|
Written by 3K Admin
|
|
Thursday, 08 October 2009 09:32 |
|
2009/08/06
LEGAL jurisdictions the world over are pondering the limits of parental responsibility for juvenile delinquency. Clearly, what it means to be a "child" is very different from what it may have been even a generation or two ago. Today, the definition is entirely chronological -- the age of the individual -- and this can range from as young as 16 to as old as 21, based on the cultural mores of the societies concerned. In this country, 18 is taken as the threshold of adulthood -- except for the vote, where the entry level is 21. The Child Act 2001 specifies provisions with regard to individuals between the ages of 18 and 21, but to most intents and purposes -- and in the present context of the criminal charges facing 44 adolescents in connection with last weekend's anti-ISA demonstrations in Kuala Lumpur -- it's the 14-18 age bracket that's most in question.
That even pubescent children were also involved casts a cold light on the role of parents in fostering antisocial behaviour among juveniles. It is one thing to lose control of their adolescent offspring, resulting in 80 per cent of the road thugs formerly known as "Mat Rempit" being in the 14-25 age-group, or the incidence of juvenile crime rising from 1,836 cases in 2007 to 2,218 last year, with an even higher total expected this year. Parents often profess helplessness before the intimidation of their wayward children, who bully them and act with impunity against all strictures on their behaviour, whether from parents, teachers or the law. But such a sociological phenomenon is of a very different order to that of parents actively encouraging their children to break the law. This is the consternation arising from last weekend's incident in KL. The Child Act exists to protect children from abuse and safeguard their welfare. But can children under the age of consent be held liable for what their parents urge them to do? When filial piety clashes with the common law, there should be no question of who's to blame. The provisions in the Act against parents wilfully exposing their children to danger or harm need to be invoked against parents steering their children to lives of scofflaws involved in anti-establishment street politics they cannot be expected to understand. For the sake of narrow and immediate political agendas, such parents are implanting generational time-bombs in society. It is a situation that must be dealt with decisively.
Source: http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/articles/16lider/Article/index_html#
|
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 08 October 2009 09:33 |
