What about a curfew?
The horrific 3am crash in Johor Baru which killed eight teen cyclists and injured eight others last week has prompted calls for a youth curfew to keep them out of harm’s way. But is it the most effective measure?
THE “royal decree” imposing a nighttime curfew on children below 18 in Johor last Sunday was quickly refuted by the Johor Palace as fake.
The supposed ruling to ban minors from going out after 10pm without adult supervision followed a tragic accident that killed eight teens cycling on a highway in Johor Baru around 3am last Saturday.
The accident, sadly, is very much a fact. And so is the trend of teenagers in Malaysia hanging out into the wee hours of the night – in bicycle racing gangs like the victims, with their older Mat Rempit braders, at cybercafes or at nightclubs and other entertainment outlets.
And while some freedom should be given to young people who want to relax and have fun with friends on weekends – we all have been there – the worry is that they are doing so at unsuitable places, at undesirable hours, and many, without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
As fake as the “royal ban” on underaged youths in public spaces late at night was, it is an idea that has been bandied about by criminologists, sociologists, parliamentarians and parents here for over 20 years, says Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) criminologist Dr P. Sundramoorthy.
Dr Sundramoorthy believes its implementation is overdue.
“It can minimise the possibility of young people getting into trouble or dangerous situations. And it is being implemented in many developed countries,” he highlights.
The United States is surprisingly the country with the longest history of youth curfew, with 500 towns and cities enforcing some kind of youth curfew law.
Other countries where a youth or child curfew are in effect include Germany, Britain, Australia and Switzerland.
Closer to home, we have Thailand and Singapore, where the police in 2006 introduced a programme which sees “love letters” sent to parents whose children are caught loitering outside after 11pm.
Youth curfew will not eliminate the problem – you can get into trouble at any time of the day, says Dr Sundramoorthy.
“But it is a good strategy to reduce kids’ exposure to danger when they are not accompanied by their parents, and especially, at a time when their parents are busy at work or sleeping.”
He supports the call from the Home Ministry which did put youth curfew on notice last week.
Commenting on the accident, Deputy Home Minister Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed said a stronger approach was needed to keep young people safe during the wee hours.
“Police have been taking action (on the teen bicycle gangs in Johor Baru) over the past 10 years but in a softer and advisory manner.
“We couldn’t take harsh action because they are underaged. But now, it is time to get tough.”
Another proponent of a curfew for the young is another criminologist from USM, Dr Geshina Ayu Mat Saat, who says she has been advocating it since 2002.
“It is not age-appropriate for a child to be roaming the streets late at night. The cycle of physiological well-being and growth is disrupted; their ability to learn, focus, and function during the day is also negatively affected.
“Then there is the problem of being involved in inappropriate relationships that are mostly active during the night, for example, individuals who support and/or actively engage in vices like street racing,” she says.
In studies involving delinquency, she adds, findings provide evidence that being in a protective environment can reduce the likeli-
hood of a wide range of delinquent acts and pro-criminal behaviour.
For an effective implementation in Malaysia, however, various factors need to be considered.
Firstly it is the age limit, says Dr Sundramoorthy.
“We need to study if the age limit should be 16 or 18. Many aged between 16 and 18 are working part-time in fast food restaurants and shops, especially those in the urban areas.
“So the reasons they are out should be taken into consideration. Ultimately, we are not talking about completely banning children from going out at night – they can be out with parents or legal guardians or ‘authorised’ adults like neighbour or aunt (aged 21 and above).”
Another issue is who should be responsible in implementing and enforcing the curfew.
Dr Sundramoorthy believes the responsibility lies with law enforcement agencies like the police, while voluntary organisations like Rela and neighbourhood watch group Rukun Tetangga, as well as related agencies like the Welfare Department, should assist.
“We need a standardised rule for the whole country as Malaysia has a federal legal and criminal system. The Religious Department should not be involved,” he stresses.
Nur Jazlan, however, has said that the police does not only have a limited power in supervising underaged youths, but they also lack the manpower.
The “directive” needs to come from the state governments, he was reported as saying.
“The curfew should be imposed by state governments so that owners of sites, locations or premises do not to allow underaged youth from coming to these places late at night.
