Changing world: The new age bracket for youths has been lauded as a way to cultivate a new generation of leaders and spur growth at an earlier age. — Filepic/The Star
RAYYAN AZIZ lets out a long sigh whenever he thinks about an upcoming job interview.
At 35, the engineer is applying for a junior management position at a company known for advocating young leadership, typically recruiting candidates in their late 20s to early 30s. Under normal circumstances, he believes his experience and skills would speak for themselves. But a looming policy shift has added a layer of anxiety he did not anticipate.
From next year, Malaysia’s official definition of youth will be narrowed to those aged between 15 and 30. For Rayyan, who falls outside the new bracket, the change has raised uncomfortable questions about whether age might work against him, ignoring ability.
“I know that for the position, the company likely weighs my experience and skills more than just age. But the situation is leaving me anxious. The interview is in February next year.
“The competition can be stiffer now because, of course, there are younger people applying for the job as well,” he says.
Rayyan’s unease reflects broader concerns among those who are “ageing out” of the former youth category, which previously extended to 40. The revised definition, which takes effect on Jan 1, 2026, is expected to reshape access to youth- focused programmes, leadership platforms and opportunities – with effects that extend beyond policy frameworks into real-world career trajectories.
The change follows amendments to the Youth Societies and Youth Development (Amendment) Act 2019. Among other provisions, the amendments lower the youth age limit to 30, restrict youth society office bearers to those aged 18 to 30, and reduce the maximum tenure for heads of youth societies from six years to four.
When announcing the move, then Sports and Youth minister Hannah Yeoh said the decision was aligned with the National Youth Policy. Addressing concerns from those who would be excluded under the new definition, Yeoh assured that ongoing support for Malaysians aged 30 and above would continue, particularly for those who still require government intervention.
For now, Sarawak stands apart, retaining a broader definition of youth within the 15 to 40 age bracket.
A change for the better
Observers note that the new age definition aligns Malaysia more closely with global practices and current socioeconomic realities. The United Nations, for instance, defines youth as those aged between 15 and 24.
The move has also been lauded as a way to cultivate a new generation of leaders and spur growth at an earlier age. Yet it raises a critical question: What might this mean for education policy and workforce readiness, particularly in bridging the gap between schooling, vocational training and early employment?
University Malaya’s Inter-national Institute of Public Policy and Management deputy executive director Dr Muham-mad Danial Azman says the redefinition underscores a structural reality; the transition from education to employment is occurring earlier, but not always more smoothly.
He says education policy must place greater emphasis on career exposure, applied skills and adaptive learning at pre- tertiary levels to strengthen pathways between schooling, technical and vocational education and training (TVET), higher education and early employment.
“In contrast, workforce policies should focus on quality entry-level opportunities rather than short-term placements. Importantly, vocational and technical education should no longer be treated as a secondary option, but as a strategic pillar of youth development.
“If managed well, this shift can reduce skills mismatch and youth underemployment. If not, it risks pushing young people into the labour market before they are adequately supported or protected,” says Danial.
The change, he adds, may also alter how Malaysian society perceives “youth” as a cultural category – more subtly than abruptly.
“Youth may increasingly be seen less as a prolonged life stage and more as a compressed transition period, with earlier expectations of responsibility, contribution and independence.
“This can have positive effects, such as encouraging early civic engagement and leadership. However, it also risks overburdening young people if expectations rise faster than institutional support can keep pace,” he says.
Danial says redefining youth is about expanding the nation’s responsibility to engage, prepare and support young Malaysians earlier and more coherently.
On its impact on intergenerational dynamics, activism and civic identity, Danial says much will depend on whether older generations view youth as partners in governance rather than as dependants or disruptors.
“A healthy civic culture requires recognising that maturity is not solely age-based, and that intergenerational collaboration strengthens, rather than weakens, social cohesion.”
But not exactly a rosy path
Concerns remain over youth organisations and representative bodies that may bear the brunt of the new age limit.
Malaysian Youth Council secretary-general Farhan Rosli says aligning with international standards should not come at the expense of local realities.
While the policy aims to mirror global norms, he notes that it will have a significant impact on youth councils, particularly in rural areas.
“Youth councils represent grassroots communities, including rural populations, marginalised groups such as the Orang Asli and persons with disabilities, as well as young people from Felda and Felcra settlements,” he says, referring to settlements under land and rural development agencies.
“Youth representation in urban areas such as Segambut is very different from representation in rural constituencies like Kapit, Baling or Setiu. This is a reality policymakers must fully understand.”
The broader question, Farhan says, is whether lowering the youth age limit adequately reflects Malaysia’s socioeconomic landscape – especially when many Malaysians only achieve career stability in their mid-30s.
“There is a perception that those involved in youth organisations will eventually become politicians, or that they are already political actors. This is not true. Many youth leaders are professionals in the public service, private sector or even the gig economy. Youth involvement is about civic contribution, not political ambition.
“It is also true that many Malaysians only achieve career stability in their mid-30s. This is precisely the transition period we are discussing. At the same time, economic pressure has led many young people to prioritise earning additional income over voluntary youth work.”
If changes to youth leadership structures are necessary, Farhan says the process must not ignore the voices of organisations on the ground.
“We are not here to fight or defend positions. We are here to speak for the future generation of the nation. That is why we believe youth age is not merely a number. It reflects an ecosystem and a generational pathway.
“We hope the new minister [Dr Mohammed Taufiq Johari] will give this issue careful consideration and pursue changes that are truly necessary, instead of ones that risk excluding or abandoning young people who have aged out under the new bracket.”
Influencing opportunities
Still, redefining youth is not about shrinking a category, but about expanding the nation’s responsibility to engage, prepare and support young Malaysians earlier and more coherently, says Danial.
With younger cohorts now qualifying for – or ageing out of – certain schemes more quickly, he stresses that policymakers must rethink eligibility timing and policy continuity.
“Some individuals may qualify for support earlier, but also age out faster, creating gaps if programmes are not well aligned across ministries.”
He argues that social protection, entrepreneurship grants and income support should be designed as progressive pathways rather than age-limited silos.
“For example, entrepreneurship programmes should focus less on age eligibility alone and more on readiness, mentorship and sustainability, ensuring young founders are not left unsupported after initial funding.
“The objective should be policy coherence across the life course, not fragmentation driven by administrative thresholds.”
This call for coherence, he adds, must extend beyond youth programmes into the broader governance ecosystem; ministries and agencies need to recalibrate long-term planning – whether in health, housing or digital policy – to reflect the evolving demographic profile of youth under the new definition.
“Governance systems must shift from age-based planning to transition-based planning.
“Health policies should address mental health and preventive care earlier; housing policies should consider pathways to affordable rental and ownership for early earners; and digital policies should focus on protecting young users while enabling innovation and skills development.”
Most importantly, he says, ministries must strengthen horizontal coordination so youth policy is not confined to a single portfolio but integrated across education, the economy, health and digital governance.
“The lowering of the youth age bracket is not merely a definitional change – it is a signal that policymaking must become earlier, smarter and more anticipatory.”
