JULY 5 — Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar has failed to give a decent response to the increase in crime in Malaysia. He should not draw the conclusion that public safety in Malaysia is at a good level as the people are still carrying out their daily activities as usual.

The logic does not seem right. The people do business and work as usual because they need to earn a living to survive, it does not mean that they are not worried about public safety. These are two different things and should not be mentioned together.

The IGP also pointed out that the people do not need bodyguards to escort them when they are outside. Most people do not hire bodyguards because they cannot afford it. Obviously, the IGP does not know that 60 per cent of households in Malaysia are earning less than RM3,000 a month.

As for the remarks “if the owners are not negligent, there would be less opportunities for the criminals to commit crime and the crime rate would automatically reduce”, it seems to have simplified the occurrence of crime. Many crime victims have actually strengthened prevention, but it is quite impossible to guard against all crime attempts. The blame should not be put on them.

Let me cite a few examples to show that members of the public have indeed tried to strengthen prevention.

For example, people took the initiative to fence their residential areas and pay at least RM10 each month to hire security guards. It is originally the police’s responsibility to protect the people and maintain law and order, but the people are now undertaking it.

Anti-theft systems are also installed while high walls are built.

Residents in some areas were forced to break the bridge over ditches to prevent criminals from escaping quickly on motorbikes.

Frequent restaurant robberies in Klang Valley have forced owners to hire security guards and some restaurants in crime hot spots even ask their customers to leave after 10pm and shut up shop earlier to avoid becoming the targets of robbers.

On June 19, a few men in two cars attempted to rob a factory manager after the latter withdrew RM50,000 from a bank. One of the suspects was shot dead by the factory manager’s bodyguards and the others fled. The factory manager might have been harmed if he was not escorted by bodyguards.

In response to the increase in crime, the police also blame the abolition of the Emergency Ordinance in September 2011. However, the deterioration of public safety did not start in the recent one or two years, but much earlier. Moreover, other countries with good law and order do not have such a preventive Act that allows detention without trial.

The attempt to “revive” these draconian Acts in the name of crime curbing is contrary to the principle of democracy. It is also a move to continue expanding public authority.

People thought that the police would change their mindset and take a more proactive approach to reduce crime after the homes of dignitaries were broken into, including Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin. However, it was like being poured with a bucket of cold water when they heard the response claiming that the country’s public safety is still good.

Have the police followed the established guidelines to curb crime? How could ATM robbery cases still take place even as the police have started to patrol buildings with ATM every hour?

If the problem of crime is not properly curbed, we might follow the footstep of South Africa. — mysinchew.com

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.