The Changing Trend and Pattern of Public Safety In Malaysia Since Independence Implications to Its Socialwell-being

8/7/2019 The Changing Trend and Pattern of Public Safety In Malaysia Since Independence Implications to Its Socialwell-being

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-changing-trend-and-pattern-of-public-safety-in-malaysia-since-independence 1/16

THE CHANGING TREND AND PATTERN OF PUBLIC SAFETY IN

MALAYSIA SINCE INDEPENDENCE: IMPLICATIONS TO ITS SOCIAL

WELL-BEING

Asmah Ahmad

School of Social, Development and Environmental StudiesFaculty of Social Sciences and Humanities

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

43600 Bangi, Selangor

Abstract

Incidences of killings, robberies, traffic accidents and fires have become regularnewspapers headlines and breaking news on television. They are reminders of the losses

and sufferings of members of the public. All these are indicative of the state of social

well-being experienced by the people of a nation. In Malaysia, these incidences arediscernible during rapid pace of development. It is thus the aim of this article to examine

the trend of social well-being from the perspective of public safety in Malaysia since

independence, and how it affects the overall welfare of the people. Analysis of the status

of public safety in Malaysia is examined from the perspective of road accidents, firebreakouts and cause of death from homicides and other violence, as well as factors that

contributed to such phenomenal occurrences. Data is obtained from available official

published data, in particular, Population Census, State Data Banks, Social Bulletins etc.The results of the analysis revealed an increasing threat to public safety in Malaysia, with

the Malaysian public facing greater exposure and falling victim to various crimes thatresulted in injuries, fatalities and property losses. Urbanization, economic and

infrastructural development were contributing factors to increasing threat to public safety.

Keywords: Social well-being, security, public safety, crimes, accidents

Abstrak

Kejadian pembunuhan, rompakan, kemalangan jalanraya dan kebakaran sering menjadi

tajuk sensasi akhbar dan berita utama di televisyen. Kejadian tersebut mengingatkan kita

semula betapa parahnya kehilangan, kenestapaan dan kesengsaraan yang dialami olehahli masyarakat. Hal ini membayangkan keadaan kesejahteraan sosial yang dialami oleh

penduduk sesebuah negara. Di Malaysia, peningkatan kejadian jenayah mula dikesan

pada ketika negara mengalami pembangunan yang pesat sejak mencapai kemerdekaanpada tahun 1957. Justeru, makalah ini bertujuan mengkaji arah aliran kesejahteraan sosial

daripada perspektif keselamatan awam di Malaysia sejak merdeka, dan bagaimana

keselamatan awam ini mempengaruhi kebajikan penduduk. Status keselamatan awam diMalaysia dikaji berasaskan kedapatan data rasmi sedia ada yang diterbitkan terutama

daripada Banci Penduduk, Bank Data Negeri, Buletin Sosial dll. Aspek keselamatan

awam yang dikaji ialah kemalangan jalanraya, kebakaran dan sebab kematian daripadapembunuhan dan kejadian jenayah lain. Faktor penyebab yang menyumbang kepada

Jilid 2, Bilangan 2, Januari - Disember 2007

1



peningkatan kejadian jenayah juga diberi perhatian. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahawaancaman ke atas keselamatan awam di Malaysia kian meningkat apabila khalayak awam

lebih terdedah dan menjadi mangsa pelbagai jenayah yang berlaku sehingga

menyebabkan kecederaan, kematian dan kehilangan harta benda. Pembandaran,pembangunan ekonomi dan prasarana berperanan sebagai faktor penyumbang kepada

peningkatan ancaman ke atas keselamatan awam di Malaysia.

Kata kunci: Kesejahteraan sosial, keselamatan, keselamatan awam, jenayah, kemalangan

INTRODUCTION

Social well-being is the degree to which a population’s needs and wants are being met

(Johnston et al. 2000). It reflects the quality of life enjoyed by individuals or groups.

