By Ong Kian Ming
Malaysiakini

The issue of crime, especially in the urban areas, has once again surfaced as a hot political issue. The Home Minister, Hishamuddin Hussein, was quoted as saying that the fear of crime is a result of ‘public perception’ while the CEO of PEMANDU, Idris Jala, was reported as having asked the media to focus more on the crimes that have been solved rather than those which have been committed. Meanwhile, DAP MP for PJ Utara, Tony Pua, seems to have been given conflicting sets of crime data on Selangor and has called for PEMANDU and the Home Ministry to released detailed crime statistics by the type of crime and the places where they were committed.

It is very difficult to question the validity of the crime statistics since this data is collected, compiled and later disseminated to the various ministries and later the public at large by the police. An in-depth audit is required in order to get a better handle on the veracity of these statistics.

However, what we can do is to take a closer look at some of the cross country indexes which the Government Transformation Program (GTP) and various Ministers including the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the PEMANDU CEO have used as ‘external validation’ that the Reducing Crime National Key Results Area (NKRA) is working as planned. This ‘evidence’ falls apart upon closer examination.

1. Global Peace Index

   Take the Global Peace Index (GPI)¹ as an example. The 2011 GTP Annual Report says that:

   “In the fifth edition of the Global Peace Index (GPI) released in May 2011, Malaysia was declared the most peaceful country in Southeast Asia and the 4th safest in the Asia Pacific region behind New Zealand, Japan and Australia. The country rose three spots to 19th place, supplanting Singapore as the highest-ranked Southeast Asian nation. In its GPI rankings, the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace also placed Malaysia as the 19th safest and most peaceful country out of 153 nations worldwide. This is the fifth successive year that Malaysia has improved on its GPI score.” (pg.55, GTP Annual Report 2011)

   None other than our Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak, has used Malaysia’s ranking on the latest 2012 Global Peace Index (GPI) to argue that “one of our country’s achievements that we should be proud of is our ranking by the Global Peace Index which ranked Malaysia as the safest country in Southeast Asia” (http://1malaysia.com.my/blog/preserving-our-safety-by-cutting-crime-and-boosting-pdrm-performance/)

   But what should be made clear is that safety and security is only ONE of the THREE broad themes which the GPI is concerned about – the other two being ‘the extent of domestic or international conflict’ and ‘the degree of militarisation’.

   This index is made up of 23 sub-indicators out of which only 6 have direct connection to crime and safety.² The other indicators have to do with military conflicts and military expenditure and political and civil violence. Out of the 6 sub-indicators which are linked to crime, only ONE – the number of jailed population per 100,000 – have improved since 2007. (We are jailing fewer people as a percentage of the population which doesn’t necessarily mean that crime has fallen. We may be less efficient in catching criminals and putting them behind bars) The rest have remained the same. (Table 1) Where we have made improvements is by decreasing military expenditure as a % of GDP, the number of armed personnel per 100,000 and in our relations with our neighbours. (Table 2) All are laudable achievements but have nothing to do with the state of crime and safety in our country.

   Table 1: Malaysia’s scores in Crime and Safety related Indicators in the Global Peace Index (2007 to 2012)

   Indicator	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
   Level of perceived criminality in society	2	2	2	2	2	2
   Number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 people	2	2	2	2	2	2
   Number of homicides per 100,000 people	2	2	2	2	2	2
   Number of jailed population per 100,000 people	1.6	1.7	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5
   Ease of access to small weapons and light weapons	1	1	1	1	1	1
   Level of violent crime	2	2	2	2	2	2

   Note: 1 is the best score, 5 is the worst score

   Table 2: Malaysia’s scores in Military related Indicators in the Global Peace Index (2007 to 2012)

   Indicator	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
   Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP	1.8	1.7	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.4
   Number of armed services personnel per 100,000 people	1.7	1.3	1	1	1	1
   Relations with neighbouring countries	2	2	2	2	1	1

   Note: 1 is the best score, 5 is the worst score

   The GPI cannot be used as ‘evidence’ that Malaysia has become ‘safer’ than Singapore under the GTP. Malaysia became more ‘peaceful’ than Singapore in 2010 according to this index. But this was driven largely by a significant increase in the number of military imports to and exports from Singapore, which obviously has nothing to do with crime and safety.

   In the latest 2012 GPI, Malaysia is ranked 20, 3 spots ahead of Singapore, which is at 23. It would a very brave (or ignorant) man to say that Malaysia is safer than Singapore from a crime and safety perspective. And in fact, this is NOT want the index is trying to say since it crime and safety is less than one third of the total indicators. It is therefore misleading for to use this indicator in the GTP 2011 Annual Report as evidence that the Reducing Crime NKRA has been successful. It is even more misleading for Prime Minister Najib to equate the Global Peace Index to safety and then make the leap of judgement to claim that Malaysia is the safest country in South East Asia.

