Look to Prai, not an Emergency Ordinance-like law, to reduce crime

There was a time, between the 60s and early 80s, when Prai on mainland Penang was notorious for crime, especially gang fights.

Long-time Prai and Butterworth residents would recall the frequent violent clashes and living in the grip of constant fear. As far as possible, they gave Prai a wide berth.
Today, we seldom, if ever, hear of gang fights in Prai. There is crime, but not at the level it was then.
What facilitated this change? Several factors come to mind.
First, it was the quality of police personnel and the efficiency of police work. There were two detectives in particular who helped put gangsters out of business: A.Manickam and K.Loganathan. The duo was known as Starsky and Hutch, after the famous heroes of that eponymous television series. But unlike the make-believe antics of the TV detectives, these guys actually went out on a limb to nab their man.
The duo did even better when Tuffile Nawab Din became the Butterworth OCPD. Tuffile would be in the forefront of raids against, and gunfights with, criminals; he was not one to stay ensconced in the office and give directions, or wait to receive briefings.
All three men came close to losing their lives on a few occasions.
The detectives worked well as a team under Tuffile and their information gathering skills were superb, which helped them tame the criminals in Prai and Butterworth.
Another factor was the provision of sufficient employment opportunities. Under the then Chief Minister Dr Lim Chong Eu (who was conferred a Tunship after leaving office), Penang was industrialising rapidly.
The State Government created thousands of jobs by setting up the Prai Industrial Estate and the Mak Mandin Light Industrial Area, attracting local and foreign investors to operate factories.  This provided employment to many young men. Also, training institutes were established to teach young people  paying skills.
Physical development, including new housing schemes, began to change the face of Prai. Suddenly, those inclined to crime or gang activities found their habitat had a new look. Some, of course, adapted and continued with their ways but others left their criminal pasts behind.
The birth of a new breed of parents who gave greater importance to education, in tandem with the construction of more schools by the federal government, helped steer the young towards the goal of improving themselves.
Also, with an active police force, residents’ fear of criminals began to decrease.
I would like to see criminologists and the police carry out a study on how notorious places became relatively crime free, and possibly replicate the measures rather than push for a new law empowering police to detain suspects over long periods without due process of law.
The police department has proposed new legislation to replace the Emergency (Public Order and Crime Prevention) Ordinance, or EO, to combat crime.
The EO was repealed in 2011 after years of criticism from human rights groups and individuals. Any such law is open to abuse. Suhakam has a list of abuses, if anyone wants to check.
Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said recently that an alternative legislation to the EO was needed to reduce the incidence of violent crime. “With the new laws, the police will be able to put away hardened criminals,” he added.
Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said: “We were pressured to abolish the Internal Security Act (ISA) and EO. Look at what happened after that, the crime rate increased and organised and petty criminals came out of the woodwork.”
A draft of the proposed law is with the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
Now, if, the authorities were to first study Prai, and other similar areas, they would discover that it was more than the existence of the EO that slashed the crime rate, although it would have helped.
So, why not continue on the reformist path? From my cursory look at Prai, it seems that more effective police work and more policemen in the mould of Tuffile, Manickam and Loganathan is the way to go. Enlarging the pool of detectives and strengthening their information gathering skills would be invaluable.
Also, more pictures in the media of police officers arresting criminals, rather than detaining ordinary citizens taking to the streets to voice their grievances, would boost the image of the police.
And no one would deny that well-trained and effective legal officers attached to the Public Prosecutor’s office would be able to confidently fight court cases and win convictions.
Rather than treat the symptoms of the disease, which is what an EO-like law would do, the authorities – and criminologists making such simplistic proposals -- should address the causes of crime.
Is it due to a lack of employment opportunities? Is it a lack of equal educational opportunities?  Is it a lack of self-worth? Is it due to inequities in the system? Is it due to a breakdown of the family unit, or parental neglect? Has social desensitisation contributed to this? Is it related to drug-addiction? Etc etc.
Anyway, it is difficult for me to believe that the release of the 2,000-plus suspects who had been placed under the EO has resulted in, or contributed immensely, to the daily incidences of snatch thefts, robberies, violence and even murders throughout the country. Or that just having an EO-like law would cut crime drastically.
I suspect the authorities may be barking up the wrong tree.
All said and done, it would be a shame to have an EO-like law simply because it would be an indictment by the government and the police leadership of the ability of police personnel to nab culprits, and of the Public Prosecutor’s office to win convictions in court.