Quality of life, on the other hand, is the state of the people’s social well-being as they

perceived it or as it is identified by observable indicators. The latter could be attributed to

the various goods (and bads) enjoyed or endured by the population. Thus studies on

quality of life normally concentrate on aspects of the human condition as it pertains to

their social, economic and psychological lives (Smith 1994; 1996; Yapa 1996; Sutcliffe

2001; Nurizan Yahya 1998; Campbell 1993).

Although social-well being as a term suffers from precise definition, it can be best

understood by decomposing its dependent variables. Some consensus were achieved

regarding its components (Coates et al. 1977; Miller et al. 1967; Smith 1973), the most

comprehensive is the one devised by the United Nations Research Institute for Social

Development (UNRISD 1966) which listed nine basic components of social well-being,

namely, nutrition, shelter, health, education, leisure, security, social stability, physical

environment and surplus income. Whilst the first three denote physical needs, the

following five components encompass cultural needs, and the final component, surplus

income, signifies higher needs. Asmah (2000) in her study on spatial inequality of social

well-being in Malaysia, reiterates the nine components and the importance and

significance of each in understanding well-being and spatial inequality in Malaysia. To

that effect, the orientation of this article is to focus on the attribute of social well-being

and quality of life that pertains to that of fulfilling one of the many human cultural needs

i.e. security.


2





also have some means of evaluating and monitoring their success in terms of maintaining

or increasing social well-being.

The traditional yardsticks used to measure progress in spatial well-being have

been the economist’s indices of production and consumption, supplemented by income

levels and rates of unemployment and industrial growth. But the measuring rod of money

often overlooks the many aspects of social well-being, which are impossible to gauge in

financial terms alone. As a result new yardsticks of social conditions have been found in

measuring social well-being and its various components by aggregate bundles of social

variables namely social indicators. The latter are integrated systems of social reporting

using indicators that could be related to policies in much the same way as the cost of

living index and rates of inflation are related to economic policies. But of interest are

those indicators that aim at some comprehensive measure of well-being, the sort that

Carlisle (1972) calls informative indicators.

There is, however, more to the ‘what’ question (indicators) than establishing lists

of conditions that might satisfactorily define living standards, well-being or some such

state. If anything precise is to be said about well-being and its patterns of incidence,

relevant conditions must be subject to measurement. This requires further clarification of

the meaning of the various components of well-being such as health, education, leisure,

and so on, and their operational definition in the form of specific numerical indicators.

It follows that public safety as a concept is difficult to measure but aspects of

public safety are possible to measure. This leads us to find out which aspects or

conditions of public safety could be measured and are relevant in conveying the meaning

and degree of the incidences. Thus public safety may be measured by the incidence of

criminality as the number of crimes may indicate the degree of risk that the public is

subjected to. But it is seldom the case that the meaning of a condition is so clear as to be

adequately captured by just one indicator, so the measurement of public safety, for

example, may require recourse to a batch of criminality, damages and other acts that

threatened public safety. As such, anything that can put public life at risk either from

bodily injuries or deaths, damage to property and disruption of psychological well-being

that can instill a sense of insecurity among the people such as crimes, assaults, rapes,


4



traffic accidents, fire breakouts etc. are indicative of incidences that could jeopardize

security and public safety.

Of late, there has not been a day that passes without news in the media, be it

electronic or print, that conveys the goring incidents of killings, or gruesome but

unnecessary and senseless motor accidents, or the inhalation of toxic fumes from fire

breakouts which more often than not result in not only fatalities but also damage and loss

of property. Headlines in the local dailies have been full of such incidents:

Blaze destroys warehouse ( New Straits Times November 18, 2004).

They should have been celebrating…instead they all died. These 26 people(pictures given) should have been with their families and friends for the festive

season (Deepavali and Eid). Instead, they and 139 others were killed in road

crashes over the last two weeks ( New Straits Times November 20, 2004).

300 made homeless in predawn blaze (n.d)

Woman found dead with throat cut ( New Straits Times November 24, 2004)

All these are but few examples of incidents that made headlines on the front pages

of newspapers in the recent past. They are taken to indicate a state of social well-being

from the perspective of security/insecurity that is being experienced by Malaysians.

