The recent statement by the Kelantan Police Chief that 252 sexual crime cases were reported in just one year, a 22.3% increase compared to the previous year has shocked many. More than 98% of the cases were consensual but are regarded as rape because the victims were minors. However, public responses particularly on social media tend to downplay the issue or blame external factors such as media influence or technology. Some have even politicised the report or argued that other states should have recorded higher numbers than Kelantan but have concealed the figures.

Based on various studies, there is a strong view that the real problem lies within the cultural roots of society, which refuses to acknowledge the reality of sexual abuse. This form of collective denial allows perpetrators to continue operating in silence, especially when the perpetrator is a family member.

A Culture of Preserving Image Over Truth

In many communities, particularly conservative ones, family image and honour are considered more important than justice for the victim. In such contexts, incest cases are concealed, victims are blamed, and perpetrators are protected to avoid bringing “shame” to the family. Some who report these crimes to the police feel pressured and eventually withdraw their complaints. While the decision to proceed lies at the discretion of the Public Prosecutor, such withdrawals can weaken the prosecution’s case, especially if the victim becomes reluctant or refuses to cooperate fully during trial.

The fact that many perpetrators are the victims’ fathers, stepfathers, uncles, or brothers further complicates the situation. Much of this stems from the desire to protect the family’s honour and avoid disgrace.

The refusal to acknowledge sexual abuse within society reflects a culture of collective denial that not only obscures the reality of such abuse but also impedes prevention efforts and justice particularly when the abuser is a respected figure within the family or community.

Social Hypocrisy and the Culture of Denial

Social hypocrisy and the culture of denial must be addressed seriously. Discussions about sexuality are often considered taboo. As a result, when sexual crimes occur, society is ill-prepared to address them maturely or objectively. A lack of understanding and a fear of open dialogue have led to widespread underreporting, with victims left to suffer in silence.

At times, society appears to trivialise sexual crimes compared to other offences, ignoring the voices of women and children. This trivialisation signals a lack of empathy and normalises sexual violence as a minor issue unworthy of serious attention or action. Such conditions create an unsafe environment for victims to come forward while offering impunity to perpetrators. Meanwhile, victims are left to grapple with societal stigma and lasting trauma.

Research shows that victims of sexual crimes particularly in incest cases suffer profound psychological effects such as depression, identity disorder, loss of trust in adults, long-term trauma, and suicidal thoughts. Social stigma further entraps victims in environments that hinder their recovery. In many cases, victims are forced into silence and are even blamed for tarnishing their family’s reputation.

Recommendations to Tackle Sexual Crimes

Based on the issues above, several recommendations may help address and reduce sexual crimes. First, sexual education should be introduced from preschool. It must not be viewed as a threat to morality but as a tool to empower individuals. The approach should be culturally sensitive but firm in delivering messages about bodily autonomy, consent, and self-protection.

Second, religious and social institutions must play an active role in conveying the message that sexual abuse must not be tolerated under the guise of family honour or harmony. Compassionate religious approaches that support victims and refuse to shield perpetrators are crucial to breaking the culture of silence and denial. It is vital to stress that protecting family honour must never be used as an excuse.

Third, policies and the justice system must be strengthened to resist social pressure or family interference. Perpetrators regardless of their status must be held accountable. Victim-friendly procedures should be fully implemented, and legal provisions on victim protection must be reviewed and reinforced. Family members, teachers, or others close to the victim who remain silent and fail to report sexual crimes should be held liable under the Penal Code to instil a sense of social responsibility and break the cycle of shame and denial.

Reporting on Sexual Crimes

Fourth, the media must act as a change agent by reporting on sexual violence responsibly, raise awareness, and provide a platform for victims’ voices without sensationalising them. The public must also be educated to show empathy toward victims and refrain from victim-blaming or pointing fingers at unrelated individuals.

