LETTER | The Ministry for Women, Family and Community Development yesterday had to immediately clarify that it did not issue any order of a curfew for teenagers aged below 18 years. Although it was only a viral fake news, but as a former youth and teenager myself, I have the opinion that the suggestion should be welcomed and not rejected wholly but it could indeed be improvised a little by either lowering the age limit to below 18 years old or the age limit could be lowered to 16 or having the time adjusted to midnight instead of 10pm.

There have been many cases in the past where teenagers have been involved in all kinds’ scenarios that have either made teenagers not disciplined or there are instances where their acts of being out late at night have led to deaths. Have we forgotten about the tragedy in Johor Baru where eight teenage cyclists were killed in an accident at 3am? Also, should we look at the incident at the Penang Bridge where two youths were racing in cars as an indicator that maybe that the curfew should be increased to those aged 20 years old and below.

Honestly, I don’t see any problem in implementing a curfew for teenagers as well as youths because this has been done in many European countries. Countries such as Iceland have seen major changes to the attitude of their teenagers since the law was implemented for teenagers aged between 13 and 16 years old. Teenagers between those age groups are not allowed to be outside of the house after 10pm during the winter season and after midnight during the summer.

The results of the curfew were indeed positive as the percentage of teenagers using drugs decreased from 17% to 7% in 2016 and teenagers who smoked cigarettes also fell sharply from 23% to 3% in 2016. Some may argue that a curfew alone doesn’t solve the problem as there need to be additional initiatives to empower teenagers and it is an argument that I would agree.

Hence, in Iceland, in addition to the curfew and for the ban to become even more effective, parents were made to sign agreements to spend more family time with their kids as well. Other than that, teenagers were also given a 35,000 krona (RM1,200) grant to spend on after-school activities, whether that is music, sports etc. While Iceland has implemented a curfew to reduce the number teenagers using drugs and drinking alcohol, small town and villages in Switzerland, on the other hand, are reportedly enacting a 10pm curfew as well for teenagers 16 and below to reduce late night noise, vandalism and also underage alcohol consumption.

The tourist town of Interlaken were the early pioneers of the curfew movement as the idea came about as early as 2006 and other Swiss towns have since followed suit. But teenagers from the town of Interlaken are not banned totally as they are still allowed to be in public after 10pm if accompanied by a parent or an elder. Germany also has its own model in implementing a curfew for teenagers according to locations.

The federal government in Germany decrees that teens under the age of 16 years are barred from clubs after midnight while teens under the age of 18 need authorisation from their parents to attend a concert. Additionally, those aged 18 and below are only allowed to stay in a cinema until midnight. Besides European countries, even the US have curfews for teenagers to help prevent young people from becoming either perpetrators or victims of night-time crime as it is an important way of helping kids stay safe and stay out of trouble

With that said, at least 500 US cities have curfews for teenage youths. In most of these cities, curfews prohibit children under 18 from wandering around the streets after 11pm during the weekdays and after midnight on the weekends.

What about curfews among the Asean member countries? Thailand implemented a curfew in 2007 prohibiting teenagers aged 18 and below especially in Bangkok from leaving their homes after 10pm without justified reasons. Teenagers that were not able to provide justifications for being out after 10pm would be taken to the police stations until their parents pick them up. In addition to Thailand, the Philippines is also considering a proposal to have a nationwide curfew for teenagers aged 18 and below and it is expected to be enforced soon with fines for parents of violators.

The Safe Hour for Children Act would be enforced as drug pushers are said to be using minors as drug couriers in their efforts to evade the government’s tight enforcement on laws against prohibited substances. The act prohibits parents or guardians from letting children loiter, roam around, or sleep in any public place from 10pm to 5am without a justifiable reason. The curfew is aimed at ensuring the safety of teenagers and also to prevent them from being used to commit a crime as well as protecting them from any sort of abuse and exploitation.

In order to make sure that parents would ensure that their children adhere to the curfew, parents or guardians of those violating the act for the third time or succeeding offences shall pay a fine of 500 pesos (RM39) to 1,000 pesos (RM78) or render community service for five to ten days, or even both.

While teenagers might look at curfews as a way of controlling them and taking away their freedom, curfews are also important in making sure that they are safe and not exposed to crimes, exploitation and abuse. In addition, curfews are also important to teach teenagers to be disciplined in terms of honouring their promises by being back at home at the mentioned time. If teenagers aren’t even able to follow a simple law on curfew, how then will they grow up to follow other forms of rules such as being on time for classes when they are in university or even following other strict laws within the country?

Furthermore, curfews are also important to safeguard our teenagers from social ills that are indeed on the rise among the young people in Malaysia. I believe that the government should further study the possibilities of implementing curfews among teenagers and this idea should definitely be considered as an option and should not be completely rebuked and criticised as a bad idea without further consideration

The writer is social research officer, Centre for Asean Regionalism University of Malaya (Carum).

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.