PDRM’s Response to ‘Crime Statistics - Let the truth be told’
In response to the article“Crime Statistics - Let the truth be told” first published on 22 August
2012 via http://liewchintong.com blogsite, and was subsequently published by several online
portals, we would like to state that any public feedback is welcomed and will be given due
consideration. However, we would like to register our regret and utmost disappointment
that the respective publications including the blog owner did not see fit to verify and check
with PDRM on the facts of the allegations before presenting the letter to their readers.
Multiple Factual Inaccuracies
First and foremost, we would like to highlight multiple factual inaccuracies upon which the
conclusions of the article were drawn upon.
These corrections and clarifications are necessary to enable the public to make an informed
assessment of the situation.
The central hypothesis of the article in question and its respective allegations have been
synthesised in the rest of the rest of the document below.
Here, PDRM would like to respond to every allegations published in the article.
Allegation 1:
“In 2009, the Government gave PDRM the impossible target of reducing crime by 20%. PDRM
succumbed to this pressure.”
Response 1:
To set the record straight, the assigned targets were the result of laboratory conducted by
PDRM in collaboration with relevant Ministries, enforcement agencies and NGOs. These
targets and their accompanying detailed initiatives were also made available to the public via
the GTP Open Days in January 2010.
The NKRA target for crime reduction is 5% and NOT 20%, as wrongly indicated by the
writer.
While the target appears challenging, it is certainly not unrealistic – especially when it is a
concerted effort - PDRM supported by various agencies, ministries and the community at
large. This practice is consistent with the experiences of UK and New Zealand – where a
significant reduction of crime was achieved when the nation, regardless of political
affiliations or agency structure, is united for the purpose of fighting crime.
Allegation 2:
“To demonstrate that the GTP, NKRA and KPI are a success, classification of cases was
doctored and entered into the system to produce the desired result.”
Response 2:
It was alleged that PDRM had shifted Index Crime cases to Non-Index Crime to mask the
increase of overall crime. Should the allegation be true, it follows then that the overall crime
(i.e. sum total of Index and Non-Index Crime) should be on a rising trend. However, one only
has to examine the fact that overall crime (Index + Non-Index) has in fact reduced in 2010,
2011 and 2012 (year-to-date) to conclude that the allegation is erroneous.
The inaccuracy raises doubt if the writer is indeed a police officer, as he had claimed, if he
based his “facts” on such erroneous data.
Again, to set the record straight, even by taking Non-Index Crime into account, we have seen
a sustained reduction of crime incidents since 2010.
Allegation 3:
“Another point of contention is crime prevention. Instead of wasting manpower and time on
PR exercises, the proven tried and tested methods must be invigorated. The mobile and beat
patrols and roadblocks must be strengthened and energized.”
Response 3:
One of the core principles of the Crime NKRA Program is ‘Prioritisation and Focus’.
Put simply, in 2010, in accordance to the public’s survey, demand and desire to see a safer
and secure country. PDRM identified snatch theft due to overwhelming public concerns and
vehicle thefts due to its high volume contributing up to 50% of overall index crime, to be its
priority areas.
This focused approach has enabled us to achieve the desired results in snatch theft and
vehicle theft. However, the trade-off is that we have to acknowledge the potential for
increase in other crime types – whether Index Crime (house break-in, murder) or Non-Index
Crime (Gambling, Counterfeits, Mischiefs, Syndicated Crime).
This we acknowledge but the accusation that any decrease in Index Crime or increase in
Non-Index crime is an indication of PDRM manipulating their statistics by reclassifying index
crime cases to Non-Index to meet their KPIs is baseless and misleading.
Allegation 4:
“There are many cases under the index crime category that are not opened for investigation
and were closed with no further action (NFA). These cases involve robberies, snatch thefts
and burglaries.”