There are numerous other goring, shameful and senseless incidents, which are endless to

be quoted here. Some were incidents that occurred on the same day but elsewhere in the

country and were reported in the same dailies.

For the purpose of this article, public safety indicators shall include crime rates,

which shall be broken down further into four different types involving cases of murder,

robbery, narcotic offences and rapes. As traffic accidents and fire breakouts are also

rampant nowadays and pose as risks and hazards to loss of life, and damages to property,

they are also included in our attempt to gauge social well-being from the perspective of

public safety (safety in the public area and at home) in Malaysia. However, in dealing

with the available published statistics, one is faced with frustration, as the coverage was

inconsistent whereby some indicators are omitted for certain years. Hence, only


5



information available for the particular years is reported here. The article shall also

explore possible factors that contribute to such phenomenal occurrences.

THE STATE OF PUBLIC SAFETY IN MALAYSIA

The article attempts to analyse whether or not the state of public safety in Malaysia is

changing, be it for the worse or for the better. In order to do that, one has to study the

situation over a period of time and shall need a time series data set. With respect to the

latter, the benchmark or the baseline time zero is set to the time when Malaysia, or

Malaya then, first achieved its independence in 1957. It is a time thought to be most

appropriate when the country was self-governing and hence has its own self to fall back

in terms of performance in administering the affairs of the country, be they political,

social, cultural or economic.

Public Safety At and Since Independence

Statistics at the time of Independence are hard to come by especially when they are to

include Sabah and Sarawak. Hence, as shown in Table 1, data on public safety condition

pertaining to crimes were only available for Peninsular Malaysia in 1957. This is

understandable as Sabah and Sarawak only joined Malaysia in 1963. However, as shown

in the table, we still have data gaps for both specific public safety indicators such as road

accidents and fire breakouts prior 1980 (probably they had not yet become public

concerns) as well as criminal offences in the year 2000. The latter was not covered in

either the usual Social Statistics Bulletin or the District/State Data Bank. It could either

be difficult to collate the various statistics or the trend is too revealing.


6



Table 1 Public safety conditions in Malaysia according to selectedindicators, 1957-2000

Public safety indicators 1957 1970 1980 1990 2000

Crime rates per 100,000 population

- Cases of murder

- Cases of robbery

- Narcotic cases

- Rape victims

-

2.4a

5.7a

8.8a

1.6a

-

1.6

8.1

6.6

2.0

-

2.1

31.7

34.4

5.4

-

2.3

32.7

51.9

3.6

624b

2.4c

63.1c

-

5.2d

Traffic accidents per 10,000 population - - 48.2 53.1 95.1e

Fire breakouts per 10,000 population - - 7.7 a 7.1 12.1 e

a Data for Peninsular Malaysiab

General index for criminalityc Calculated from data extracted from Lim (2003). d Calculated from data extracted Komuniti Veteranian Malaysia (2004) e

Figure for 1998

Source: Department of Statistics 1981; 1990; 1993; 1999; Berita Harian, October 22,

2004; Komuniti Veteranian Malaysia (2004); Lim (2003).

From Table 1, we can discern the level, pattern and trend of various aspects of

public safety in Malaysia over the years since independence. As can be seen, the level of

public safety in Malaysia varies over the years, which denotes relatively low rates in the

early period and incrementally rising in the later years. This applies to almost all of the

indicators used. The pattern, on the other hand, projected a surge in the rates of several

indicators after 1970, whilst some others showed a gradual increment. Robbery, narcotic

offences and traffic accidents exemplified the former and murder, rape and fire breakouts

are examples of the latter. The rate for robbery, for example, which recorded 8.1 cases

per 100,000 population in 1970 surged to 31.7 cases in 1980, an increment of almost 300per cent in 10 years. Similarly, narcotic cases quadrupled within the same decade. It is

not definite whether such phenomenal increase is due to genuine increase in the crimes

committed or pointing to a better management of data and statistics or that more people

are coming forward to report the crimes and happenings.