In conclusion, the rise in incest and sexual crimes in Kelantan is not merely a criminal issue but reflects a deeper moral crisis within the society. As long as society continues to uphold hypocrisy and refuses to confront the reality of sexual abuse, these crimes will persist in silence. It is time to open our eyes, listen to victims, and implement comprehensive reforms to ensure that every individual can live in a safe, dignified, and violence-free environment. – NMH

Also By The Same Writer:
Serial Killers: Do They Exist In Malaysia?

Jenayah Paksa Trend Pemerdagangan Manusia Di Rantau Asia Tenggara

The post Sexual Crimes And Incest: A Criminological Analysis Of Its Rise Here first appeared on NMH.

Buat masa kini, seksyen 2 Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 (ATIPSOM) tidak mendefinasikan jenayah paksa secara jelas sebagai satu bentuk eksploitasi. Namun begitu, terdapat ungkapan ‘apa–apa aktiviti yang menyalahi undang–undang’ dan ini boleh merangkumi eksploitasi melalui jenayah paksa. Walaubagaimanapun, pindaan dan penjelasan jenayah paksa di dalam ATIPSOM perlu dilakukan dengan mengambil kira pelbagai bentuk jenayah yang semakin canggih dengan penggabungan teknologi seperti Kecerdasan Buatan (AI) dalam operasi jenayah terancang.

Salah satu bentuk pemerdagangan yang semakin menonjol di Asia Tenggara dan Malaysia khususnya sejak tiga tahun kebelakangan ini ialah pemaksaan individu untuk terlibat dalam operasi penipuan kewangan berskala besar yang seringkali melibatkan jenayah siber seperti penipuan dalam talian, pemerasan dan pengubahan wang haram. 

Mangsa Jenayah Paksa

Mengikut Timbalan Pengarah JSJ Risikan Operasi Bukit Aman, Datuk Fadil Marsus dalam satu sidang media baru-baru ini, PDRM telah berjaya menyelamatkan 504 warga Malaysia dari Thailand, Myanmar, Kemboja, dan negara – negara lain daripada terus menjadi mangsa jenayah paksa. Namun begitu, hanya sekitar 10% disahkan sebagai mangsa pemerdagangan yang sebenarnya manakala sebahagian besar lagi merupakan individu yang telah secara sukarela menjadi ‘scammer’ dan hanya meminta diselamatkan selepas diugut atau didera kerana gagal mencapai sasaran keuntungan yang ditetapkan. Ada juga diantara mereka yang menjadi ejen dan merekrut warga Malaysia untuk menjadi ‘scammer’ di luar negara. Mereka ini juga dikatakan tidak memberi kerjasama dengan pihak berkuasa setelah pulang ke tanahair. 

Fenomena ini semakin membimbangkan kerana jenayah paksa ini berlaku di pelbagai lokasi yang sah dan tidak sah seperti kasino, hotel, pusat hiburan, dan premis yang didaftarkan secara rasmi sebagai perniagaan. Banyak operasi ini dijalankan dalam kawasan tertutup atau berpagar, di mana mangsa dikurung dan dipaksa menjalankan jenayah siber seperti penipuan kewangan antarabangsa.

Tawaran Pekerjaan Lumayan

Sindiket jenayah ini memanipulasi kelemahan mangsa termasuk mereka yang mudah terpedaya dengan tawaran pekerjaan lumayan di luar negara. Namun, terdapat juga individu yang secara sukarela menjadi sebahagian daripada sindiket ini sebelum akhirnya terjerat dalam eksploitasi dan penderaan apabila gagal mencapai sasaran keuntungan yang ditetapkan oleh sindiket.

Terdapat dua senario yang jelas dalam keadaan ini. Pertama, individu yang telah diperdaya dan menjadi mangsa tetapi kemudiannya beralih menjadi ejen atau perekrut. Dalam hal ini, individu tersebut mungkin telah diperdaya atau dipaksa untuk menjadi ‘scammer’, namun setelah melihat pendapatan lumayan dari kegiatan ‘scam’, individu tersebut memilih untuk kekal dan menjadi sebahagian daripada sindiket secara sukarela. Kedua, individu tersebut telah diperdaya dengan tawaran pekerjaan sah dan kemudiannya dipaksa untuk melakukan jenayah seperti penipuan dalam talian tanpa sebarang pilihan untuk keluar dari kitaran eksploitasi.