Response 4:
We would like to clarify several misrepresentations of existing process steps which are
apparent in the article in question. Specifically, to address the following issues
 Reclassification of index crime cases to Non-Index Crimes
 No Further Actions (‘NFA’)
 Short Changing of Crime Cases, e.g. 10 Burglaries equal 1 Case
 Dark Figures, i.e. Crimes Not Reported
Reclassification from Index Crime cases to Non-Index Crime
Reclassification of cases, whether from Index to Non-Index or vice-versa, may happen during
the Investigation Phase as a direct result of the outcome from the investigation or during
Prosecution Phase due to the strength of the evidence.
During the Investigation Phase, the investigation officer (‘IO’) will interview witnesses and
collect evidence to prepare an investigation paper (‘IP’). The IP is then forwarded to the
Prosecution (DPPs) who will assess the strength of the evidence and witness statements
based on the offence (or sections) charged to ascertain the potential for successful
conviction. In cases where key criteria (or ingredients) of the offence are not fulfilled or if
existing evidence is insufficient to constitute the offence initially classified, then the prudent
thing to do is to consider if the crime would fall under other category of offence(s) that can
be charged based on the existing evidence at hand, or/and outcome of the investigation, to
ensure that the process of justice is preserved.
This step within the Criminal Prosecution Process is consistent with international best
practices, e.g. in UK and USA, and has nothing to do with the collection with crime statistics.
Furthermore, as pointed out in earlier sections, crime statistics are compiled based on
reported cases and not based on outcome of investigation or prosecution processes.
Allegation 5:
“Robbery cases under the Penal Code are classified as index crime. This offence will be
classified as non-index under Section 382 of the Penal Code. Since, Section 382 of the Penal
Code is a non-index crime, therefore will not be reflected in the crime statistics.”
Response 5:
The article in question further stated that Robbery cases under Section 392 (Robbery) and
Section 397 (Gang Robbery) are reclassified to Section 382 (Theft with Preparation to Cause
Hurt or Death).
At this point, we must clarify and explain the difference between Robbery and Theft, to
ensure that the public has a clear understanding of the two.
Under Malaysia’s Penal Code, Robbery and Theft essentially occur in the same situation.
Robbery has an additional element of causing fear of hurt, fear of death, fear of wrongful
restraint, or hurt or death. The thin line of difference between Theft (Section 382) and
Robbery (Section 392 or Section 397) lies in the time period when the theft is committed.
For Section 382, there must be an element of concealment e.g.weapon in the pocket, hidden
accomplices, whereas for Section 392 or 397, the intention to cause fear is expressed and
not concealed e.g. tying up the victim, threatening the victim with a weapon.
During the process of report taking, PDRM will classify these cases as Robbery if there are
explicit mention of the weapons (e.g. guns, parang, knife) or an explicit mention of fear
induced in the victim.
Allegation 6:
“Burglary under Section 457 of the Penal Code is an index crime. This offence will be
classified as non-index under Sections 452 or 453 of the Penal Code. Since, Sections 452 and
453 of the Penal Code are non-index crime therefore will not be reflected in the crime
statistics.”
Response 6:
The article in question also stated that Burglary cases under Section 457 (House Break-In to
Commit an Offence Punishable with Imprisonment - e.g. Theft) were reclassified to Section
452 and 453 (House Break-In with Preparation made for Causing Hurt).
To recap the situation mentioned earlier, if a house break-in occurred but no goods or
belongings were evidently removed by the burglar, e.g. if perpetrator escaped before he or
she managed to take any goods, or if the investigation officer does not have enough
evidence to prove both house break-in and theft (i.e. specific goods explicitly taken out of
possession of the owner) but has enough evidence to prove house break-in – in this scenario,
the investigation officer will necessarily charge the offender with a lesser offence such as
Section 452 and 453.
Allegation 7:
“Causing hurt under Sections 324 and 326 are index crimes. These offences will be classified
under Section 148 of the Penal Code. Since, Section 148 of the Penal Code is a non-index
crime therefore will not be reflected in the crime statistics.”
