By Teo Nie Ching
It is irresponsible and misleading for inspector-general of police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar to claim that the abolishment of preventive laws has caused violent crime increased by 5 per cent in the country.
According to a parliamentary reply from Minster of Home Affairs dated June 15, 2010 to Petaling Jaya Utara Member of Parliament Tony Pua, violent crime was rising since 2005, before Emergency Ordinance’s (EO) was abolished on December 21, 2011.
|
|
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
|
Total number of Violent Crime Cases |
22,039 |
31,408 (+42.5%) |
35,159 (+11.9%) |
37,817 (+7.6%) |
40,738 (+7.7%) |
From 2005 to 2009, the violent crime has increased by more than 5% every year, even though preventive laws were not abolished yet. So how can Khalid now blame its abolishment for causing the increase of violent crime?
On the other hand, even though Emergency Ordinance’s (EO) was abolished on December 21, 2011, PDRM managed to reduce robbery cases in our country.
|
2011 |
2012 |
|
|
| Armed Gang Robbery / Samun Berkawan Bersenjatapi |
318 |
110 |
-65.4% |
| Unarmed Gang Robbery / Samun Berkawan tanpa Bersenjatapi |
16,084 |
16,738 |
4.1% |
| Armed Robbery / Samun Bersenjatapi |
52 |
17 |
-67.3% |
| Unarmed Robbery / Samun Tanpa Bersenjatapi |
3,871 |
3,275 |
-15.4% |
It is clear from the chart above that even though unarmed gang robbery has increased by 4.1% in the year 2012, after the abolishment of preventive laws, armed gang robbery, armed robbery and unarmed robbery have decreased tremendously by 65.4%, 67.3% and 15.4%.
If police was able to reduce robbery cases without Emergency Ordinance in the year 2012, before Khalid bin Abu became IGP, why do we need to restore preventive laws to strengthen police’s powers?
Or perhaps, what we should consider is not restoring preventive laws, but replacing Khalid bin Abu with a more capable IGP to lead our police force to combat crime?
Pingback: IGP misleading Malaysians on EO and violent crimes | PR