Rumah Perlindungan

Mengikut ATIPSOM, mereka yang telah dikenalpasti sebagai mangsa pemerdagangan orang boleh mendapat Perintah Perlindungan Sementara dan ditempatkan di Rumah Perlindungan selama 21 hari sementara siasatan kes dijalankan. Dalam hal ini, Malaysia mempunyai 10 buah rumah perlindungan yang menempatkan mangsa pemerdagangan yang terdiri dari warganegara Malaysia dan warga asing.

Program yang dijalankan di Rumah Perlindungan ini banyak berbentuk psiko-sosial, kerohanian, pendidikan dan jasmani. Malah, program – program yang dijalankan di Rumah Perlindungan oleh Kementerian Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Masyarakat serta NGO lain amat menitiberatkan keadaan mental mangsa dengan mengambil kira trauma yang telah mereka lalui. Namun begitu, perlu ada juga program yang dikhaskan untuk mereka yang dikategorikan sebagai mangsa jenayah paksa kerana pengalaman dan trauma yang dilalui oleh mereka mungkin berbeza dari mereka yang telah dieksploitasi untuk seks dan buruh. Dalam konteks ini, program yang berteraskan psiko-sosial boleh dilakukan dirumah mangsa atau di suatu tempat yang sesuai sekiranya mereka tidak ingin tinggal di Rumah Perlindungan. Ini dapat membantu mangsa pulih dan berintegrasi semula dengan masyarakat. 

Tiga Cabaran

Walaupun usaha bersepadu membanteras jenayah paksa digerakkan di peringkat serantau, terdapat tiga cabaran utama yang timbul. Pertama, kekeliruan konsep pemerdagangan orag dimana ramai yang masih mengehadkan pemerdagangan orang kepada buruh paksa dan eksploitasi seksual, sedangkan eksploitasi untuk jenayah juga diiktiraf secara global. Kedua, kesukaran menyiasat dan mendakwa mereka yang terlibat, Ini kerana sindiket beroperasi merentasi sempadan dengan struktur kompleks serta teknologi canggih yang menyukarkan tindakan undang-undang diambil terhadap mereka. Ketiganya, kurangnya kerjasama undang-undang antarabangsa. Walaupun Malaysia menyertai “Bali Process,” kejayaan membanteras jenayah ini memerlukan kerjasama rentas negara yang lebih kukuh termasuk bantuan bersama dalam siasatan jenayah dan ekstradisi.

Sebagai penutup, menangani isu jenayah paksa ini memerlukan kesepaduan antara pendekatan penguatkuasaan undang-undang yang lebih holistik, pemahaman mendalam tentang dinamik pemerdagangan untuk jenayah paksa, serta memperkukuh kerjasama antarabangsa. Hanya dengan gabungan usaha ini rantau Asia Tenggara mampu memutuskan rantaian eksploitasi jenayah paksa yang semakin mencengkam ini. – NMH

Also read:

Serial Killers: Do They Exist In Malaysia?

The post Jenayah Paksa Trend Pemerdagangan Manusia Di Rantau Asia Tenggara first appeared on NMH.

A serial killer is generally defined as someone who murders three or more victims over an extended period, with distinct intervals between each crime. The defining features are consistent: these killings are typically calculated, recurring, and fuelled by psychological motives.

While serial killing is a well-documented phenomenon in Western countries, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom, the existence and understanding of serial killers in Malaysia remain limited and underexplored. This may be due to differences in law enforcement classification systems, media framing, and cultural variations in violent crime reporting.

Identifying Serial Killers

Moreover, serial killers are often only identified when law enforcement detects a pattern across multiple murders, linking them through consistent methods, victimology, or other signature elements. Without such pattern recognition, cases may be treated as isolated homicides, delaying or even preventing the identification of a serial offender. Currently, Malaysia’s legal and policing systems tend to categorise repeat offenders as recidivists or “bola hitam” (in prison) rather than applying the “serial killer” label.