Response 7:
It was alleged that Causing Hurt cases under Section 324 (Causing Hurt by Dangerous
Weapons) and Section 326 (Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Weapons) can and will be
reclassified to Section 148 (Possession of Weapons and Missiles at Riot).
We would like to point out that Sections 324 and 326 are VERY different crime types
compared to Section 148 – and it is far-fetched to see how the offences in the former can be
reclassified to the latter. For example, anyone causing hurt under Section 324 and 326
CANNOT be charged under Section 148 unless this incident occurred during a riot.
Consequently, an attempt by the writer to attribute the increase in Section 148 cases (if any)
to the reclassification of Section 324 or 326 cases for the purposes of manipulation of crime
statistics are also seriously flawed, both logically and factually. That said, it is also worth
pointing out that there is no increase in Section 148 cases as shown in the figure below.
In summary to the above 3 allegations, both index and non-index crimes ARE reflected in the
statistics.
This clearly indicates the writer in question has absolutely no grasp of the sections of the
Penal Code as well as the classification of cases, and makes it very clear he is not a police
officer of any standing.
Allegation 8:
“Police take no further action (NFA) for the reason there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding with the matter if the suspect cannot be identified, the loss is minimal or there is
no lead to proceed further. There are thousands of cases of this nature and since these cases
are not opened for investigation, therefore, will not be reflected in the crime statistics.”
Response 8:
This allegation has been misrepresented by the writer. This again clearly puts his knowledge
and intelligence of the crime cases into further question.
At this point, it is necessary to recap the Report Taking process.
When a Complainant (e.g. victim) comes to the Police Station to make a police report, he or
she will first file the report with an Enquiry Officer at the station. If the report is classified as
a "Jenayah" (or Criminal) case, the Enquiry Officer will subsequently direct the Complainant
(i.e. victim) to meet the Investigation Officer.
The Investigation Officer will then conduct an interview with the Complainant to capture the
details of the case before proceeding with the investigation process. During the investigation
process, the Investigation Officer will keep the Complainant updated with the status and
development of the case accordingly. If upon investigation, the Investigation Officer
concludes that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding with the investigation, or if the
suspect cannot be identified, or if there are no leads to proceed further, the case will be
marked NFA until new leads are found as basis to continue investigation.
This practice is consistent with international policing practices to ensure that Criminal
Investigation Department (CID) resources are appropriately prioritised for cases with leads
or that can be solved.
However, it is important to note although the case has been marked NFA at the investigation
stage, the case will still remain and be accounted for, as part of the Index Crime statistics,
whether it falls under Robbery, Burglary, Causing Hurt, or other cases. To set the record
straight, Crime Statistics (whether Index or Non-Index) are calculated based on reported
cases and not based on the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
And again, ALL reported crimes ARE reflected in the statistics.
Allegation 9:
“There are also cases short-changed in order to achieve the KPI. Say, for example, in a
particular day there are 10 cases of burglaries reported in a certain housing area. Only one
case will be opened for investigation and the other nine cases will be cross-referred to the one
case that was opened.”
Response 9:
On the statement of short changing of cases, e.g. 10 burglaries reported in a certain housing
area, but only 1 case is investigated and as such, only 1 is reflected in the index crime
statistics.
This again, is factually incorrect.
Each and every reported case will have an Investigation Paper opened and will be
investigated. In this example, all 10 reported cases of burglarieswill be counted as 10 Index
Crime cases and 10 Investigation Papers will be prepared.
Allegation 10:
“Dark figures (crimes not reported) are not factored into the crime statistics. There is a
theory that for every 10 cases reported there will be one case not reported. People do not
report crime when they have lost faith in the police.”
Response 10:
On this note, to date PDRM are tasked to take each and every report as reported by the
public, regardless of how smal the case may be deemed. As such, dark figures are not
regarded as present.
