QUOTE:
But the chief problem in any community cursed with crime is not punishment of the criminals, but the preventing of the young from being trained to crime. — W.E.B. Du Bois, American sociologist
The Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (Act 297) (POCA) is an Act “to provide for the more effectual prevention of crime in Peninsular Malaysia and for the control of criminals, members of secret societies and other undesirable persons, and for matters incidental thereto.”
The murder of a student in a Cyberjaya college hostel on June 25 2025, while horribly tragic for the murdered girl and her family, is a disgraceful and embarrassing tragedy for a totally ineffective and unenforceable POCA.
The usual activity of closing the barn door after the horse has fled will take effect very soon. Suspects were rounded up, and would be questioned and charged if they were identified by witnesses or college hostels CCTV, if any. But this always happens after the fact!
Knowing that student hostels could very well be breeding grounds for illegal drug use and other associated unsavoury crimes and misdemeanours, where was the effectual prevention?
POCA’s arrangement of sections includes Powers of Arrest and Remand, Inquiries, Registration, Consequences of Registration and General. There is no section outlining actions, acts and activities that are to be undertaken by undercover agents, surveillance of suspects and houses and commercial buildings where crime thrives or is liable to happen.
So, is POCA effective? The answer is a resounding no! Must it need a regime change for POCA to be effective? Do we need reforms to certain pieces of legislation to give it real bite and teeth?
Reports say the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) consists of 137,574 personnel, including senior police officers, subordinate police officers, and civil servants. This number reflects the wide range of tasks undertaken by the PDRM, from traditional policing to more specialised roles.
Malaysia’s estimated population in 2024 is 34.1 million. This represents a growth of 1.9 per cent compared to the 33.4 million people recorded in 2023, according to the Department of Statistics Malaysia. The population is composed of 30.7 million citizens and 3.4 million non-citizens.
Thirty-four million divided by 138,000 equals to 246.4. This means there is one policeman for 246 citizens and residents of Malaysia. Is this effective policing? Can one policeman look after crime prevention for a random 246 people at any given moment in time?
The Singapore Police Force (SPF) has approximately 10,400 regular personnel, 2,400 conscripts, and 1,100 civilian volunteers. In addition, there are 26,459 reservists and 1,266 civilian volunteers in the SPF. That’s a total of 41,625 police personnel.
The population of Singapore today is approximately 5.8 million which means there is one policeman for every 139 citizens and residents. Is this a better ratio? Singapore is certainly galaxies away from Malaysia when it comes to crime prevention. Yet, we refuse to emulate our neighbour.
The whole idea of crime prevention is to make sure crimes are detected even before they are committed. PDRM should be studying theoretical and empirical research on reducing crime opportunities, examine crime control policies designed to modify criminal dispositions via treatment versus punishment, and looks at situational crime prevention.
Is this too much to ask for? Is the so-called 3-R pandemic more important to control and prevent than escalating crime? For Budget 2025, the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) was allocated a total of RM11.33 billion. This allocation includes provisions for assets, construction of new police stations, and maintenance of civil servant quarters, including those for police personnel.
So, there is no shortage of funds, that’s for sure. Is there a shortage of enthusiasm or assets for crime prevention? What will it take? More money, more personnel, more enthusiasm? More crimes to occur?
Colleges with student hostels must also bear the brunt of this outrage. These higher educational institutions focus solely on numbers translated to students and the money they generate for fees and other expenses associated with “higher learning”. Doesn’t safety and security mean anything at all? Obviously not.
So, we look for remedies, answers and solutions. “An Act to provide for matters related to discipline in educational institutions, and for matters connected therewith,” claims the Educational Institutions (Discipline)Act 1976 (Act 174). Obviously ineffective like POCA. Bullying incidents are sporadic but unstoppable.
The Education Act 1996 (Act 550) doesn’t specifically use the term “student protection from crime”. That right there is the problem. So, we need to investigate where there problem is and how best to fix it. PDRM, parents and educational institutions must gear up.
Malaysia’s 2025 budget for the education sector received a record-breaking allocation of RM64.1 billion, marking the highest allocation in the country’s history. This includes a separate allocation of RM18 billion for higher education. The budget focuses on enhancing educational infrastructure, expanding access to quality education, and supporting initiatives for low-income families.
In Malaysia, the total student population in higher education is approximately 1.2 million, as of 2025. This includes students in both public and private higher education institutions.
There are approximately 3.1 million students in primary schools and 2.3 million in secondary schools. This totals to about 5.4 million students in the public primary and secondary education system, according to recent data.
So, how is the 64.1 billion spent? Shouldn’t there be a budget created for a novelty like educational institutions crime prevention units. Is it too expensive? Is it doable? Will it prevent crime in educational institutions? Can’t the government print more ringgits?
There are no specific, publicly available 2025 crime statistics broken down by race for Malaysian students. Current statistics focus on broader crime rates and trends, with some older studies mentioning demographics of offenders. The most recent data available on crime rates is from 2021, which shows a decline from previous years. Further, some older studies provide demographic profiles of offenders, including their ethnicity, but these are not specific to students or 2025.
That’s what the statistics research effort says. But the fact is clear and cogent that there is crime in the Malaysian student population. Thus far, crime prevention in educational institutions is a remote if not parochial idea.
In many countries, student crime prevention involves a multi-faceted approach, including community policing, educational programs, and initiatives focused on youth development and resilience. These efforts often integrate law enforcement, schools, community organisations, and local governments to address the root causes of crime and provide support systems for students.
We have the infrastructure, the personnel and financial resources for student crime prevention, and yet it has been ignored if not evaded by Malaysian leaders. The government must take concerted actions to prevent crimes amongst the student population.
The active perpetrators know there is nothing set in place to prevent student crimes. It is unbearably true that the Malaysian “education system” fails to conduct psychological tests for all students to study their mental trends, proclivities and habits.
Such tests can work as a prevention strategy and offer solutions to students given to violence. Community policing is another strong deterrent strategy that we are yet to implement and enforce.
Surprise awaits those who study these tests. Many amongst us are psychologically unstable, unsure and uncertain when anger replaces good sense and common sense. Many in our midst are suffering from emotional turbulence that’s left untreated. Nobody cares.
State legislators and MPs must get their act together. These are pressing issues that affects the future generations. Lawmakers must take this bull by its horns to focus on the adage that prevention is better than cure. No necessity for newer legislation.
POCA needs a new energy, a new drive and new spirit of commitment. The key word “prevention” is inactive and therefore ineffective in this curious piece of legislation. POCA offers no techniques, tactics or strategies to combat crime prevention.
POCA must take into serious account the propensity in society by some mentally disturbed persons who look normal but are susceptible to a meagre amount of provocation to commit crimes, The existing POCA fails to meet this basic requirement. The Act needs tweaking and amending.
Tweaking and amending, bending, mending without breaking the law is the duty and function of a courageous Judiciary that is unafraid and willing to put Article 162(6) Federal Constitution into play. But the Malaysian Judiciary cannot take action sua motu or sua sponte like their counterparts in India.
“Try a crime you end a criminal, treat an environment you end crime,” suggested Abhijit Naskar in his “Sleepless for Society”. Time our leaders readjusted their focus on issues that matter.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at chiefjudge@secamtektektribe.org.