7



Whatever it is, the trend is very clear – that criminality is on the increase, traffic

accidents are escalating and fire breakouts are becoming rampant. This trend alone shows

that the condition of public safety is changing and not continuing from the level and

pattern of the early years when the Malaysian public was able to enjoy a safer living

condition, not living in fear of being robbed, assaulted, molested etc., hence having and

enjoying greater psychological well-being.

Comparative analysis by geographic regions reveals that Sabah and Sarawak seem

to be a safer place to live in than Peninsular Malaysia. Data have shown that generally

crime rates in the two eastern regions of Malaysia are relatively lower than Peninsular

Malaysia; so are the threats from road crashes and fire breakouts, which are also

extremely low. For example, robbery and narcotic offences are extremely high

comparatively for Peninsular Malaysia since 1980 with rates culminating to around 40

cases per 100,000 population for robbery and 60 cases per 100,000 for narcotics in 1990

compared to a single digit rate for both Sabah and Sarawak (Table 2). Nevertheless,

threats to murder and rape are highest for Sabah since 1980. It is tempting to relate it to

the presence of aliens in the state as Sabah has been receiving an influx of immigrants

around that time. Sabah hence, is a state to watch and monitor as the trend in the various

crime rates are on the increase although slight but gradual. However, among the three

regions, Sarawak is the safest place to live in when all the risks to public safety hazards

are the lowest comparatively and seem to be on a declining trend especially crime rates

pertaining to murder, rape and narcotic offences.


8



Table 2 Public safety conditions in Malaysia according to selectedindicators by state, 1970-1990

1970 1980 1990Public safety indicators

P.M S’h S’k P.M S’h S’k P.M S’h S’k

Crime rates/100,000 population

- Cases of murder

- Cases of robbery

- Narcotic cases

- Rape victims

1.5

9.9

7.3

2.2

2.2

1.5

5.5

1.4

3.2

3.3

1.3

1.4

1.8

37.2

39.2

5.5

4.4

5.0

0.4

6.3

2.1

4.0

2.5

4.2

1.5

36.2

62.2

3.5

4.7

6.7

8.0

6.0

1.2

3.2

0.9

2.2

Traffic accidents/10,000 pop. - - - - - - 40.4 7.7 8.7

Fire breakouts/10,000 pop. - - - - - - 10.6 8.6 5.3

Note: P.M. = Peninsular Malaysia; S’h.= Sabah; S’k = Sarawak.

Source: Department of Statistics 1981; 1990.

Public Safety at the turn of the Millennium

Statistics for a more comprehensive public safety indicators in 2000 are unavailable from

the conventional sources. As mentioned earlier, the reporting did not cover crime rates

but only focused on road crashes and fire breakouts, two aspects of safety hazards

considered as of major concerns lately, hence the inclusion of their statistics by the turn

of the century. But from whatever available data that we manage to gather, it is obvious

that their phenomena are on the increase especially that of traffic accidents. For example,

by the turn of the second millennium, traffic accidents had increased by 79.1 per cent for

the nation as a whole compared to a decade before (1990) (Table 1) but more than

twofold from 40 cases per 10,000 population to 110 cases per 10,000 population for

Peninsular Malaysia over the same period of time (Table 3). Likewise, similar

incremental trends are observable for Sabah and Sarawak whereby the increase was more

phenomenal in Sarawak (332 per cent) compared to Sabah, which experienced a 269 per

cent increase in traffic accidents, but nonetheless was even higher than that experienced

by Peninsular Malaysia.


9



Table 3 Public safety conditions in Malaysia according to selectedindicators by state, 1990-2000

1990 2000Public safety indicators

P.M S’h S’k P.M S’h S’k

Crime rates/100,000 population

- Cases of murder

- Cases of robbery

- Narcotic cases

- Rape victims

1.5

36.2

62.2

3.5

4.7

6.7

8.0

6.0

1.2

3.2

0.9

2.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Traffic accidents/10,000 pop. 40.4 7.7 8.7 110.2 28.4 37.6

Fire breakouts/10,000 population 10.6 8.6 5.3 12.2 10.3 8.6

Note: P.M. = Peninsular Malaysia; S’h.= Sabah; S’k = Sarawak.