2. Positive Peace Index

   Sadly, the Prime Minister forgot to read the second part of the Global Peace Index (GPI) where details of a new index, the Positive Peace Index, were unveiled. According to the GPI report, “the Positive Peace Index (PPI) is a measure of the strength of the attitudes, institutions, and structures of 108 nations to determine their capacity to create and maintain a peaceful society.” (pg.34, Global Peace Index 2012 Report) It is important to note that the PPI is not a measure of crime and safety but rather, it describes ‘the optimum environment for peace to flourish’. (pg.35, Global Peace Index 2012 Report) The components of this index include the following domains:

   1. Well-functioning government

   2. Sound business environment

   3. Equitable distribution of resources

   4. Acceptance of the rights of others

   5. Good relations with neighbours

   6. Free flow of information

   7. High levels of education

   8. Low levels of corruption.

   According to the PPI, Malaysia is ranked at 47 out of 108 countries.

   More worryingly, Malaysia is flagged in the top ten ranks of countries with the largest positive peace deficit, which is the difference between a country’s GPI and PPI rank. (Table 3)

   Table 3: Top 10 Positive Peace Deficit Countries

   Positive Peace Deficit	Country	GPI Rank	PPI Rank	Region	Income Group	Group Type
   -57	Burkina Faso	45	102	Sub-Saharan Africa	Low Income	Authoritarian
   -55	Malawi	35	90	Sub-Saharan Africa	Low Income	Hybrid
   -55	Mozambique	42	97	Sub-Saharan Africa	Low Income	Hybrid
   -46	Zambia	46	92	Sub-Saharan Africa	Low Income	Hybrid
   -41	Tanzania	50	91	Sub-Saharan Africa	Low Income	Hybrid
   -35	Ghana	36	71	Sub-Saharan Africa	Low Income	Flawed Democracy
   -31	Cameroon	72	103	Sub-Saharan Africa	Lower Middle	Authoritarian
   -29	Bangladesh	70	99	Asia Pacific	Low Income	Hybrid
   -28	Malaysia	19	47	Asia Pacific	Upper Middle	Flawed Democracy
   -25	Indonesia	58	83	Asia Pacific	Lower Middle	Flawed Democracy

   Source: Taken from Table 3.4, pg. 45, Global Peace Index 2012 Report

   These countries with a high positive peace deficit are described as ‘relatively peaceful but theoretically lack the institutions to adequately deal with external shocks or move closer to peace’. These high deficits also ‘suggest that while these countries have relatively moderate levels of violence, they comparatively lack positive peace, meaning that they are ‘vulnerable to external shock or violence’. (pg. 45)

   In the Malaysian context, for example, this deficit, which point to shortcomings in the rule of law and respect for democratic rights and due process, may indicate a future rise in violence in the event that there is a transition in power at the federal level.

3. World Justice Report Rule of Law Index 2011

   “The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index 2011 too has ranked Malaysia safest among 19 upper-middle income countries and 12th globally. Malaysia’s 12th position out of 66 countries covered under the WJP’s assessment on Order and Security, has placed the country ahead of the United States (13th position), followed by Britain, Belgium and France.” (pg.55, GTP Annual Report 2011)

   But only one in three of the components of the ‘Order and Security’ factor have to do with crime and safety. The WJP assessment on the extent to which “Crime is effectively controlled” is the most relevant component. “Civil conflict is effectively limited” is an assessment of the extent of armed conflict and terrorism in the country, which Malaysia is thankfully free from but is also not directly related to crime and safety. A drug invested area, for example, may have little civil conflict but would have a high crime rate. “People do not resort to violence to redress personal grievances” is the third component of this factor and while we should be thankful that vigilante justice is not practiced in Malaysia, this is not a measure which directly touches on crime and safety. Malaysia’s ranking for these three components are 37, 1 and 6 respectively (out of 66 countries)

   Table 4: Malaysia’s ranking on the components of “Order and Security” in the WJP Rule of Law Index 2011

   Factor	Malaysia’s Ranking (out of 66 countries)
   3.1 Crime is effectively controlled.	37
   3.2 Civil conflict is effectively limited.	1 (shares this ranking with 52 other countries)
   3.3 People do not resort to violence to redress personal grievances.	6
   Overall: Order and Security	12

   In other words, Malaysia’s ranking of 12 out of 66 in this index is largely driven by the fact that we do not have any serious civil conflicts and that we do not practice mob or vigilante justice or revenge killing. For the one component which actually relates to crime directly, Malaysia did poorly, coming in at 37 out of 66, putting it at 6th position in South East Asia, behind Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia.

