Move allows youth time to develop maturity and judgement before engaging independently in digital spaces: Ex-deputy minister
PETALING JAYA: A proposed blanket ban on social media access for children aged below 16 is not about convenience or flexibility but about equity, clarity and enforceability, said former Education deputy minister Datuk Seri P. Kamalanathan as debate intensifies over how far the state should go to protect young users online.
He said age-based restrictions are a necessary policy response to mounting evidence that children often lack the maturity and cognitive readiness to navigate social media safely, exposing them to growing psychological and systemic risks.
“I think it is progressive and needed at the moment, looking at how the risks of not having the maturity to deal with social media are becoming more prevalent,” he told theSun, likening social media use to driving, in which legal age limits exist to protect the individual and the wider public.
Kamalanathan said a temporary restriction on social media access until the age of 16 is not about conflating different uses of digital platforms but about placing child protection above convenience.
He described the move as delayed access rather than outright denial, allowing young people time to develop emotional maturity and judgement before engaging independently in digital spaces.
“Most social media platforms are not designed primarily as educational tools. Their core architecture is driven by engagement, algorithmic amplification and commercial interests,” he noted.
He said even when platforms are used for learning or communication, students remain exposed to systemic risks, such as distraction, data exploitation, inappropriate content and harmful social comparison.
“A clear ban creates a simple, enforceable boundary during formative years, reducing exposure to these risks.”
He also argued that digital literacy and online skills could be cultivated within controlled environments, without granting unrestricted access to open social media ecosystems.
Kamalanathan said while parental supervision and guided use are ideal in theory, they are unevenly applied in practice.
“Relying heavily on parental capacity creates significant gaps in protection and outcomes,” he said, citing disparities in digital awareness, time constraints and enforcement across households.
He added that a blanket ban establishes equity and clarity, ensuring all students receive the same baseline protection regardless of family circumstances or socioeconomic background.
The Online Safety Act 2025 came into force on Jan 1, introducing a statutory framework aimed at strengthening online safety and protecting children and families.
The Act places greater responsibility on platform providers to manage harmful content, cyberbullying, online exploitation and other digital risks through improved safety mechanisms, while signalling a more interventionist approach by the state in regulating online spaces.
However, mental health advocates have cautioned that restricting access altogether could have unintended consequences, particularly for vulnerable youths.
Sneham Malaysia founder Datuk Dr Florance Sinniah said the organisation has seen a high volume of teenagers turning to digital platforms to seek support for mental health challenges.
“Based on Sneham’s experience, online spaces are often a vital channel for young people to express emotions, seek help and connect with peers or trusted adults.”
She warned that restricting access could delay meaningful intervention and increase feelings of isolation, especially if alternative support systems are not readily visible or accessible.
She also noted that reliance on phones and digital platforms accelerated sharply during the Covid-19 pandemic, when students were required to continue their education remotely.
She said the generation adapted quickly to digital learning, making online engagement an entrenched part of their daily lives.
“Any digital tool, including social media, requires guidance. This is where parents play a critical role, not just in supervising use, but also in building connection and trust with children who are already dealing with many issues.”
Florence said a total ban on social media for under-16s is unlikely to be protective in the long term.
“Digital life is pervasive and inevitable. Prolonged prohibitions may delay the development of critical thinking, self-regulation and healthy help-seeking, and could push youths towards unmoderated spaces with greater risks when access eventually becomes unrestricted.”
She advocated instead for guided digital engagement, supported by parental involvement, clear boundaries and open communication.
“It is time parents share the accountability in supervising their children,” she said, adding that guided access could help build emotional resilience and healthier online habits.