Source: Department of Statistics 1981; 1990.

The position of public safety condition with regards to traffic and fire incidents is

obvious, but what would the position of the other aspects of public safety that are

considered in this article be? Some people even considered them to be more serious and

received wide coverage in most print media. The Canny Ong abduction-rape-murder case

and the Noritta Shamsuddin murder case are but a few of such coverage that gripped and

shocked the whole nation. As official published data are unavailable, we produce

herewith some statistics made known by the Royal Malaysian Police or Polis Diraja

Malaysia (PDRM). It was revealed that in the first five months of the year 2003, on the

average, four women were raped each day whilst three murder cases occurred every two

days in Malaysia, in which Selangor, Johor and Kedah were the top three states having

most such cases.

The crime index for the first six months of the same year (2003) revealed by the

police, such as rape cases, crime and violent crimes had worsened when compared with

similar statistics over the same period the previous year (Table 4). The worsening

scenario was brought about by an increase in the number of crimes committed between

2002 and 2003 - from 10,141 to 12,149 i.e. an increase of about 20 per cent. Armed

robbery and armed gang robbery were the two most frequent crimes committed. This is


10



not surprising as their increase over the past decade (1990) was twofold from 32.7 to 63.1

per 100,000 population by the turn of the century (Table 1). What the statistics were

telling us was that the Malaysian public was faced with greater degree of insecurity as

they were exposed to and faced with higher crime rates and other threats to personal

safety.

Table 4 Reported cases of crimes in Malaysia in the first six months (Jan.-

June) of the year 2002 and 2003

Serious Crimes 2002 2003

Murder

Attempted murder

Gang robbery (with firearms)

Gang robbery (without firearms)Robbery (with firearms)

Robbery (without firearms)

Rape

Causing hurt

278

34

45

847234

5,764

684

2,246

293

42

31

1,053214

7,561

703

2,252

Total 10,141 12,149

Source: Lim (2003).

The statistics given and projected in the paper are stating the obvious – that the

condition of public safety in Malaysia has changed and worsened over the years. This

worsening condition has affected the quality of life of the people, which is beyond the

scope of this article to justify. Suffice to mention that Asmah (2000) in her study of

spatial inequality of well-being mentioned above, has shown that Selangor which fared

very well or topped the other states in terms of income, health, physical environment and

recreational well-being, has the overall well-being or welfare of its people marred simply

because of the condition of worst public safety that it had, so much so it managed to rank

only second highest after Negeri Sembilan in terms of overall quality of life index in

1990.


11



Notwithstanding that, it would be beneficial for us to compare the situation of

public safety in Malaysia with that of other nations surrounding it or that of the

developed world. According to the statistics provided by Interpol, the average crime

index for Malaysia is 624 cases per 100,000 population. This compares favourably to that

of the other nations: 7,475 cases (Australia), 5,004 cases (Switzerland), 2,250 cases

(Japan), 1,085 cases (Hong Kong) and 703 cases (Singapore) per 100,000 population

respectively ( Berita Harian October 22, 2004). With such statistics, it is concluded that

Malaysia is a country with the lowest crime rate and is one of the safest countries in the

world. We should not become complacent with this statement, because judging by the

incremental trend in the rates of the various public safety indicators discussed earlier, it is

high time we take stock of what are the causal factors behind such increase.

WHAT CAUSES THE DETERIORATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY IN

MALAYSIA?

To derive at a conclusion that Malaysian security albeit public safety is undergoing

changes for the worse and that it has never been able to withhold the almost crime-free

society of yester years means that plausible causes have to be found, identified and

explained, which shall be briefly done here.

