The Malaysian public has been
told that the first draft of a new special preventive law, similar to the
Emergency Ordinance (EO) has been sent to the Attorney General’s Chambers for
consideration.
Since ‘preventive detention’
appears to be at the crux of the proposed law, a number of concerned citizens
have expressed their reservations--- and rightly so. To provide another avenue
for preventive detention (it is still in our statute books) through this or any
other law is a serious matter.
The public has to be convinced
that the 2000 criminals released after the repeal of the EO in 2011 are
responsible for the violent crimes that have occurred in the last two years.
There is no hard evidence to show this. The USM study led by criminologist, Dr.
P. Sundramoorthy --- as reported in the media--- which has become the basis for
the shift in the Government’s position on the EO does not provide the
statistical data nor the empirical analysis to support such a contention.
Perhaps the entire study should be made available to the public.
In the absence of
incontrovertible evidence, I am more inclined to believe psychologist and
criminologist, Dr. Geshina Ayu Mat Saat, who says that “there is a very tenuous
link between the abolition of the Emergency Ordinance (EO) and the recent spate
of violent crime.” In fact, long-term observers of Malaysian society would
argue that violent crimes have taken place for many, many years. We forget that
the increasing crime rate --- dramatized by some violent ones --- was one of
the major issues in the 2008 General Election, a good three years before the
repeal of the EO.
What criminologists, the police
and Malaysian society as a whole should focus upon are new and more innovative
ways of dealing with some of the underlying causes of crime. Drug addiction
which we have not been able to curb after more than four decades seems to be a
recurring reason for thefts, robberies and burglaries. Widening social disparities,
an oft cited explanation for crime, is yet another challenge that demands our
collective attention.
At the same time, meticulous
intelligence gathering, effective police surveillance, thorough investigations,
capable prosecution and appropriate penalties would go a long way to reducing
crime. A significant police presence in public places and housing areas would
also have a deterrent effect upon the would-be criminal. In other words, the
repeal of the EO is an opportunity for the police to enhance their competence
and their professionalism.
Re-introducing
preventive detention through the EO is not an option even if there are
safeguards against abuse. It is a blemish upon the concept and practise of the
rule of law--- one of the cardinal principles of the Rukunegara --- for the
simple reason that the right to a fair trial is essential to the rule of law.
And giving meaning and substance to the rule of law is the hallmark of a
society that is committed to just governance.
No comments:
Post a Comment