Criminology team warned of violent crime surge

Criminologist Prof Dr P Sundramoorthy led a research commissioned by the government to study the condition of crime and policing in the country.

(fz.com) 

GEORGE TOWN (Aug 14): Sometime in June, before the public alarm over criminal attacks reached its current peak, a research team from Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) had warned of a “significant surge” in violent crime.

Citing its studies, the team head, criminologist Prof Dr P Sundramoorthy especially cautioned of crimes involving gangs and recidivist, or repeat offenders.

In particular, he pointed to the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance (EO) last year, said to have allowed some 2,000 criminals to be released.

Emphasising the need for such a preventive law, Sundramoorthy said: “If we don't decide soon to act on it then be prepared to see further disruption of peace and safety.”

This was before the shocking shootings of MyWatch chairman R Sri Sanjeevan on July 27, and of Arab-Malaysian Development Bank founderHussain Ahmad Najaditwo days later; and before the series of highly publicised gunfire andexplosive assaultsin Penang over the last week, and one more death involving abomb in Tumpat, Kelantan.

Since these attacks, which have gripped the nation, Sundramoorthy has stood his ground.

“I don’t think there is any other period in the history of Malaysia since after the insurgency (which ended in the 1960s) that there has been so many shootings,” he said when met by fz.com.

Need to retain EO for public safety

In 2010, the criminology team from USM was commissioned by the government to study crime and policing, with emphasis on trends and patterns as well as strategies for crime control.

The team analysed reported crime data up till 2009, before the National Key Result Areas (NKRA) on crime was introduced.

One of its major findings was that from 2000 to 2009, there was an average annual growth rate in violent crime of about 13.4%.

However, the percentage of murder cases remained about the same – two to three cases per 100,000 people – from the 1970s to 2009. (Interestingly, rape cases rose from two to three cases in the 1970s, to eight to nine cases by 2009.)

“We recommended that there is a need to retain the EO, but we clearly spelt out that it needs to be amended to give zero room or zero tolerance for any abuse or error,” Sundramoorthy said.

When not abused, the EO was a “unique tool” to deal with very violent crime, especially activities related to gangs, secret societies, syndicated and organised crime, he stressed.

There were three major components of the EO – the first dealing with terrorism and insurgency, the second with public order, and the third with public safety related to crime.

“We suggested that only the public safety component be retained,” he said.

As far as terrorism and insurgency problems are concerned, there is now the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) to help apprehend suspects, having replaced the repealed Internal Security Act (ISA).

Crimes hard to investigate and prosecute

Pivotally, Sundramoorthy stressed that criminals know that many of their cases are very difficult to investigate, let alone prove.

“Even with most scientific technology in forensic sciences you are not going to resolve these cases and successfully prosecute them,” he said.

“Of the reported crime incidents, how many of these have we seen in court?”

Sundramoorthy is in no doubt that recent surge of television programmes on criminal and forensic sciences have also given important awareness to perpetrators on how investigations are done. 

As an example, he points to cases in the last few years where vehicles and corpses are burned to destroy evidence.

Worryingly, it is not just the EO criminals who were released that Sundramoorthy finds a cause for concern.

He says there are others also who have become “bolder” because they know the legal tool that can detain them without trial does not exist anymore.

The recent escalation in attacks may impress the non-serious criminals to become bolder and they may imitate the hard-core, he said.

“Look at how openly they are displaying their association with gangland activities at funeral processions, at religious ceremonies, at weddings, at various social functions.”

It may also not help in this regard that Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a magistrate to remand a suspect for up to 15 days only.

Compare hard-core crimes with terrorism

Sundramoorthy ventures to compare the issue of preventing crime through legal means, with preventing terrorism.

When it comes to terrorism, the public at large allows law enforcement authorities to have special powers to deal with it.

However, there is opposition against similar sweeping policies against hard-core criminals.

“We deal with terrorism with such great priority. But who has a greater impact on our lives? These hard-core criminals or the terrorists?”

“I can tell you the probability of any one of us being a victim of violent crime is way much greater, especially in this part of the world, than being a victim of an act of terrorism.”

And the police too should not be any less transparent, especially since there is now heightened unease over public safety. 

Sundramoorthy took the police to task for not displaying the latest crime statistics on the department’s website as it used to do in the past.

“We feel that crime data should not be censored, and actual crime reported should be displayed on the website.” 

Irrespective of what the figures say, the people’s current perception is negative because of the great accessibility to information that is unavoidable in the digital age.

“Thirty years ago people only knew of crime if they knew the victims or they were victims themselves, and if they happened to read the local newspapers or listen to the local news,” he stressed.

“Today, people are more aware, more concerned. If they feel that way then measures must be taken to address their concerns.”

Having studied the legal, operational and social systems related to  public safety, Sundramoorthy has no qualms in emphasising the need for stringent preventive laws.

“Some laws may not be the greatest laws for the sake of democracy and liberty,” he says.

“But when I think of my family and friends I just don’t want to see perpetrators getting away, not just because the police did not do their job, but the legal system is such that it is so difficult to bring them to court to prosecute.”