What can be discerned from the trend of public safety in Malaysia is that the rapid

increase in some of the crime rates and other threats occurred simultaneously with the

rapid pace of development that the country was undergoing i.e. since mid-1970s to mid-

1980s. Malaysia was able to sustain its pace of development with Gross Domestic

Product (GDP) growing at an average of 6.7 per cent per annum during that period and

then further enjoyed a sustained high growth of 8.9 per cent per annum since then before

being punctuated by the economic downturn of 1997. The rapid growth of the economy

and the implementation of policies and strategies aimed at equitable income distribution

has led to an improvement of the overall average household income from RM1, 098 in

1985 to RM 2,007 in 1995. This has led to an increase in purchasing power and the

procurement of material well-being.


12



Economic growth is unachievable without improvement in infrastructure

particularly road network which is crucial for transport and communication, thus leading

to the transformation of the physical environment of the country. The latter as measured

by the degree of urbanization (percentage of population living in urban areas, with its

other meaning reflecting the degree of modernization and sophistication of the way of

life), road density and number of vehicles all pointed to increased rates over time. For

example, the percentage of urban population in Malaysia increased from less than 50 per

cent in 1990 to 62 percent in 2000.

Muira (2004) from his observation of the increasing number of criminal offences

and the juvenile crime rate in Japan blames it to the urbanization and suburbanisation of

Japan’s provinces, hence concluded that urbanization spurs crime rate. Gilbert (1999)

writing on urbanization and security argued otherwise i.e. no consistent or meaningful

relationship exists between the two. He postulated that the intervening variable of

economic development is probably a better explanation of both urbanization and security

than the latter are of one another.

However, we like to depart from the argument. This is because Asmah (2000)

found that Selangor was the most urbanized state in Malaysia with almost 88 per cent of

its population living in urban areas. Selangor was also found to have the highest crime

rate of 100 cases per 100,000 population in 1990 (the corresponding rate for Peninsular

Malaysia was 34 cases) as well as property crime rate of 693 cases per 100,000

population (364 cases for Peninsular Malaysia). One possible reason is that, the desire to

be in the mainstream lifestyle may have led some to resort to quicker way of getting rich,

hence resorting to robbery, either ganged or armed. Another reason could possibly be that

modernization brought with it complexity in human nature, resulting in a multitude of

misdemeanours and other serious misdoings.

Increased in road density, from 0.08 km/km2

in 1980 to 0.15 km in 1990 and

about 0.2 km in 2000 has led to a simultaneous increase in the number of motor vehicles

from 1,986 per 10,000 population in 1980 to 3, 213 per 10,000 population in 1990 and to

4,118 per 10,000 population in 2000. Statistics have shown that traffic accidents are on

the increase too. In a recent report in the New Straits Times (November 20, 2004), 29,244

people have died in road accidents since 2000, a figure which is 10 times more than were


13



killed in crimes. Mangled vehicles account for by far the highest toll of non-natural

deaths; greater than murder and suicide, heart disease and cancer. On the one hand, we

depend on vehicles for transport and convenience of movement, but on the other hand,

we are subjecting ourselves to mishaps, fatal or otherwise. So where do we go wrong?

Do we have ourselves to blame?

A Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia study team on road safety and accidents found

that human factor ranked highest as the causal factor of road accidents in Malaysia

accounting for 94.2 per cent as opposed to the surrounding environment (4.5 per cent)

and mechanical factor (1.3 per cent). The study also found that among the human factors,

negligence topped the list by causing 60 per cent of the accidents followed by the fault of

other motorists with 23.1 per cent (Utusan Malaysia November 18 , 2004).

CONCLUSION

Some of the plausible reasons such as urbanization, economic and infrastructural

development for the increase in the threat to physical safety of Malaysians have been

touched upon briefly in the preceding section. Also we have indicated that increase to the

threat to physical safety is discernable at the time when Malaysia is undergoing a rapid

pace of development particularly since it achieved its independence in 1957. Of particular

significance are robbery, narcotic cases or offences, traffic accidents and fire breakouts.

Does development as a process then warrant such an outcome? Are these phenomena the

cost that we have to pay for the so-called way forward?

