Findings: A Story of the Place Processes among Street-involved Adolescents in a Public Space 

Story Timeline – Beginning

The story begins with adolescents’ fundamental developmental need for social engagement. The space is a gathering point for common interests to be shared and experienced, along with opportunities to connect with other youths in the space. Youth A shared that he hangs out there to “find friends only. At home nothing to do one.” However, a youth worker noted that “different groups of fixie[1] riders share the space and do not really mingle around.”

Sensory-related place attachment processes also feature in the beginning of narratives with participants commenting on the environmental attractiveness of the space. A youth worker observed that “the ground of the space is smooth enough for fixie riders to practice their tricking” while the security guard opined that adolescents enjoy hanging out in this area because it is a “nice place, big area . . . quite relaxing.”

Along with these place attachment processes are the introduction of regulatory measures to manage the behaviour youths in the space. Youth workers noted frequent sightings of “LTA (Land Transport Authority) at the space” and how the “security guards were loitering around the area.” There was also an instance of “a Caucasian adult male (who) came by on two occasions – first was to ask the youths to tone down their vulgarities, and second was a more extensive lecture about being mindful of their surroundings.” The security guard considered these measures to be necessary as he perceived the youths’ behaviours to reflect a lack of public consciousness. He lamented about youths smoking in public view: “You sitting there what you do the public can see. But (the youths) don’t care. The public walk past they also don’t care.”

These interactions appear to have impacted the youths’ perceptions of adults as the youth workers reported the youths expressing suspicion towards them. The youth workers noted that the youths had “asked if workers were from SSB (Secret Societies Branch) when first approached” and were “initially evasive about their real names.”

Story Timeline – Middle

As the adolescents spent more time in the area, material-dependent place attachment processes surfaced. The presence of youths in the space could reflect a lack of meaningful opportunities to be engaged. The security guard seemed to be aware that some of the youths frequenting the space had quit school. “(One of them) keep long hair mah . . . I ask him why his hair like that, can go school meh? He say no la, I quit from school already . . . Then I ask him what you want ah? Every time I see you come here, loitering around never do anything.” A youth worker remarked that “most youths might not be meaningfully engaged outside of school . . . some youths go down to the space for ‘entertainment’ and conversations at times are not productive.”

The social interactions of adolescents in this space provided opportunities for them to express certain perspectives and beliefs. In negotiating peer hierarchy, there was an observed use of aggression to resolve conflicts. A youth worker reported: “(Youth A) was beaten at one of the benches by (Youth B and his friends) after badmouthing him. Dried blood stains were spotted.” Youth B also said that the area has “a lot of angkat paiseh[2] people . . . they tio whack right then after that they kneel down there then they have to apologise.”

Meanwhile, the adolescents actively avoided law enforcement personnel who visited the area. A youth worker noted that “there were less youths in the space because of increased enforcement presence . . . youths were vigilant.” The security guard likewise observed that “maybe late afternoon then those kids will come . . . now I see a bit lesser already because now the police come very often.”

As the story of place attachment unfolds, negative perceptions of the adolescents’ behaviours in the space continue to prevail. The security guard reflected a general view of these adolescents as being immature: “Why they got this type of behaviour? They quite big children already right. Around 15, 16 leh, not like those small kids.” He also recalled some unpleasant interactions with them: “Last time they use vulgar words talk to me . . . never respect you . . . can’t be bothered that you are security.” Behaviours displayed by the adolescents continued to cement perceptions of their lack of public consciousness. The security guard recalled instances when the adolescents had performed bicycle tricks: “floor all dirty, got the tyre marks . . . then when you ask them, they say not I do one.” He also observed that they were inclined to leave their rubbish lying around in the area: “they eat they throw there, just left it.”

In turn, the adolescents were increasingly suspicious of law enforcement personnel. A youth worker noted that “youths were also observed to decide if they should run when new faces approach them in the space as they were afraid they were authority figures.”

Story Timeline – End

As the narrative progresses, ideological and commodifying place attachment processes become more prominent as the adolescents make sense of their experiences in the area. They began to think of the space as having an unseemly reputation, reinforcing negative perceptions of the adolescents who use the space. Youth A shared: “You think . . . hang out here? I mean have is have la. But if they hang out here, later their name drop sia.” When asked what had given the space a bad name, they cited “YPs (young punks),”[3] “XDDs,”[4] “the rioting case,” and “the riding community.”[5]

This development highlighted the ability of adolescents to commodify a space based on desirable and undesirable traits. The adolescents clearly valued privacy and the absence of surveillance. A youth worker observed: “Youths shared there were police earlier in the day and youths decided to change their hang-out location to avoid them.” The security guard remarked on the inconvenience and trouble that police presence caused for the adolescents: “They say here got a lot of ampai.[6] I told them if you do nothing wrong, why need to run? They don’t want their particulars to be recorded . . . Sometimes the police come they throw (cigarettes and vapes) inside the bush.”

The actions of adolescents in the space raise questions about who is responsible for managing their presence in public spaces. The security guard placed the responsibility primarily on the adolescents: “This kind of thing must depend on them la. They must change their attitude right or not.” However, he also considered the role of the youth workers: “You can change their behaviour or not? I now then know (you all) are social workers leh. I thought you were together with them . . . I see you quite matured then can talk to them la. I think they still never change much.”

Youth workers in the area have intervened, especially when the adolescents were behaving aggressively. A youth worker documented: “A group of another 5–6 youths were around when Worker Z stopped Youth B and asked what he wanted to gain out of (beating someone). Worker F made her way to the basketball court with the intent of getting (the victim) away.”

As youth workers increasingly established their presence in the area and built connections with the adolescents who hung out there, the adolescents began to include the youth workers as part of their individual and group processes of identity formation. A youth worker noted: “The older youths had jokingly gathered around Youth B, pretending to want to beat him. Before this happened, Youth A remarked: ‘Eh youth workers also want to see ah?’”

When the two youths were interviewed for this study, they told the researcher: “I good boy one.” One of them assured the researcher that although he used to participate in some of the physical fights in the area, he has now changed: “Okay la last time have (fights). I was young and naive. Don’t blame me.”