We would like to take this opportunity again, to stress to the public on the importance of
making a police report when a crime incident happens.
We acknowledge the feedback from the public that PDRM has to improve the police
reporting environment more conducive and the process more efficient.
As such we would like to update that PDRM is currently addressing these issues with
initiatives designed to improve PDRM’s frontline services as well as ensuring sufficient IOs
with a proportionate caseload to enable the IOs to better manage their cases and update the
victims in a timely manner.
We will need the public’s support to treat lodging reports as part of their civic duty. An
awareness program will be launched soon to educate the public on the their right and
responsibility to report a crime and that any police officer who refuses to accept reports will
be subject to strict 'Tatatertib' disciplinary actions.
Moving forward in late 2012, PDRM will launch an online report tracking system, whereby
anyone issued with a report number upon lodging a police report, will be able to track and
monitor the progress of their case.
This would clearly allay the fears of the public that their report has not been taken seriously
or has not been recorded into the crime database. Here, any report reflected online would
then be part of the crime statistics.
This online report tracking system was shared with the general public during the GTP
Roadmap 2.0 Open Days held in Kuala Lumpur, Kuching and Kota Kinabalu in August this
year. This move was lauded by all members of the public.
Allegation 11:
“The rationalization of the computer system (PRS) to validate the crime figures is a flawed
excuse. The system picks up only what has been fed into it. PRS system does not control
classification of cases.”
Response 11:
To ensure the transparency and integrity of the classification process, there is a multi layer
check-and-balance system in place.
The first level of checking happens at the Officer in Charge of the Station (OCS) level where
the OCS will be responsible to ensure proper classification is made towards the reported
cases in his station. At the district level, daily meetings will be conducted by the Officer in
Charge of District (OCPD) who will scrutinize the reports and classifications made under each
of his police stations in the last 24 hours to, again, ensure proper classification.
Next, at the state level, the Officer in Charge of Criminal Investigation (OCCI) will conduct
inspection of all investigation papers in the districts under him to ensure the proper
classification is made.
In addition, the Chief Police Officer of the respective state will be responsible to monitor all
police reports made in his state and check the classifications as required under the IGP
Standing Order Chapter A123.
Again, stern disciplinary action will also be taken against personnel who have been found to
be intentionally misclassifying cases.
This process is further enhanced through the verification and validation of both an
independent audit firm namely PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and 2 rounds of
International Performance Review (IPR) – the first made up senior personnel from their
respective public service delivery office in the UK, US, Australia, Singapore and South Korea.
The second, made up of senior police and security commissioners from the US, UK, Hong
Kong and Singapore.
Regular and quarterly public surveys were also conducted by TNS, Institute Integrity
Malaysia (IIM) and Frost & Sullivan.
Here PDRM would like to add that crime prevention and PDRM itself has to evolve and move
with the times. The public expectations are rising towards police services. They want a more
attentive, empathetic and effective force. This is the reason we advocate the Omnipresence
initiative, improve frontline services and investigations processes.
At this point, we would like to conclude that clearly based on the numerous flaws in the
writer’s article, he/she is not someone from the PDRM force nor has he any credible
intelligence of the police operations, methodology, penal code and last but not least of the
process of crime investigations.
At best, we acknowledge that the writer has possibly good intentions and have highlighted
some personal views, similar to what we have been receiving all this while through our
public engagement exercises.
Lastly, we would like to point out that while we appreciate writer’s personal views on the
various initiatives currently undertaken by PDRM, namely Omnipresence, Enhancement of
Investigation and Criminal Prosecution System, Beat-and-Patrol, PDRM Organisation
(including racial composition, religious activities) etc, there are much more conducive
platforms to conduct these discussions.
As such, we will not endeavour to belabour on these topics in this letter.