A crime-free society is a peaceful society living in happiness with a secure well-

being. Hence, when its security is threatened and the risk to safety is ever on the increase,

its well-being is jeopardized – whereby its citizens are shrouded with fear of the lurking

threats and crimes. Public awareness towards the threat to their safety is manifested in the

way they fenced themselves with grills, in their homes, shops and offices or even had

others to guard over their worldly possessions. The recent initiative called the Safe City

Initiative by the Malaysian Crime Prevention Foundation (MCPF) is based on the

principle of age-old wisdom of prevention is better than cure. The approach is to design a

safe environment that curtails the opportunities to commit crime. Through this effort all


14



sectors are to cooperate in crime prevention through planning and designing of safe living

environment (in urban, residential, industrial, recreational, infrastructural development

etc.), community development and education in order to create a more alert and safety

conscious society. Until such time our well-being from the perspective of public safety is

still open to threats.

References

Asmah Ahmad. 2000. Ketaksamaan kesejahteraan sosial di Malaysia: suatu manifestasi

pembangunan tak seimbang? In Katiman Rostam et al. (eds.). Alam, manusia dan

pembangunan di Malaysia. Prosiding Seminar Kebangsaan Geografi, Jabatan

Geografi, FSKK, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. Pp. 129-144. Berita Harian.. 2004. 11 kegiatan jayakan Inisiatif Bandar Selamat. (Online). October 22.

Hlm 15.

http://aplikasi.kpkt.gov.my/akhbar.nsf/0/3884dbfd8cb51cf248256f35000flb87?Open Document. (09 December 2004).

Campbell, B. 1993. Goliath: Britain’s dangerous places. London: Methuen.

Carlisle, E. 1972. The conceptual structure of social indicators. In A. Shonfield and S.

Shaw. (eds.). Social indicators and social policy. London: Heinemann.Coates, B. E. et al. 1977. Geography and inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Department of Statistics. 1981. Social Statistics Bulletin Malaysia 1981. Kuala Lumpur:

Department of Statistics.Department of Statistics. 1990. Social Statistics Bulletin Malaysia 1990, Kuala Lumpur:

Department of Statistics.

Department of Statistics. 1993. District /State Data Bank, Malaysia 1991, Kuala Lumpur:

Department of Statistics.Department of Statistics. 1999. Social Statistics Bulletin Malaysia 1999, Kuala Lumpur:

Department of Statistics.Gilbert, A. 1999. Urbanization and security. Policy brief for Woodrow Wilson

International Center, Comparative Urban Study Project, Washington D. C.

Johnston, R. J. et al. 2000. The Dictionary of Human Geography, Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing Ltd.Komuniti Veteranian Malaysia. 2004. Kisah ROGOL. Panduan dan Informasi. (Online).

March 31. http://myveteran.org/ module.php?name=News&file=print&sid=882. (09

December 2004).Lim Kit Siang. 2003. Dasar Sosial Nasional, Komen media Pengerusi Kebangsaan DAP.

(Online). August 20.http://members.lycos.co.uk/minda2rakyat/info/030821_info_1.html . (13December 2004).

Lim Kit Siang. 2003. National Policing Plan to reduce crime and the fear of crime. Media

Statement. (Online). http://www.malaysia.net/dap/ils2425.htm . (09 December

2004).Miller, S. M.. et al. 1967. Poverty, inequality and conflict. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci.

2: 16-32.


15

http://aplikasi.kpkt.gov.my/akhbar.nsf/0/3884dbfd8cb51cf248256f35000flb87?Open

http://myveteran.org/module.php?name=News&file=print&sid=882


http://members.lycos.co.uk/minda2rakyat/info/030821_info_1.html

http://www.malaysia.net/dap/ils2425.htm

http://www.malaysia.net/dap/ils2425.htm

http://members.lycos.co.uk/minda2rakyat/info/030821_info_1.html


http://aplikasi.kpkt.gov.my/akhbar.nsf/0/3884dbfd8cb51cf248256f35000flb87?Open



Documents

The Changing Trend and Pattern of Public Safety In Malaysia Since Independence Implications to Its Socialwell-being