“There must also be a directive from the state governments for integrated action, for example, with local authorities and those having jurisdiction over roads to be enlisted to help the police supervise the children,” he was quoted.
Curfew for the young on itself will not work, warns Dr Sundramoorthy.
“There needs to be consequences on the parents or legal guardians if the curfew is broken or not observed. If the parents or legal guardians do not take the curfew seriously, neither will their children, leading to ineffective implementation and repeat offenders.”
He proposes community service for par-
ents and children who do not comply with the curfew set.
Dr Geshina Ayu points to the enforcement of existing laws pertaining to neglect, abuse, and exposure to potential dangerous situations for children like the Child Act, as well as those that provide a safe and nurturing environment for them.
She adds, “Enforcement can also be done by educating parents via practical workshops and forums, bringing back moral or civic education, and having parents model good behaviour and attributes.”
Longtime child rights activist James Nayagam, however, is not convinced having a youth curfew is the solution.
One of the experts involved in the debate over the proposal to implement a 12am curfew for the young years ago, Nayagam shares they found various issues with it.
“Some of the issues were who is going to enforce it, are parents going to be charged every time their child is caught outside past midnight, and how are we going to implement the intricate and complicating law?
“We also felt that it would have less effect on the children themselves, because parental-child relationship is so much more important than the legal implementation of the ‘rule’ (curfew),” he says.
In many of the countries that have implemented the youth curfew, the main aim is to cut on juvenile crime, the Suriana Welfare Society Malaysia (SWSM) chairman points out.
Research shows that the effectiveness has been minimal – in many cases the decrease in the juvenile crime rate is negligible.
In the US, studies by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) show that it has led to abuses of the system where the police use heavy-handed approaches on the “curfew breakers”.
The “constant harassments”, said ACLU in a report, leave a lasting impact on the young, especially if the law imposes jail time and fines for breaking the curfew.
“It’s a tough balance – if no action is taken (on those who break the curfew), it becomes meaningless. Some even find it a challenge to defy the law and will purposely break the curfew to challenge the authorities. Even in the US, they are still debating if their curfew laws have been effective,” Nayagam weighs in.
He stresses it is also important for us to protect children’s right to freedom of movement.
“The law we are talking about is one that will control the movement of children.”
While conceding that the late hours are of concern, Nayagam feels there is an urgent need to examine why the young prefer to keep those hours.
“Maybe it is the only time when they can get the break and peace they need.
“We need to look at the environment of our young.
“For instance, schools are very exam-oriented, and they face pressure in everything, including co-curriculum activities. Each school, meanwhile, has few, if not only one, counsellors who have to look after the mental wellbeing of hundreds of students.”
Calling the curfew a “short-term” idea and “quick solution that we have already considered as ineffective decades ago”, Nayagam feels the issue is deeper.
“It needs to be examined and addressed at the community level, rather than just have a knee-jerk reaction of implementing a curfew. We need to review the whole family and community setup in the country.”
Citing a study by the SWSM on Mat Rempits in 2010, Nayagam says they found that many teens involved in daring and dangerous group activities late into the night – with disregard to the law and their own life – came from dysfunctional families.
“The mothers or fathers were divorced and remarried. The new ‘father’ or ‘mother’ refused to accept them as their own children. The teens also included those whose parents were single parents, who found it a challenge to manage their teenage child.”
They are also deprived of the space and resources to pursue recreational activities, he adds.
“Many of the teenagers we talked to came from low-cost housing areas. They lived in cramped conditions with limited space.
He believes these communities need to be helped to help their children be children and empower their youth.
“This is something that the relevant agencies like the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry, Health Ministry and Youth and Sports Ministry, as well as local governments and NGOS, will need to work together to address. We cannot work from outside, we need to work on site,” he says.
Ultimately, says Nayagam, we need to talk to these youth, as well as the other young people, and get their feedback on the issue, or even form a panel of youth headed by
youth to come up with possible solutions to address this.
“When we surveyed some young people on the issue of curfew last time, many were offended by the proposal and felt that we were prying into their privacy and attempting to stifle their freedom of movement and activities.
“We need to get to the level where we can talk to them, rather than wait for them to come to us. We can’t sit in our comfort zone and expect them to cross over. We need to reach out to them and listen to them.”
Next: What say the young on the proposal of a night curfew for them.