In Malaysia, factors such as strong familial and community ties, religious and cultural prohibitions, lower homicide rates compared to other Southeast Asian countries, and strict firearm regulations are frequently cited as societal deterrents.

Nonetheless, isolated cases have exhibited characteristics of serial murders. Notable examples include P. Kalimuthu (“Bentong Kali”), a notorious gang member linked to at least 17 murders, although most were gang-related rather than serial in the psychological sense. Similarly, Lee Chow Meng, convicted for a series of violent crimes in the 1980s, including rape, murder, and robbery, was ultimately sentenced for a single homicide. Although these cases may not fully align with Western definitions of serial killing driven by psychopathy or compulsion, they exhibit elements of premeditation, victim targeting, and repeated violent behaviour.

Common Traits

Globally, serial killers tend to display common traits such as early-life trauma, psychopathy or antisocial tendencies, a compulsion for control or domination, and the selection of specific victim types. Their crimes are often driven by psychological gratification, deep-seated fantasies, or perceived grievances. They also frequently exploit marginalized or less visible groups, complicating detection and apprehension efforts.

A persistent issue surrounding serial killing is its tendency to be romanticized rather than universally condemned. Disproportionate attention is often given to the killer’s psyche and methods, overshadowing the suffering of victims and compounding the trauma experienced by their families, who must witness the public sensationalisation of these criminals.

While extensive research on serial killers has been conducted in the U.S., U.K., and other Western nations, limited academic focus has been placed on understanding what motivates serial killers in Malaysia, or how local cases might differ in context and execution from those in the West. As a result, local discourse tends to borrow heavily from Western criminological frameworks, often overlooking Malaysia’s cultural and societal nuances.

Theories

This over-reliance on Western-centric theories risks mischaracterising Malaysian offenders and limits the development of culturally responsive prevention and intervention strategies.

There is therefore an urgent need for localised research that critically examines serial killings within Malaysia’s unique socio-cultural and criminological context. By moving beyond Western frameworks and focusing on context-specific motivations, patterns, and offender profiles, we can foster a more accurate understanding of serial homicide in Malaysia, enhance victim-centred approaches, and inform more effective law enforcement and policy responses. – NMH

Editor’s Note: Watch this space for the next segment by Dr Haezreena on Crime and Enforcement

The post Serial Killers: Do They Exist In Malaysia? first appeared on NMH.

Terrorism is a crime of the most heinous nature, often equated with war crimes or crimes against humanity due to its devastating impact on society. While a universal definition of terrorism remains elusive, the United Nations provides a widely accepted interpretation, defining it as:

“Any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”

This definition underscores the deliberate targeting of civilians and the use of violence as a tool to instil fear, achieve political objectives, or exert coercion, marking terrorism as a profound violation of human rights and international norms.

This definition also does not reference any specific religion, class, or creed. This omission reflects the principle that terrorism and criminality are not tied to any particular faith, ideology, or demographic. However, there is a widespread perception that the fear of terrorism is synonymous with a fear of those practicing Islam or adhering to other religions. The stereotype that “all terrorists are Muslim,” or worse, that “all Muslims are terrorists,” is not only factually incorrect but also inherently racist.

Conflating Terrorism With Islam On A Global Scale

Some commentators perpetuate this misconception by demonising Muslims and claiming that Islam is incompatible with Western democratic values. This conflation of terrorism with Islam fosters intolerance, discrimination, and prejudice against Muslims on a global scale. Alarmingly, such views have taken root not only in the West but also among individuals from non-Western backgrounds, including academics, activists, and religious leaders.

The conflation of terrorism with Islam fosters intolerance, discrimination, and prejudice against Muslims on a global scale

It is crucial to recognize that acts of terrorism have been committed by individuals from diverse faiths and backgrounds, often driven by motives such as revenge, retaliation, or the promotion of specific ideologies. Broadly attributing terrorism to a single religion is not only unjust but also counterproductive in fostering mutual understanding and combating terrorism effectively.

