The Children and Young Persons (Employment) Act
1966 defines a child as ‘any person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age or of
such age as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) may by notification in the Gazette prescribe’
Meanwhile, ‘young person’ is defined as a person who, not being a child has not completed
his 18th year of age.1 Employment of a child and young person is only in respect of light
1
See Children and Young Persons (Employment) (Amendment) Act 2010
|P age
Nik Ahmad Kamal, Marhanum, Azizah, Ashgar, Yusuff
work namely while sitting, with moderate movement of the arm, leg and trunk; or while
standing, with mostly moderate movement of the arm. The Act provides that a child shall not
permitted to be engaged in any hazardous work, or any employment other than those
specified in Act. Hazardous work is defined in the Act as ‘any work that has been classified
as hazardous work based on the risk assessment conducted by a competent authority on safety
and health determined by the Minister.’ Further, no child or young person shall or be
required/permitted to be engaged in employment contrary to the Factories and Machinery Act
1967, the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 or the Electricity Supply Act 1990 or in
any employment requiring him to work underground. “In Malaysia, under the Age of
Majority Act 1966, the age of majority is set at 18 years, and there is no law totally
banning child labour”. When the Children and Young Persons (Employment) Act was
passed in 1966, it repealed the Children and Young Persons Ordinance 1947, which had a
minimum age of 8 years for working children. The current Act does not have a minimum age.
Child Education Compulsory: The Education Act 1996
The Education Act 1996 was amended in 2002 to include a new section, section 29A. Section
29A among others provides that parents are required to ensure that their children that have
reached the age of six on the first day of January to be registered in the primary school to
attend school for the period of compulsory education. This obligation is subject to section
29A(4) where if the child has disabilities, there are inadequate facilities at the school to cater
for the child with the disabilities. Secondly, parents are allowed to provide home schooling
with the special permission of the Minister. It has been reported that in 2003 no parent has
been charged under the Act and the approach taken has been to counsel and advise parents to
assist them to put their children in schools (Utusan Online, 2003). It was also reported that
about 15,000 children were not registered in school and that numbers is about 3% of children
who were supposed to attend school each year. The Education Act imposes compulsory
education to children and the liability is imposed on the parents. The provision does not say
that parents must send their children in government schools and the exception to section 29A
allows home schooling. Section 29A has not provided for maximum years in school. Thus, 6
years in the primary school seems the maximum years of compulsory education in Malaysia.
If education is compulsory, access to education has to be free because there are parents
who are not able to send their children to school due to financial constraint. There is nothing
in the Federal Constitution that make education compulsory even though article 12 provides a
statement on freedom of education for various religions and races in the country. Neither
there is a pronouncement to provide free education anywhere in our law. Tomasevski in her
paper submitted that when domestic law imposes compulsory education, such as punishment
like fines or imprisonment on parents, or punishing children for truancy, such law runs
contrary to existing international conventions like the Conventions on the Rights of the Child
(CRC) (Tomasevski, 2001). Education according to CRC is encouraged. Tomasevski
discussed about the gap between legally required education and actually realized compulsory
education. In her survey countries with shorter compulsory schooling has financial
difficulties and she cited Bangladesh, Laos, Nepal and Viet Nam. She also submitted that
many countries require compulsory education beyond primary education because delayed
school-leaving age prevents children from venturing into adulthood too early especially
working and going into child marriage. It is also advantageous because prolonged primary
and secondary education provides children with common core schooling which is becoming
increasingly in demand towards knowledge-based economies (Tomasevski, 2001). Malaysia
has taken steps to substantially reduce fees and payments in schools. For instance,
examination fees for national level examination have been abolished and textbooks are free
as well. Free education has to be really free but financially trodden parents will also be
having problems in providing school uniforms, gears and stationeries for their children. Thus,
free education will have no meaning for them if they are not assisted with amenities to
prepare their children for school. The Committee on the Rights of the Child states that
governments are to report on “the measures taken to ensure that children, particularly those
belonging to the most disadvantaged group are protected against the adverse effects of
|P age
Nik Ahmad Kamal, Marhanum, Azizah, Ashgar, Yusuff
economic policies, including the reduction of budgetary allocations in the social sector”
(Tomasevski, 2001). There is no doubt that free education would enhance the number of
children in school, but pre-education, financial assistance would further enhance the ability of
parents to send their children to school.
It is also true that despite compulsory education legislation, there are factors that may
exclude children from school, namely, citizenship, infrastructure, gender, indigenous group
and children with disabilities (Tomasevski, 2001). Tomasevski also observed that statistics
have not captured real numbers of students that are supposed to be in school. She submitted
that statistics captured answers only the question how many are in school but not how many
should be in school.
