INTISARI: Sektor pekerjaan di Malaysia berkembang dengan sangat pesat. Perkembangan ini menarik minat banyak pihak untuk turut terlibat dalam kerancakan perkembangan ekonomi tersebut, termasuklah golongan remaja. Penglibatan remaja sebagai tenaga kerja selalu diambil tidak endah oleh sebahagian besar masyarakat, kerana mereka dianggap bekerja secara sambilan sahaja. Remaja dianggap sebagai golongan yang tidak serius dalam pekerjaan dan mudah bertukar pekerjaan. Oleh kerana remaja adalah golongan dalam peringkat umur yang selalu dinisbahkan dengan pelbagai masalah, persepsi negatif tersebut juga turut dilemparkan kepada remaja yang bekerja. Justeru, remaja bekerja juga dianggap sebagai remaja bermasalah. Mereka dilabel sebagai remaja yang kurang pendidikan, malas belajar, dan tiada daya usaha untuk memajukan diri dengan pendidikan. Sangat kurang kajian yang dapat menerobos dan memperincikan kenapa remaja memilih untuk bekerja. Masyarakat umumnya beranggapan, remaja yang terlibat sebagai tenaga kerja atau melibatkan diri dalam sektor pekerjaan sangat kecil bilangannya. Namun, statistik dalam Laporan Penyiasatan Tenaga Buruh 2013, yang dikeluarkan oleh Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, menunjukan bahawa seramai hampir dua juta tenaga kerja warganegara Malaysia berumur antara 15-24 tahun. Ini bermakna bahawa lebih daripada enambelas peratus (16.8%) tenaga kerja Malaysia adalah dalam kategori umur remaja, yang terlibat dalam pelbagai sektor pekerjaan. Angka ini bukan kecil. Justeru, artikel ini membincangkan dan mengupas senario tersebut serta implikasinya berdasarkan data yang dikeluarkan oleh Jabatan Perangkaan, iaitu Laporan Penyiasatan Tenaga Buruh Malaysia 2013.

KATA KUNCI: Remaja; Pekerjaan; Remaja Bekerja; Laporan Penyiasatan Tenaga Buruh; Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia.

ABSTRACT: “Teenagers Involvement in the Workforce”. Job sectors in Malaysia have developed rapidly. It is of interest to many parties to participate in the economic development boom, including the teenagers. The involvement of teenagers as the workforce is not always taken serious by most of the community, because they are considered as part-time workers. Teenagers are portrayed as those who are not serious about the job and easily change the jobs. Due to the teenagers is the age group that is always attributed to a variety of problems, so the negative perceptions were also thrown at working teenagers. Accordingly, working teenagers are also regarded as troubled teens. They are labelled as uneducated, lazy learners, and have no effort to advance theirs through education. Not many studies done to find out and analyze why adolescents choose to work. Many of us generally think that the teenagers involved as employees or engaged in the employment sector were very small. However, statistics of Labour Force Survey Report 2013 released by the Department of Statistics showed that a total of nearly two million workforce aged between 15-24 years. This means that more than sixteen percents (16.8%) of Malaysia’s workforce is in the age category of teenagers involved in various employment sectors. This figure is not small in number. Therefore, this article discusses and analyzes these scenario based on data in Labour Force Survey Report 2013 released by the Department of Statistics in Malaysia.

KEY WORD: Adolescent; Employment; Working Teenagers; Labour Force Survey Report; Department of Malaysia’ Statistics.

About the Author: Dr. Rosnah binti Ishak ialah Pensyarah Kanan Hubungan Industri di Fakulti Kemanusiaan, Seni, dan Warisan UMS (Universiti Malaysia Sabah), Jalan UMS, 88400 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. Bagi urusan sebarang akademik, penulis boleh dihubungi secara terus di: rosnery.rosnah@gmail.com dan drrosnah@ums.edu.my

How to cite this article? Ishak, Rosnah binti. (2015). “Penglibatan Remaja dalam Pekerjaan” in SIPATAHOENAN: South-East Asian Journal for Youth, Sports & Health Education, Vol.1(2) October, pp.219-228. Bandung, Indonesia: Minda Masagi Press, APAKSI Bandung, and KEMENPORA RI Jakarta, ISSN 2407-7348.

Chronicle of the article: Accepted (June 25, 2015); Revised (August 17, 2015); and Published (October 28, 2015).