Religion is often defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, typically involving devotional practices, rituals, and a moral code that governs human behaviour. Terrorism, on the other hand, is an action or threat aimed at influencing governments or intimidating the public to advance political, religious, or ideological agendas.

While religion is generally seen as a guiding framework to embrace a particular set of beliefs, in Malaysia, religions are largely practiced in ways that emphasize peace, tolerance, and harmony. Acts of violence, including terrorism, extremism, hate, and discrimination, are considered fundamentally incompatible with the tenets of religious practices in Malaysia and the principles enshrined in the Federal Constitution. As such, terrorism is viewed as a grave offence under Malaysian law.

Serious Crimes

Under Section 130 (Part VIa) of the Penal Code, acts of terrorism are classified as serious crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the High Courts of Malaya (Malaysia). Specifically, Section 130C(1) of the Penal Code prescribes severe penalties: individuals who commit terrorist acts that result in death may face the death penalty, while other terrorist acts are punishable with imprisonment for a term ranging from seven to thirty years, along with the possibility of a fine.

This legal framework reflects Malaysia’s commitment to maintaining peace and addressing acts of terrorism with utmost seriousness. Within the scope of Section 130 of the Penal Code, certain offences may be construed as crimes of strict liability, although the interpretation of strict liability depends on judicial precedents. For instance, under Section 130JB(1), a person found in possession, custody, or control of any item associated with a terrorist group or the commission of a terrorist act—whether through providing, displaying, distributing, or selling such items—faces penalties including imprisonment for up to seven years, a fine, and the forfeiture of the items in question.

This stringent prohibition underscores the gravity of terrorism-related crimes, such as acting as money carriers (mules), financing terrorism, promoting terrorist groups or their ideologies, or possessing terrorism-related materials. These offences are considered highly detrimental to public safety and security, emphasizing the seriousness with which they are addressed under Malaysian law. Thus, terrorism and related offences are classified as crimes of the highest order, adjudicated by the criminal High Courts rather than the Shariah Courts, as they are not considered to be religious crimes.

Factually & Historically Inaccurate

While deviations from Islamic faith practices may fall within the jurisdiction of Syariah Courts, such deviations do not equate to acts of terrorism. Any conflation of religion, particularly Islam, with terrorism is both factually and historically inaccurate. Terrorism transcends boundaries of colour, race, gender, religion, and creed, manifesting as acts of indiscriminate and incomprehensible violence. Recognizing this distinction is essential to preventing the spread of prejudice and ensuring that terrorism is addressed as a universal threat to peace and humanity.

Given the clear jurisdiction of terrorism offences under the Malaysian criminal courts, it is crucial that rehabilitation and deradicalisation programs address the behaviour and criminal acts of perpetrators rather than focusing solely on their ideologies.

The Federal Constitution guarantees the freedom of belief, and being labelled a radical does not inherently constitute a crime, nor does holding radical beliefs necessarily result in criminal behaviour. Furthermore, there is no precise legal definition of “radicalism,” in the Malaysian law as it remains a subjective and personal label. Assuming that correcting an individual’s ideology is the sole method of rehabilitation perpetuates the misconception that Islam equates to terrorism and vice versa. This notion is as flawed as suggesting that prisoners or criminals inherently lack proper ideology or faith, ignoring the reality that even devout individuals have committed crimes. While theological perspectives can address misconceptions about religion, the inclination to commit crime and violence requires specialized treatment by professionals such as criminologists, sociologists, psychologists, therapists, and counsellors within structured rehabilitation and deradicalisation programs.

To move forward, it is essential to end the conflation of terrorism or violence with religion. Programs aimed at rehabilitating individuals involved in terrorism should be tailored to address their criminal behaviour and psychological tendencies, ensuring they no longer pose a threat to society. Ultimately, terrorism must be viewed and treated as an act of crime and not dependent on religion or ideology per se because it is, and will always remain, a criminal act. – NMH

Also read:

What I think of Zakir Naik

 2024: End Of A Crappy Trilogy

The post Terrorism Should Not Be Conflated With Religion first appeared on NMH.