Rahimah and Suriati (2013) in their study of working children in Sabah discovered that
children work because they are poor and they want to supplement their parents’ income.
The study also indicates the following (Rahimah & Suriati, 2013):

Children are employed in the informal sector such as workshops, eating places, petty
trading, car wash and general labours

They worked more than 6 hours per day and up to 12 hours per day in some cases

Parent attitude has been that they encouraged their children to work to gain social skill
as this skill is better acquired during employment than in school especially children
who is less academically-inclined

Employers are exploiting child workers as they are paid low wages between RM201300 per month only

There are children who work on a part-time basis and they said that they manage to
juggle between school and work, but the researchers also found that many of them
missed school several days in a month.

Children who work are putting education in competition with their employment lost
focus and have tendency to underperform and failing in examination.
Causes for Child Labour
The majority of working children are instead employed by their parents to work on the family
farm or enterprise. Based on observation across the countries, among the major factor that
made the children involve in working is because of poverty, family background, and also
have related to the support received from the government. Likewise, in poor countries,
children being trapped by their family need to sustain their life (Myers, 2001; Aitken et al.,
2006). In this context, previous studies have regarded that when a family’s income is enough
to cover all expenditures, the level of working children will drop (Amin et al., 2004; Salmon,
2005; Bar and Basu, 2009).
Accordingly, family background is also becoming one of the indicators why the children
involved in working (Grigoli & Sbrana, 2012). Family with higher education background
would ensure their children continue schooling and not involving with any working
environment. A study conducted by Emerson and Souza (2007) in the context of Brazil,
indicates that father’s educational background has been the factor meanwhile Kurosaki et al.
(2006) in the context of India, states that the mother’s education background has been the
factor that influenced children to work.
In addition, from the bigger picture of the countries, government support has also
contributed to the phenomena of working children. Like in Indonesia, Mozambique, and
|P age
Nik Ahmad Kamal, Marhanum, Azizah, Ashgar, Yusuff
Ghana, poor educational structure has affected the school attendance and enrollment in these
countries (Duflo, 2001; Handa & Simler, 2005; Glewwe & Ilias, 1996). In this context,
parents have a bad perception towards the education system and rather advise their children
to help them in business or start working.
Methodology
This research concerns towards working children in Malaysia and for that reason, a purposive
sampling approach is adopted in this research. Because the actual population of working
children in Malaysia is not easily available, this research focuses on the state where the rate
of employment is high which are Selangor, Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Sabah, and Sarawak. A
total of 454 children aged between 9-18 years were involved in this research.
Data Analysis & Findings
Background of Working Children
Table 1 on the next page presents a total of 557 working children involved in this study,
which the majority of the participations is male (62 percent). With regards to their ethnicity,
working children are dominated by Malay (65.7 percent) followed by other ethnicities (15
percent), Chinese (12 percent), and Indian (8.1 percent). Apparently, most of them are
Muslims (74 percent) while the rest are Christians (12 percent), Buddha (8 percent), Hindu (5
percent), and others (1 percent). In terms of age, most of them are among in a group of 15 to
19 years old (80 percent) followed by the age group between 10 to 14 years old (19 percent)
and only 3 of them are from the youngest age group (between 5 to 9 years old).
Furthermore, most of their mothers’ education was in secondary school (43 percent) while
22.6 percent of them have not attended any formal education and 21 percent attended primary
school. However, only 13 percent reached the university level as their higher education. Same
goes with their fathers’ education where it indicates that 46 percent of them went to
secondary school. It followed by primary school (20 percent) and no formal education (17.6
percent) whereas only 15 percent went to university. With regards to their parents’ marital
status, it could be seen that the majority of them is still married (80 percent) while the others
are divorced (14 percent) and 32 of the children’s parents were passed away. Thus, most of
them are still under their parent guardian (75 percent) followed by their mother (26 percent)
while only 4.5 percent of them guarded by their father and the rest are taken care by others (5
percent).
In addition, most of them spent 5 to 8 hours (48 percent) on their job. It followed by 1 to 4
hours (27 percent), while the rest of them spent 9 to 12 hours (18 percent) and only 6.8
percent spent more than 12 hours on their job. With regards to the children’s relationship with
employers, a majority reported (90 percent) that they have very good and good relationship
with their employers. In this context, 342 children (61 percent) preferred to spend part of
their salary to their parents and 188 (34 percent) of the children use the money for themselves
while the rest of 4.8 percent gives all their salaries to their family.