Remaja; Pekerjaan; Remaja Bekerja; Laporan Penyiasatan Tenaga Buruh; Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia

Anyanwu, J.C. (2013). “Characteristics and Macroeconomics Determinants of Youth Employment in Africa” dalam African Development Review, 25(2), ms.107-129.

Bachman, J.G. et al. (2013). “Adolescent Work Intensity, School Performance, and Substance Use: Link Vary by Race/Ethnicity and Socioecomic Status” dalam Developmental Psychology, 49(11), pp.2125-2134.

Barus, Cristedi Permana. (2013). “Sosial-Ekonomi Keluarga dan Hubungannya dengan Kenakalan Remaja di Desa Lantasan Baru, Kecamatan Patumbak, Kabupaten Deli Serdang”. Wujud secara online di: file:///C:/Users/acer/Downloads/2138-5672-1-PB.pdf [diakses di Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia: Mac 11, 2015].

Bungin, B. (2003). Analisis Data Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT Rajagragrafindo Persada, Terjemahan.

Campos, A.C.V. et al. (2014). “Empowerment and Quality of Life of Working Adolescents Supported by a Brazilian NGO” dalam Saude E Sociedade, 23(1), ms.238-250.

Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitatif Inquiry and Research Design. California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cunnier, K.A., N.M. Rogers & J.T. Mortimer. (2009). “Adolescent Work Experience and Self-Efficacy” dalam International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 29(3/4), ms.164-175.

Da Luz, A.A. et al. (2012). “Effects of Working Full-Time and Studying in the Evening Hours among Young Apprentices and Trainees” dalam Human Factors, 54(6), ms.952-963.

“Jadual A2.2” dalam JPM [Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia]. (2014). Laporan Penyiasatan Tenaga Buruh Malaysia 2013. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, Bulan Jun.

“Jadual A2.3” dalam JPM [Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia] (2014). Laporan Penyiasatan Tenaga Buruh Malaysia 2013. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, Bulan Jun.

“Jadual A2.4” dalam JPM [Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia] (2014). Laporan Penyiasatan Tenaga Buruh Malaysia 2013. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, Bulan Jun.

“Jadual A4.16” dalam JPM [Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia]. (2014). Laporan Penyiasatan Tenaga Buruh Malaysia 2013. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, Bulan Jun.

“Jadual A4.24” dalam JPM [Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia] (2014). Laporan Penyiasatan Tenaga Buruh Malaysia 2013. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, Bulan Jun.

“Jadual C1.2” dalam JPM [Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia] (2014). Laporan Penyiasatan Tenaga Buruh Malaysia 2013. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, Bulan Jun.

Johnson, D.S. & M. Lino. (2000). “Teenagers: Employment and Contributions to Family Spending” in U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Report on the Youth Labor Force. Washington, DC: Author.

JPM [Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia]. (2014). Laporan Penyiasatan Tenaga Buruh Malaysia 2013. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, Bulan Jun.

Kaestner, R. et al. (2013). “Youth Employment and Substance Use” dalam Social Science Research, 42(1), ms.169-185.

Leos-Urbel, J. (2014). “What is a Summer Job Worth? The Impact of Summer Youth Employment on Academic Outcomes” dalam Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(4), ms.891-911.

Linker, D. et al. (2005). “Health and Safety Awareness for Working Teens: Developing a Successful, Statewide Program for Educating Teen Workers” dalam Family & Community Health, 28(3), ms.225-238.

Malek, Mohd Dahlan A. & Ida Shafinaz Mohamed Kamil. (2010). “Jenayah dan Masalah Sosial di Kalangan Remaja: Cabaran dan Realiti Dunia Siber”. Wujud secara online di: http://eprints.ums.edu.my/117/1/CONF2010004.pdf [diakses di Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia: Mac 11, 2015].

Runyan, C.W. et al. (2009). “Attitudes and Beliefs about Adolescent Work and Workplace among Parents of Working Adolescents” dalam Journal of Adolescent Health, 44(4), pp.349-355.

Salusky, I. et al. (2014). “How Adolecents Develop Responsibility: What Can be Learned from Youth Programs” dalam Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(3), ms.417-430.

Tharmmapornphilas, R. (2013). “Impact of Household Factors on Youth’s School Decisions in Thailand” dalam Economics of Education Review, 37, ms.258-272.