|
|
SAFE CITY:
MOHAMED YUSOFF HJ
ABBAS
INTRODUCTION Incidences of crime and public safety in the country seemed to have caused much anxiety and concern amongst the general public lately. This concern seemed to affect also on the safety/security (against crime) aspects of Malaysian houses. Have Malaysian houses suddenly become unsafe? Is there a cause for alarm? How far is this true? This paper investigated the trend on housebreaking nationwide. It is divided into three main sections. The section on Housebreaking Trend 1 traced on housebreakings which occurred from 1994 - 2004. Attributes of houses broken into is divided into two sections - Housebreaking Trend 2 and Housebreaking Trend 3. The former analysed items relating to the Non-Built Environment factor, while the latter on items relating to the Built Environment factor. Before indulging into the findings, let us look on the reasons which had caused much anxiety and concern amongst the general public. Public Anxiety At least three reasons were identified which might have caused the general public’s anxiety and cause for concern. These include sensational media reporting (see Caption 1.1), coupled with directives to all Local Authorities for the compulsory immediate implementation of the Safe City programs as underlined by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 2004 (see Caption 1.2), and the downward trend on Public Safety Index as published in the Malaysian Quality of Life Report 2004 by the Malaysian Economic Planning Unit (EPU) (see Caption 1.3). Definition of Terms For a much clearer picture about the whole safety / security situation, the terms used should be clearly understood as follows:- Public Safety Index: This index as used by EPU combined both Index Crime and Road Safety statistics. Index Crime: The RMP had administratively categorized the Index Crime into two – Violent Crime and Property Crime. Violent Crime: This type of crime involved bodily harm with or without firearm Property Crime: This type of crime involved both housebreaking and vehicular thefts. Housebreaking here includes all building types apart from houses. [Note: the present study concerned houses only] Brief Crime Prevention Theory Development It was Jacobs (1961) who ignited interest for crime prevention in relation to the built environment. She blamed city planners for their failure to consider humans safety and security in the physical built environment for it lacked the “eyes on the street” concept and neighbourhood interaction at human scale level. Her work influenced the formation of other concepts related to crime prevention of the built environment, such as Defensible Space (DS) by Newman in 1972 and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) coined by Jeffery in 1977. Newman’s concept of DS suggested that spaces should be ‘owned’ through territoriality by immediately adjacent owners or otherwise be intruded by offenders. The theory which focused on public housing involved 4 principles.:- Territoriality – the creation of perceived zones of territorial influence by the physical environment; Natural Surveillance – provision of surveillance opportunities by the built environment; Boundary Definition – closely linked with territoriality in the demarcation between public and private zones; and Image and Milieu – maintaining the environment so as to achieve crime prevention goals. The DS concept formed the basis for the formation of CPTED initiatives in the United States. Crowe (2000) expanded the DS theory comprehensively and formulated CPTED principles into three main components - Natural Access Control, Natural Surveillance and Territoriality. While the DS theory tends to just merely imply it as a significant force in determining human criminal behaviour, CPTED more explicitly focused on the relationship between nature and nurture, which involved larger than just public housing – i.e. which extended across all land use categories (Schneider and Kitchen, 2002). Connections between DS and CPTED strategies are as shown in Table 1. In the United Kingdom, the CPTED initiative had been termed as ‘Security By Design’ (SBD) to counter household burglary (Pascoe and Topping, 1998). The SBD initiatives include Target Hardening (TH) strategies, where potential access points by intruders are identified and security measures intensified. The following three sections analysed housebreaking trend in Malaysia based from the RMP 1994-2004 crime records. Statistics on population was based on data from Malaysia’s Statistics Department. The first section involved analysis on the fourteen states, while the other sections involved crime-prone areas of major towns/cities for each state. The purpose of the analysis was to identify items of commonalties for the country, and differences amongst the 14 states due to their geographic locations. It should be noted that Fridays and Saturdays are public holiday weekends for two of the states – Kelantan and Kedah. HOUSEBREAKING TREND 1: Occurrences 1994-2004 The purpose of the analysis being to chart out and trace the trend of housebreaking in relation to the other types of crimes committed over the 10-year period. The overall findings revealed that while the overall population rose smoothly from 19.4 million in 1994 to 25.6 million in 2004, the magnitude of Index Crime also rose but haphazardly from 76,000 in 1994, peaked to 169,000 in 1999, dipped to 149,000 in 2002, and rose to 157,000 in 2004 as shown in Figure 2.1. While almost similar patterns were shown for both Property Crime and Violent Crime, however that was not so for housebreaking which recorded 23,900 cases in 1994, peaked to 47,800 cases in 1999, dipped to 31,400 cases, rose to 39,400 cases in 2002 and finally dipped to 27,300 cases in 2004. In fact, if we were to consider the population growth during that 10-year period, housebreaking cases had actually decreased from 123 per 100,000 populations in 1994 to 107 per 100,000 populations in 2004. Housebreaking trends amongst the fourteen states are as shown in Figure 2.2. Comparisons were based on number of cases per 100,000 populations. Findings overall can be categorized into two main trends. The first category involved housebreaking which peaked during the mid of the 10-year duration and finally in 2004 dipped lower than in 1994 (such as: Perlis, Perak, Selangor, Kuala Lumpur, Negri Sembilan, Johor, Terengganu, and Sabah). The second category involved housebreaking which peaked during the mid of the 10-year duration and finally reached a figure in 2004 higher than in1994 (such as, Kedah, Penang, Malacca, Pahang, Kelantan, and Sarawak). More recent development seemed to indicate an upward trend in several states, particularly in Pahang, Terengganu, Kelantan and Sabah. Thus, the findings seemed to indicate that overall, between 1994-2004, housebreaking had greatly been reduced, even though there