Table 1: Background of the Working Children
Gender
Ethnicity
Age
|P age
Demographic Information
Male
Female
Total
Malay
Indian
Chinese
Others
Total
5 – 9 years old
10- 14 years old
15 – 19 years old
Frequency
343
214
557
366
45
64
82
557
3
106
448
Percentage (%)
61.6
38.4
100.0
65.7
8.1
11.5
14.7
100.0
0.5
19.0
80.4
Nik Ahmad Kamal, Marhanum, Azizah, Ashgar, Yusuff
Religion
Mother’s
Education
Father’s Education
Parent’s Marital
Status
Guardian
Average Time
Spent
Relationship With
Employers
Receive Salary
Total
Islam
Christian
Budha
Hindu
Others
Total
No formal education
Primary school
Secondary school
University
Others
Total
No formal education
Primary school
Secondary school
University
Others
Total
Married
Divorced
Pass Away
Total
Mother & Father
Father
Mother
Others
Total
1- 4 hours
5 – 8 hours
9 – 12 hours
>12 hours
Total
Very Good
Good
Bad
Fluctuate/Unstable
Total
Give all to family
Use all to self
Give part to parent
Total
557
414
67
45
26
5
557
126
115
240
72
4
557
98
112
258
82
7
557
445
80
32
557
419
25
85
28
557
151
268
100
38
557
211
289
8
49
557
27
188
342
557
100.0
74.3
12.0
8.1
4.7
0.9
100.0
22.6
20.6
43.1
12.9
0.7
100.00
17.6
20.1
46.3
14.7
1.3
100.0
79.9
14.4
5.7
100.0
75.2
4.5
15.3
5.0
100.0
27.1
48.1
18.0
6.8
100.0
37.9
51.9
1.4
8.8
100.0
4.8
33.8
61.4
100.0
Results: Why the children work?
Based on Table 2 below, majority 78 percent of the working children confessed that they
work for the sake of money. In addition, they also declared that they are basically finding
money to help their family. Hence, more than half of the children (64 percent) reported that
they spend time working during the school holiday. When asked about whether their parents
are concerned about their education, the majority (81 percent) mentioned that their parents
did not care about their education. This research further finding on whether the children are
happy with the job that they are doing; more than half (63 percent) reported that they are not
happy with the job and they feel regret for not attending school (64 percent). After all, the
working children studied do not have the intention to work for long term period (74 percent
answered ‘no’ to the last question of the survey).
Table 2: Causes of Child Labour
|P age
Nik Ahmad Kamal, Marhanum, Azizah, Ashgar, Yusuff
Statements
Did you do your work
for the sake of money or
salary?
Did you do your work
for the sake of helping
your family?
Did you do your work
for the sake of spending
your time during school
holiday?
Did your parent
concerned about your
education?
Are you happy with the
job than school?
Are you regretting to not
attend the school?
Do you have plan to
working here for longterm period?
Frequency
Percentage
Yes
No
356
101
77.9
22.1
Yes
No
329
128
72.0
28.0
Yes
No
290
167
63.5
36.5
Yes
No
369
88
80.7
19.3
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
170
285
294
196
118
337
37.4
62.6
64.3
34.7
25.9
74.1
Conclusions
The study conducted proves that financial reason is the main cause of child labour due to
poverty. They work to support their family members and to supplement family income. Many
children interviewed regretted for having to work than going to school. However, returning to
school will be very difficult for the majority of them. Compulsory and free education could
be the answer to reduce child labour, but there are other factors that contribute to the causes
of children not going to school such as poverty itself make pre-education preparation an
uphill task. The push and the pull factor of earning money to alleviate poverty makes
education, secondary to many of these parents and their children. The result of this study is
parallel with the other studies conducted in the developing countries like Indonesia, Peru,
India, and others. It does signify that the economic condition and standard of living of the
countries need to be improved in order to reduce the incidence of child labor. In this context,
all parties, including public and private sectors have to support the poor family by either
providing job opportunity, to the parents or giving free education to the children.
Future studies should focus on the issue of the relationship between compulsory and
free education and the incidents of child labor. The effectiveness of law and policy of
compulsory education that addresses various issues that hinder children from going to school
may assist in reducing child labour in this country. In addition, future research should provide
the sampling of countries with low level of working children and to provide with
recommendations to reduce incidents of child labour in the developing countries.
Acknowledgements
The research team would like to acknowledge the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education
for funding this research and International Islamic University Malaysia for all supports given.
|P age
Nik Ahmad Kamal, Marhanum, Azizah, Ashgar, Yusuff
References
Aitken, S., Estrada Lopez, S., Jennings, J. and Aguirre, M.L. (2006), ‘‘Reproducing life and
labor. Global processes and working children in Tijuana, Mexico’’, Childhood, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 365-87.
Akin, L. (2009), “Working conditions of the child worker in Turkish labour law”,
Employment Rights and Responsibilities Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 53-67.
Al-Samarrai, S. (2006). ‘Achieving education for all: how much does money matter?’
Journal of International Development, 18, pp. 179–206.
