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 17 th 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
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): Childrens 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.

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 Generals
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, 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
5

Section 2 of the Child Act and Section 82 of the Penal Code respectively.

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.
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 childs 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 offenders 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 offenders 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
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

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 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
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.
10
See Note 2 at p. 15.

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 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
11

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.
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.

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 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
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

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 (theBeijing
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.
17

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

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

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 Courts 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

21

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 5 th
November 2012
23
Statistics obtained from the Department of Social Welfare on the 17th January 2013.
24
Statistics obtained from the Prison Department of Malaysia on the 31st 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.

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 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
25

Statistics obtained from the Department of Social Welfare on the 17th January 2013.
Dr Mohammad Akram A Study of Some Recent Developments in the Rising rate of Delinquent Behavior in
Malaysia [2007] 7 MLJ xxxvii
27
See Note 21 at p. 34
28
Ibid at p. 34
29
Statistics obtained from the Department of Social Welfare on the 17th January 2013
30
See Note 21 at p.34
31
Ibid at p. 34
26

(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%).
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.
32

Ibid at p. 35
Ibid at p.35.
34
Dr Mohammad Akram A Study of Some Recent Developments in the Rising rate of Delinquent Behavior in
Malaysia [2007] 7 MLJ xxxvii
33

10

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.

Table 1 Causes of Crime Committed by Child Offenders

Causes Of Crime Committed by
Child Offenders
1.To seek excitement

Response From Child Offenders

Disagree
Agree
n
%
n
%
21
18.5
92
81.4

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 offending act

40

35.1

74

64.9

11

6.Unconscious that the offending

act is legally wrong
7.Monetary/financially driven

44

38.9

69

61.1

45

39.5

69

60.5

is 45

40.5

66

59.4

52

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 73
members are not 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

8.Committing offending act

perceived as a fun act
9.Lack of religious guidance

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
12

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%).
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%).
35

Dr Mohammad Akram A Study of Some Recent Developments in the Rising rate of Delinquent Behavior in
Malaysia [2007] 7 MLJ xxxvii

13

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

Response From Child Offenders

Disagree
Agree
N
%
n
%
family 8
7.1
105
92.9

1.Good relationship with

members
2.Involvement with sport activities

3.Making new friends who engage

in healthy activities
4.Concerned family members who
provide continuous support
5.Continuation
of
academic
pursuit/studies
6.Being employed in jobs which are
of interest
7.Support from others (employer,
teachers, etc)
8.Close relationship with family
members
9.Participation
in
constructive
programs
10.Being
employed
with
remuneration
11.Financial assistance from family
members
12.Fear of not being accepted by
the society
13.Fear of enforcement officers
14.Support and constructive advise
from peers

7.9

110

92.1

9
10

8.8

104

91.2

10

102

91.1

100

90

11
12

9.9
10.5

102

89.5

12

10.6

102

89.5

12

10.7

101

89.4

12

10.8

100

89.3

13

11.4

100

88.5

20

17.7

93

82.3

22

19.5

91

80.5

24
27

21.6
23.6

87
87

78.3
76.3

14

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
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.

15

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 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
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

16

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 Courts Order in order to
prevent them from committing further offences upon release. 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.
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
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.

17

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.
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.

18

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.
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

19

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 childrens 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
20

because this is cited in the discussion above as first and foremost 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.

21