seemed to be an upward trend in the east coast states and one state in East Malaysia. It would be interesting to note that in terms of world ranking for the period between 1998-2000, Malaysia ranked number 50 (5th in Asia) in terms of total crimes committed, and number 33 (2nd in Asia) in terms of burglaries / housebreaking occurred, as shown in Table 2.1 and 2.2 respectively. HOUSEBREAKING TREND 2: 2004 – Non Built Environment Factor The Non-Built Environment factor analysed involved 2,853 samples. Based on the available data, seven items were identified that might had influenced the housebreaking occurred. That is, occurrences in terms of time of day, day of the week, week of the month, month of the year, access or point of entry, manner or method adopted, and items stolen. Based on the incidences occurred, the access was further categorized into seven points of entry, the manner into eight methods, and the items stolen into ten things, as shown in Table 3.0. Results of the findings seemed to indicate that the trend for nationwide majority of housebreaking occurred during night time particularly between 24.00-06.00 hours; during mid-weeks, last week of the month, and mid-year; by cutting locks of front doors; and involved money as items stolen. Differences from the nationwide majority involved 3 locations for Saturdays, wide distributions in relation to the months occurred, 3 locations each for Back door and Back window as points of access. Hence, apart from the day, month and points of access, there seemed to be a common trend nationwide in terms of the particular time of day, week of the month, manner of access and items stolen. HOUSEBREAKING TREND 3: 2004 – Built Environment Factor The Built Environment factor analysed involved 1,254 samples. Based on site visits and investigation, 10 items were identified that could be analysed in relation to the Defensible Space concept, particularly on creating the opportunities for surveillance and denying opportunities for unwanted access as shown in Table 4.0. Translating the essence of the Defensible Space concept in relation to the built environment factor of this study, housebreakings would be minimal if houses were corner-positioned, front road of through type and standard width, with direct or quarter way street light pole position, with houses as frontage, not visually obstructed, with security grille installed, without contour level difference, back lane of standard width, and telephone pole position not abutting roof/ / wall. Results of findings revealed, majority nationwide average occurred involved intermediately-positioned houses, with front road of through type and standard width, quarter way streetlight pole position, houses as frontage, not visually obstructed, security grille installed, without contour level difference, back lane of standard width and telephone pole position did not abutted roof/wall. Hence, apart from the item on house positioning, the concept of Defensible space pertaining to the built environment factor generally could not be supported fully in this study.
DISCUSSION Similar to other studies done, this study seemed to indicate the co-relation of population growth with incidences of crime in general. Co-relation of crime with the overall economic situation was also revealed when the Index Crime peaked in 1999, the year of the Asian financial crises. Although, crime in relation to housebreaking also peaked in 1999, however overall nationwide, incidences had been greatly reduced for the period from 1994-2004, despite the population growth as revealed in this study. While this might seemed comforting, it should be realized that this might not be the true situation as some incidences might not be reported (Hasbie, 2006). Also, more recent development seemed to indicate an upward trend, particularly in the East Coast states and Sabah. More alarming, Malaysia had been ranked number 2 for the highest number of housebreaking amongst the Asian countries for the period between 1998-2000. Based from the seven items of the non-built environment factor identified and analysed, there seemed to be a common nationwide trend which involved four of the items - particular time of day, week of the month, manner of access and items stolen. It is not surprising that majority of the housebreaking cases occurred during nighttime, as this associated with the time for the most natural minimal surveillance – hence in agreement with the essence of the Defensible Space concept. For majority of housebreaking which occurred during the last week of the month, and money being the most soughted item stolen is also not surprising as it associated with the ‘pay-day’ week. The increase in surveillance particularly during nighttime and the last week of each month might be able to minimize future incidences. In relation to the manner occurred, as majority involved the cutting of locks, perhaps a Target Hardening approach which involved an upgraded specification for the type of locks is used might reduce further occurrences. The Defensible Space concept was translated into ten items identified on site in relation to the built environment factor. Items which focused on the creation of opportunities for surveillance involved house positioning (corner-positioned more advantage), standard width and through-type front road and standard width back lane (encourage more traffic flow – hence indirect surveillance), street light pole positioned ( direct and quarter way provide more visibility during night time), frontage (neighbouring houses provide indirect surveillance), and not visually obstructed (by fences, hedges, etc.) from main road or due to contour level difference. Items which deny opportunities for unwanted access involved security grille installation and positioning of telephone poles which did not abut roof or wall. Based on the findings, out of the ten items analysed only one item – that of house positioning - seemed to be of relevance to the Defensible Space concept. The rest of the items did not seem to have prevented the housebreaking occurred. Thus the Defensible Space concept in relation to the built environment factor was not fully supported in this study. CONCLUSION Based on findings of this study, the trend on housebreaking between the ten-year period of 1994-2004 had been one of reduction. However efforts should be increased to curb the situation further due to an upward trend recently amongst a few states, and Malaysia had been ranked the second highest amongst the Asian countries. The non-built environment factor rather than the built environment factor seemed to have influenced incidences of housebreaking. The Defensible Space concept in relation to the built environment factor which formed the basis of the Safe City program implemented, was not fully supported for housebreaking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|