Decentralise Crime Management
(A version of this first appeared in theSun on 15th June 2012).
A recent spate of events have left urban dwellers reeling and fearing for their safety and those of their loved ones. A woman was reported to have been kidnapped in her own car at the basement carpark at the Curve, a popular shopping mall. Not long after, two women were allegedly robbed of RM80,000 also in the same vicinity. And most recently, Bersih 2.0 committee member Wong Chin Huat was beaten up by five men whilst he was jogging, presumably unrelated to any political motive.
Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein has responded, saying that any perceived increase in the crime rate is only a matter of perception, and alluded to the fact that these highlighted cases were merely isolated incidents. Whilst it is true that one-off crime cases are usually sensationalised (because we shudder to think of what would happen to ourselves in such situations), no authority should make light of crime.
Nevertheless, judging from the Reducing Crime National Key Results Area Report 2011, Malaysia’s crime rates have fallen significantly. Based on the report, there has been a 39.7% drop in street crime and a 11.1% drop in index crime. In addition, Malaysia was ranked as the 4th safest country in the Asia Pacific region, and the most peaceful in Southeast Asia, by the Global Peace Index (GPI).
How exactly does the index crime work? Index crime refers to crimes that are reported with sufficient regularity and with sufficient significance to be meaningful as an index to the crime situation. ‘Sufficient regularity’ would be offences that occur commonly or regularly, where for example kidnapping through a distressing offence is not considered common and is therefore not factored into the index.
On the other hand, snatch theft although small in gravity is included. An occurrence is considered a crime when it is reported either by the victim, witness or on the initiative of the police upon discovery of such criminal activity. The index crime is divided into two categories, namely violent crime (murder, gang robbery, rape and so on), and property crime (housebreaking, theft, among other sub-categories). (Source: Crime and Safety Policy Factsheet, Centre for Public Policy Studies, 2008).
Although statistics is often a good indicator of national trends, the police also acknowledge the existence of dark figures, which represents unreported crime in the country. So when any official document is released, of course one has to take these figures with a pinch of salt, as there will always be a gap between reported and unreported crime.
The police force has borne the brunt of the criticism, with allegations that they are not doing enough to fight crime. The truth is that the police officers are also subject to the system under which they work. Think tank REFSA highlights that there are only 9,335 or 9% of the 106,079 police personnel in the Crime Investigations Department (CID), and 4,184 or 4% in the Narcotic and Special Task Force. In the meantime, 53,323 or 51% are located in the management and logistic units, with 5,102 in the special branch and 14,551 in the General Operations Force (formerly to combat communist insurgents in the jungle). (Source: REFSA Focus Paper, 2011).
At the launch of my book “States of Reform: Governing Selangor and Penang” last weekend, the discussion steered toward the issue of decentralisation. One idea that emerged was the possibility of decentralising security forces. The responsibility of combating crime is presently vested completely within the central police force, as well as more recently, RELA officers (People’s Volunteer Corps), which is also centrally controlled.
Local and community-level players could for example be given some liberty to ensure safety and security on the streets, and in other areas where the police are unable to cover due to insufficient personnel. However, when the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) attempted to form its own auxiliary police force, this was rejected by the federal government.
Although this may take some logistical co-ordination, the government must realise there can be mutual ground upon which both political sides can agree to work on together. Especially in instances of life and death, quite literally.
Many an e-mail has been circulated of late, informing wives, daughters, children, of what to do under circumstances of a potential rape, kidnapping or otherwise. Although it is sometimes useful to refer to reports and statistical graphs that show a glowing reduction in crime, it might be more effective to consider out-of-the-box ways of managing crime.
Allow state and local governments to tackle crime in local constituencies. And the private sector can chip in too, by adopting selected neighbourhoods, sponsoring areas and working with local councils to deploy additional security officers to patrol the area by day and night. The police has started a mydistress.net website for those with smart phones to alert the police in times of emergency, and this should be lauded. We ought to employ any innovative means at our disposal to ensure our own people feel safe – at home, when driving, and out on the move. This is one issue I believe is bipartisan enough for the federal government to consider relenting a little of its control over.
