In the predominantly conservative state of Kelantan, Malaysia, a fresh debate has ignited over how the law should treat consensual sexual activity between minors—a debate that has laid bare the tension between moral expectations, protective justice and the evolving needs of young people. On one hand, the state government and its police leadership are urging a broader review of the law; on the other, women’s rights groups and federal policymakers are sounding the alarm that the proposal risks sweeping girls into the category of offenders rather than victims.
The catalyst for the debate was a remark by Yusoff Mamat, the Kelantan police chief, who stated that about 90 per cent of statutory-rape cases in the state involve consensual sex between minors rather than coercion. In his view, the current legal framework fails to account for the gender-neutral initiative sometimes taken by girls, and hence he suggested minor girls might also bear responsibility under the law in such cases. Echoing his remarks, the deputy chief minister of Kelantan, Mohamed Fadzli Hassan, backed the need for legal reform—emphasising that the discussion should move beyond punishment alone and instead focus on education, moral reform and mutual accountability. He argued that “it is not appropriate that only the boy is held responsible” in cases of consensual underage sex.
Yet this position met swift push-back from federal authorities and rights advocates. The Women’s Aid Organisation warned that treating girls as potential offenders in the same way that boys might be punished could deepen the culture of victim-blaming, deter victims from reporting abuse and shift the public focus away from protection toward penalisation. The federal ministry responsible for women and family affairs reaffirmed that the existing laws are designed with the child’s protection, rehabilitation and welfare in mind. Arresting or prosecuting a girl under 16 for sexual activity, in their view, undermines the object of the statutory-rape law, which is to shield minors from sexual exploitation, not penalise them.
At the heart of the disagreement lies the legal status of minors in sexual‐activity laws. Under the Malaysian Penal Code, it is a crime for a man to have sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16, whether or not consent is given. The law does not recognise that girls under 16 can legally consent to sexual activity, meaning that any such sex automatically becomes statutory rape. Kelantan’s police chief and state authorities argue that the law treats the girl as a victim when the boy is charged—but does not recognise instances where the girl may be equally willing. Current policy, they say, is unbalanced. But rights groups caution that parenting, power dynamics, developmental psychology and the broader social context complicate the notion of “consent” when minors are involved. They maintain that a girl under 16 cannot in law—nor in moral or psychological reality—give meaningful consent to sex with a peer or older individual, because of the inherent imbalance in agency, maturity and capacity. As one senior advocate put it, moving toward prosecuting minor girls risks silencing victims and deterring them from seeking help.
The debate also illuminates a larger challenge: distinguishing between consensual acts among minors and exploitation or abuse, and determining how the state’s response should be calibrated. The Kelantan government’s proposal for a federal committee to explore alternative legal responses, such as rehabilitation and education instead of criminalisation, points to a desire for reform. Still, federal leaders were quick to emphasise that change to the law was not imminent and that the current principle—that minors under 16 cannot legally consent to sex—remains in place. For Kelantan, a state governed by the Islamist party Parti Islam Se‑Malaysia (PAS), the issue carries a layered significance: legal reform, social morality and the welfare of children all intersect. While authorities argue for fairness and gender-neutral accountability, rights groups argue that fairness must begin with acknowledging that the law treats minors as protected parties, not as potential criminals.
The discourse in Kelantan is a crucible for the broader national question: How does a society protect its youth from sexual exploitation, while avoiding the trap of penalising them for consensual behaviour that still falls outside the boundaries of legal consent? As the debate unfolds, all sides agree on one thing: any approach must be sensitive to children’s emotional, cognitive and social development and guided by the principle that protection should come before punishment.