CCTV cameras alone cannot keep students safe in schools

The Education Ministry’s plan to install closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems in boarding schools has been welcomed as a step towards safer campuses. It signals that student safety is a priority.

From a criminological perspective, this reflects situational crime prevention – making misconduct less attractive by increasing the perception of surveillance. Cameras in dormitories, halls, and school grounds can deter bullying, theft, and vandalism, while also providing evidence when incidents occur.

But cameras alone cannot keep children safe. Experts caution against treating surveillance as a cure-all. A lens may record, but it cannot comfort a victim, counsel a bully, or intervene in real time. Protection requires more than hardware – it requires people, policies, and culture.

Clear rules matter. Parents, teachers, and students deserve to know where cameras are placed, who can view the footage, and how long recordings are kept. Without transparency, CCTV risks being seen as intrusive or open to abuse. Research into procedural justice shows people are more likely to trust rules when enforced fairly and openly. A poorly defined system erodes confidence and undermines security.

Sustainability is equally crucial. Too many safety projects lose steam once cameras are installed. A system that is broken, unmonitored, or ignored offers only the illusion of security – what criminologists call security theatre. Guardianship works only if it is active. Schools must commit long-term funds for maintenance, staff training, and upgrades. Otherwise, the cameras will become little more than wall ornaments.

Equity is another concern. Why only boarding schools? Day schools face their own risks – bullying in toilets and secluded areas, theft in classrooms, outsiders wandering onto school grounds. Crime is opportunistic, and offenders exploit gaps in protection. Limiting CCTV to certain schools creates an uneven playing field, where some students are protected while others remain exposed. Every child deserves equal safety, no matter where they study.

Surveillance alone will never stop bullying. The Education Ministry’s daily ritual of having students recite “We Hate Bullying” may look impressive, but criminology reminds us that slogans rarely change behaviour. The world has seen this with “Say No to Drugs” – endlessly repeated, but ineffective. Lasting change comes only when values are instilled consistently, supported at home, reinforced by teachers, and encouraged by peers.

Bullying is not just name-calling or physical aggression; it can be psychological, social, and increasingly, digital. Victims often suffer in silence, enduring humiliation or exclusion that leaves lasting scars. Research shows chronic bullying is linked to depression, anxiety, poor academic performance, and in extreme cases, self-harm. The damage is often invisible, making it even more urgent for schools to act proactively rather than reactively.

Yet some schools do the opposite – sweeping bullying and other misconduct under the carpet to preserve reputations or avoid hassle. This is not just negligence, it is complicity. By choosing silence, such schools send the message that appearances matter more than children’s wellbeing. In doing so, they empower bullies, betray victims, and erode parental trust. Schools have a moral duty to protect students. Failing to confront abuse openly and firmly is no different from abetting it.

It is also vital to recognise that bullying is often a learned behaviour. Children who bully may themselves come from environments marked by neglect, violence, or lack of supervision. Criminology views this through social learning theory – individuals adopt patterns by observing and imitating others. Tackling bullying therefore requires not just punishment, but education, counselling, and opportunities to reshape behaviour. Addressing root causes is as critical as disciplining the act itself.

Bullying is a social issue, not just a disciplinary one. Social disorganisation theory tells us deviance thrives where communities lack cohesion. Schools that foster strong teacher-student bonds, peer support, and parental involvement create natural resistance to aggression. Peer-led intervention programmes often succeed where authority figures fail, because students respond more to their peers than to adults.

This is where CCTV finds its real role – as part of a larger ecosystem. Cameras deter, but culture prevents. Technology provides evidence, but relationships provide protection. Surveillance can spot bullies, but counselling and restorative practices can change them.

The danger lies in mistaking symbols for solutions. Empty rituals and broken cameras create the illusion of safety while leaving students exposed. Criminologists warn of “symbolic security” – measures that look impressive but collapse when tested.

The recent Merdeka stage breach in Ipoh is a stark reminder of what happens when vigilance slips. Fortunately, the intruder was unarmed. Had she been a suicide bomber, the outcome would have been horrific. That incident proves a simple truth: safety can never be taken for granted.

The choice is clear. We can settle for symbolic theatre – slogans at assemblies and cameras no one monitors – or demand genuine accountability from schools entrusted with our children. True safety is not measured by how secure a campus looks, but by whether victims are protected, bullies are confronted, and communities are involved.

CCTV can support that mission, but it cannot replace it. Our children deserve schools where safety is not a performance, but a lived reality – consistent, accountable, and felt every day.

The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of Twentytwo13.