Amin, S., Quayes, M.S. and Rives, J.M. (2004), “Poverty and other determinants of child labor
in
Bangladesh”, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 876-92.
Arfat, Sabina, February 2013, “Islamic Perspective of the children’s right: an overview”,
Journal faculty of law, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, India, vol. 2, no. 1.
Aziz, R.A and Iskandar S. (2013). “Working children and knowledge of right to education: a
study of child labour in Sabah, Malaysia”. Asian Social Science. Vol. 9 No.8. pp.2333
Bar, T. and Basu, K. (2009), “Children, education, labor, and land: in the long run and short
run”, Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 7 Nos 2-3, pp. 487-97.
Barcellos, S., Carvalho, L. and Lleras-Muney, A. (2010) “Child gender and parental
investments in India: are boys and girls treated differently?”. RAND Working Paper
Series WR-756.
Basu, K. (1999), “Child labor: causes, consequences and cure”, Journal of Economic
Literature, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 1083-119.
Beegle, K., Dehejia, R. and Gatti, R. (2006) “Child labor and agricultural shocks”. Journal of
Development Economics 81(1): 80–96.
Dammert, A. (2008) Child labor and schooling response to changes in coca production in
rural Peru. Journal of Development Economics 86(1): 164–180.
Dehejia, R. and Gatti, R. (2002) Child labor: the role of income variability and access to
credit across countries. NBER Working Paper 9018, Cambridge.
Duflo, E. (2001). ‘Schooling and labor market consequences of school construction in
Indonesia: evidence from an unusual policy experiment’, American Economic Review,
91, pp. 795–813.
Edmonds, E.V. and Pavcnik, N. (2005), “Child labor in the global economy”, Journal of
Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 199-220.
Emerson, P. and Souza, A. (2007) Child labor, school attendance, and intrahousehold gender
bias in Brazil. The World Bank Economic Review 21(2): 301–316.
Floyd, C & Helium, M, 2012, The Rights of Orphans in Islam,
http//:www.helium.com/users/141654/show-articles.
Fors, H.C. (2010). “Child Labour: A review of recent theory and evidence with policy
implications”, Journal of Economic Surveys.
Glewwe, P. and Ilias, N. (1996). ‘The determinants of school attainment in Sub-Saharan
Africa: a case study of Ghana’, Journal of International Development, 8, pp. 395–413.
Grigoli, F. and Sbrana, G. (2012). “Determinants and dynamics of schooling and child labour
in Bolivia”. Bulletin of Economic Research.
Handa, S. and Simler, K. (2005). ‘Quality or quantity? The supply-side determinants of
primary schooling in a poor rural economy’, Journal of African Economies, 15, pp. 59–
90.
Hazarika, G. and Sarangi, S. (2008) Household access to microcredit and child work in rural
Malawi. World Development 36(5): 843–859.
International Islamic Center for Population Studies and research, 2005, “Children in Islam
(their care, development and protection), Unicef, Al-Azhar University.
Kambhampati, U.S. and Rajan, R. (2008) The ‘nowhere’ children: girls in india’s rural
economy. Journal of Development Studies 44(9): 1309–1341.
Kurosaki, T., Ito, S., Fuwa, N., Kubo, K. and Sawada, Y. (2006) Child labor and school
enrollment in rural india: whose education matters? Developing Economies 44(4): 440–
464.
Manacorda, M. and Roscati, F. C. (2010). “Local labor demand and child work”. Child labor
and the transition between school and work research in labor economic, Vol. 31 pp.
321-34.
Morduch, J. (2000). “Sibling rivalry in Africa”. American Economic Review 90: 405–409.
|P age
Nik Ahmad Kamal, Marhanum, Azizah, Ashgar, Yusuff
Myers, W.E. (2001), ‘‘The right rights? Child labour in a globalising world’’, Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 575, pp. 38-55.
Organization of the Islamic conference, 2004, “Covenant on the right of the child in Islam”,
Rahimah Abdul Aziz & Suriati Iskandar (2013), “Working children and knowledge of right
to education: A study of child labour in Sabah, Malaysia”, Asian Social Science,
Vol. 9 No. 8.
Ray, R. (2001) Child labour and child schooling in south Asia: a cross country study of their
determinants. ASARC Working Papers, Australian National University, Australia,
South Asia Research Centre.
Ray, R. (2003) The determinants of child labour and child schooling in Ghana. Journal of
African Economics 11(4): 561–590.
Salmon, C. (2005), “Child labor in Bangladesh: are children the last economic resource of the
household?”, Journal of Developing Societies, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2, pp. 33-54.
Tomasevski, K. (2001), “Free and compulsory education for all children” in Right to
Education Primers No. 2, Swedish International Development Agency, SIDA www.
right-to-education.org
|P age