The government’s decision to impose tougher penalties, including higher fines and imprisonment for repeat Mat Rempit offenders from Nov 1, subject to gazettement, sends an important message – dangerous and illegal street riding will not be tolerated.
There is little doubt that stronger action is necessary. Mat Rempit activities can cause serious accidents, injuries and deaths while placing innocent road users at considerable risk. Repeat offenders who deliberately disregard the law must face meaningful consequences.
But as a criminologist, I would caution against equating harsher punishment with effective deterrence.
The central question is not simply whether the punishment is severe enough. It is whether offenders believe they will actually be caught, prosecuted and punished.
Criminological evidence has consistently demonstrated that the certainty and swiftness of punishment can be more important in deterring offending than simply increasing the severity of a sentence.
This distinction matters particularly when dealing with young repeat offenders. Some may be deterred by the prospect of imprisonment. But for others, the attraction of speed, excitement, peer recognition, risk-taking and group identity can outweigh their fear of punishment.
Another important dimension that should not be overlooked is substance abuse among some Mat Rempit. While not every participant is involved in drug or substance use, for those who are, the progression can range from casual or experimental use to regular use and, eventually, dependency. Substance abuse can impair judgement, increase risk-taking and weaken the ability to respond rationally to danger or authority.
Enforcement should therefore be complemented by early identification, counselling, rehabilitation and appropriate treatment for those showing signs of substance dependence. Addressing this underlying problem is important not only to reduce Mat Rempit activities but also to prevent repeat offending and wider criminal behaviour.
Consequently, simply increasing penalties may produce headlines without necessarily reducing Mat Rempit activities.
More importantly, policymakers should be cautious about making imprisonment the principal response to repeat offending.
Prison has an important place in criminal justice. Serious and persistent offenders who present a genuine danger to society must be incapacitated where necessary. But imprisonment should not automatically be regarded as the most effective solution for every repeat Mat Rempit offender.
There is a well-recognised criminological concern that prisons can sometimes become environments in which offenders develop new criminal associations and acquire greater knowledge of criminal behaviour. A young offender who enters prison for a relatively less serious offence may come into contact with more experienced offenders and criminal networks.
While this does not mean that every prisoner becomes more criminal, the risk of negative peer influence and criminal socialisation cannot simply be dismissed.
We therefore need to ask a difficult but important question – Are we trying to punish Mat Rempit offenders, or are we trying to prevent them from becoming more serious criminals? The two objectives are not necessarily the same.
If the ultimate objective is public safety, Malaysia needs a more graduated response. Imprisonment should be reserved primarily for those who continue to pose a significant danger despite previous interventions, particularly offenders involved in serious associated offences.
For other offenders, particularly younger ones, there should be greater use of alternatives that impose real consequences while addressing the reasons behind their behaviour.
Higher fines can play a role. Community service can provide a meaningful punishment while requiring offenders to contribute to society. Mandatory road-safety and defensive-driving programmes should be considered. Behavioural rehabilitation, counselling, structured supervision and compulsory participation in appropriate youth programmes could also form part of a graduated sentencing framework.
Importantly, alternative punishment must not mean soft punishment. A community-based sentence can be demanding. It can include substantial fines, licence restrictions, compulsory programmes, regular reporting and close supervision. The objective is to make the consequences sufficiently certain and meaningful while giving offenders an opportunity to change their behaviour.
There is also a wider social dimension that cannot be ignored. Mat Rempit is not exclusively a policing problem. It involves youth culture, peer influence, family circumstances, social environment and the search for identity and excitement.
Police enforcement is necessary, but enforcement alone cannot address these underlying factors. Early intervention is therefore critical. Young people repeatedly involved in dangerous riding should be identified before their behaviour becomes entrenched. Families, schools, local authorities, youth organisations and communities should have a role in prevention and rehabilitation.
The issue of prison overcrowding also deserves serious consideration. If tougher laws result in a significant increase in imprisonment without a corresponding expansion of prison capacity, rehabilitation programmes and resources, Malaysia could simply transfer one problem into another. Overcrowded prisons make effective rehabilitation more difficult and can increase the risk of negative prisoner influence.
The government should therefore treat the impending changes to penalties for Mat Rempit as an opportunity to introduce a smarter, not merely harsher, enforcement strategy.
The effectiveness of the new penalties should be independently evaluated after implementation. Authorities should examine not only the number of arrests and convictions but also whether repeat offending, dangerous riding, road accidents, injuries and fatalities actually decline.
The real measure of success is not how many Mat Rempit offenders we put behind bars. It is how many we prevent from returning to the streets, how many young people we stop from progressing into more serious criminality and how many innocent lives we protect.
Punishment has a place in crime control. But punishment without prevention, rehabilitation and effective deterrence is unlikely to solve the problem.
Malaysia should be firm on Mat Rempit activities, but firmness must be guided by criminological evidence. The objective should not be to fill prisons. It should be to make our roads safer, change offending behaviour and prevent a generation of young people from moving from dangerous riding into more serious crime.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not represent those of Twentytwo13.