   The GTP Annual Report also fails to highlight the fact that Malaysia was ranked 33 out of 66 on “Effective Criminal Justice”, the other crime and safety related indicator in the WJP Rule of Law Index 2011. While Malaysia’s ranking on some of the subcomponents are commendable e.g. 18th for ‘Crimes are effectively investigated’ and 14th for ‘Crimes are effectively and timely adjudicated’, its performance on other components which contribute to the overall crime and safety environment are quite appalling e.g. 49th for “The correctional system is effective in reducing criminal behaviour” and 57th in “The criminal justice system is free of improper government influence”. (See Table 5)

   Table 5: Malaysia’s ranking on the components of “Effective Criminal Justice” in the WJP Rule of Law Index 2011

    

   Factor	Malaysia’s Ranking (out of 66 countries)
   8.1 Crimes are effectively investigated.	18
   8.2 Crimes are effectively and timely adjudicated.	14
   8.3 The correctional system is effective in reducing criminal behaviour.	49
   8.4 The criminal justice system is impartial.	58
   8.5 The criminal system is free of corruption.	23
   8.6 The criminal justice system is free of improper government influence.	57
   8.7. The criminal justice system accords the accused due process of law.	48
   Overall: Effective Criminal Justice	33

4. World Economic Forum Global Competitive Report

   “In the 2011 Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) conducted by the World Economic Forum in the sub-category of Business Costs of Crime and Violence, Malaysia’s ranking improved by 30 positions from 93rd in 2010 to 63rd place in 2011.” (pg. 55, GTP 2011 Annual Report)

   Malaysia’s ranking in the “Business Costs of Crime & Violence” sub-category did improve by 30 places from 93 in 2010 / 2011 to 63 in 2011 / 2012. Indeed, Malaysia’s ranking on the “Organized Crime” ranking also improved from a high of 83 in 2009 / 2010 to 54 in 2011 / 2012. But if these rankings are to be used as ‘external validation’ for the success of the Reducing Crime NKRA, then an explanation also has to be provided as to why Malaysia’s ranking for the reliability of police services, at 39, although an improvement from the 50th ranking in 2010 /2011, is still worse than the 2008 / 2009 ranking of 37. (Table 6 below)

   Table 6: Malaysia’s ranking on crime and safety related sub-categories in the Global Competitiveness Report (2008 to 2012)

   Sub-Category	2011 to 2012 (out of 142)	2010 to 2011 (out of 139)	2009 to 2010 (out of 133)	2008 to 2009 (out of 134)
   Business Costs of Crime & Violence	63	93	95	74
   Organized Crime	54	77	83	75
   Reliability of Police Services	39	50	48	37

   Source: World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Report, 2008 to 2011

5. Conclusion

   It is frankly silly to erroneously quote indexes as ‘evidence’ that Malaysia is safe country from a crime and safety perspective, especially if the index in question – the Global Peace Index – only partly measures crime and safety. For indexes such as the World Justice Project Rule of Law 2011, an examination of the components of the “Order and Security” factor shows that Malaysia does poorly in the only component which measures crime and safety. Even for the Global Competitiveness Report sub-category rankings which measure crime and safety, one important measure – ‘the reliability of police services’ – actually shows a result that is worse than the 2008 / 2009 figure.

   If street crime has dropped by 40% since 2009, as reported in the GTP 2011 Annual Report and if these results are genuine and can be sustained, the public would naturally feel safer and perhaps even have the confidence to terminate the services of the private security companies which patrol most of the middle class neighborhoods in the Klang Valley. If it was truly “People First, Performance Now” rather than “Publicity First, Deception Now”, the people will validate the results by voting with their feet by walking along the streets without being scared of snatch thieves and robbers. There will be no need for ‘external validation’ to tell the people what they are already experiencing for themselves.

__

¹ A copy of the 2012 GPI can be downloaded here: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/globalpeaceindex/2012-gpi-findings/

² These indicators are: (i) level of perceived criminality in society (ii) number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 (iii) Number of homicides per 100,000 (iv) Number of jailed population per 100,000 (v) East of access to small weapons and light weapons (vi) Level of violent Crime

Ong Kian Ming holds a PhD in Political Science from Duke University. He can be reached at im.ok.man(at)gmail(dot)com. His house was attacked by 3 thugs while he was doing research for this article. His account of the attack can be read here (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/thugs-at-my-doorstep-ong-kian-ming/)