It suffices to point out briefly that Police Omnipresence is an acknowledged, tried and tested
international best practice e.g. in London, New York, to fight crime. It was also lauded by
many of the resident association within the communities, specifically Taman Tun Dr. Ismail,
Subang Jaya, Penang etc.
With due respect of the motto ‘Feared by criminals and Respected by the public’, while that
describes accurately the environment in pre-2000's, the requirements of Modern Policing
across the world has changed, with the police having to play the role of 'Law Enforcer' and
that of 'Provider of Community Servicing' in line with a far more personable, improved and
attentive approach to meet the rising expectations of the public.
Conclusion
We want to put on record the published article in www.liewchintong.com on 22 August is
indeed full of factual inaccuracies, misplaced allegations and misleading statements.
PDRM is more than happy to engage the public and to offer any clarification they require at
any point.
We do this in hope that the public at large will be better equipped to make an informed
conclusion as to the veracity and intention of any misrepresentation of the process PDRM
are tasked to uphold for the sake of public safety and national security.
In summary,
1. Definitions of Index and Non-Index Crimes, as well as the Investigation and
Prosecution processes have been instituted long before the introduction of the NKRA
program.
2. There is no factual basis or evidence to the allegation that crime statistics is
manipulated or “doctored”.
3. ALL reported crimes, regardless of which penal code sections or category of crimes
they come under, WILL contribute to the crime statistics. And this will be further
enhanced by the Online Report Tracking System under Beta testing at the moment
and due for launch late 2012.
4. The achievements of PDRM and improvements by way of the NKRA are real, as are its
initiatives, such as Omnipresence, Safe City Program, Investigation Enhancement,
Front-line Servicing.
5. The writer IF indeed a police personnel has not been long in the force, has clearly no
understanding on how policing processes and crime investigations are conducted.
6. To avoid doubts and misunderstanding due to misrepresentation as demonstrated by
the writer, PDRM would like to gracefully extend an invitation to any member of the
public an opportunity to come forward and share their concerns with us.
Multiple Factual Inaccuracies that has to be Corrected
Critical Factual Inaccuracies
Corrections and Further Clarifications
Crime NKRA target is to reduce
crime by 20%
• Crime NKRA target is to reduce crime by 5%
• In addition, there's a focus on Street Crime (i.e.
snatch theft), to reduce that by 20%
Overall Crime (Index + Non-Index)
has increased. Crime statistics are
reduced by shifting from Index to
Non-Index
• Overall Crime (Index + Non-Index) has in-fact
reduced in 2010, 2011 and 2012 (year-to-date)
‒ 2010: 7.0% reduction
‒ 2011: 9.0% reduction
‒ 2012*: 5.3% reduction
NFA ('No Further Action') cases
suppress crime statistics
• Crime statistics are compiled based on reported
cases, NOT based on investigation outcome
‒ During investigation, some cases will be
classified as NFA if there are no sufficient
grounds for proceeding, suspect cannot be
identified or no lead to proceed further
‒ However, these NFA cases are part of crime
statistics
* For 2012, year-to-date data are calculated from January to June for respective comparisons
Sustained Reduction of Crime (Index + Non-Index) since 2010
252,324
Non-Index
Crime
42,742
271,004
271,831
252,844
7.0%
59,359
229,997
62,014
9.0%
75,024
72,106
Index
Crime
108,886
209,582
211,645
209,817
177,520
32,644
157,891
76,242
2007
2008
2009
2010
Introduction of
NKRA Program
2011
2012
Sustained Reduction of Crime (Index + Non-Index) since 2010
252,324
271,004
271,831
252,844
7.0%
229,997
9.0%
Non-Index
Crime
108,886
Index
Crime
2007
2008
2009
2010
Introduction of
NKRA Program
2011
2012
No Increase in Section 148 Cases since 2010
Section 148 Cases
1,466
1,497
1,470
1,448
1,361
682
2007
2008
2009
2010
Introduction of
NKRA Program
2011
2012*