Crime data is more than a record of unlawful acts. It is a critical tool for shaping justice, safety and effective public policy.
In criminology, such data helps guide efforts to understand criminal behaviour, allocate resources and assess the impact of law enforcement and social interventions. Yet in Malaysia, access to crime data remains limited by institutional secrecy and a reluctance to embrace public scrutiny.
This lack of transparency hampers not just academic research but also informed policymaking, responsible journalism, and public understanding. Authorities often cite concerns over misinterpretation to justify data restrictions. While such concerns are not baseless, blanket secrecy is counterproductive. It breeds speculation, misinformation and mistrust – the very outcomes the restrictions are intended to prevent.
Malaysia urgently needs to adopt a more open, evidence-based approach. A real understanding of crime trends requires access to disaggregated, up-to-date and comprehensive data, including demographics of offenders and victims, geographic patterns, and judicial outcomes. Without this, we are left with anecdotal evidence and fragmented narratives that cannot support meaningful reform.
The consequences extend beyond academia. Limited access impedes the development of modern, proactive crime prevention strategies. Countries like the UK, US and several in Europe have embraced open criminal justice data, enabling innovations such as predictive policing, hotspot mapping and risk modelling. Civic tech organisations, journalists and researchers use this data to build public dashboards, conduct independent analysis and foster community engagement – enhancing operational effectiveness and trust.
Malaysia, however, remains behind. Crime data requests are frequently delayed or denied, and no centralised, public-facing crime statistics platform exists. This is more than a bureaucratic failure – it reflects a systemic weakness that undermines accountability and good governance.
As the country faces rising challenges such as cybercrime, gender-based violence and organised crime, access to accurate data is essential. Without it, responses risk being reactive, politically driven or misinformed.
Another pressing issue is how crime data is presented to the public. A typical police presentation relies on data comparing crime rates from the previous year to the current one, usually expressed in percentage terms. This simplistic, short-term comparison may serve internal purposes but offers little meaningful insight to the public.
Criminologists have long argued that such superficial year-on-year comparisons are insufficient. More relevant indicators such as crime rates per capita and geographically disaggregated patterns provide a clearer, more accurate picture of public safety. Reducing complex crime dynamics to a “5 per cent increase or decrease” does a disservice to public understanding. This is precisely where law agencies need to collaborate with qualified experts to communicate crime data more meaningfully.
Equally concerning is how crime data is analysed. When data is shared with academic institutions, the work must be led by qualified researchers with relevant expertise in criminology, sociology, law or related fields. Awarding research to unqualified groups undermines credibility and weakens the very policies such research is meant to support.
Departments commissioning such studies must safeguard the independence of the research. Attempts to shape or censor findings to protect institutional interests erode trust and distort outcomes. Integrity, independence and transparency must underpin any data analysis process. Internal analysts should be complemented by independent experts or oversight bodies to guard against institutional bias and lend credibility to findings.
There is also a democratic imperative at stake. In a functioning democracy, data is not the property of the state – it is a public good. Citizens have the right to know the realities of crime in their communities. Journalists, civil society groups and academics play a vital role in interpreting and contextualising this information. Restricting access weakens public oversight and diminishes the tools needed to hold institutions accountable.
The fear of data misuse must be addressed through safeguards, not censorship. Data can be anonymised to protect identities. Ethical and responsible-use frameworks can be established in collaboration with universities, non-governmental organisations and legal professionals. Transparency and control are not mutually exclusive – they can coexist when designed properly.
On the international stage, Malaysia’s lack of openness also damages its credibility. As the country seeks leadership within Asean and alignment with global frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it must meet benchmarks for transparency. SDG Goal 16 specifically calls for effective, accountable institutions and reliable access to crime and justice statistics. Without serious progress, Malaysia’s commitments will remain purely aspirational.
Encouragingly, calls for reform are on the rise. Academic institutions have repeatedly expressed frustration at restricted access. Journalists have highlighted how such barriers hinder reporting on domestic violence, trafficking and corruption. Even within parts of law enforcement and the judiciary, there is quiet recognition that greater transparency would improve both public trust and inter-agency cooperation.
This is a moment for leadership. The government can initiate a phased strategy toward openness, starting with non-sensitive data and gradually expanding through a centralised, secure platform. Crime statistics should be published regularly in anonymised form, accompanied by explanatory notes and visualisation tools to aid public understanding. Malaysia can also draw from regional and global models to guide this transition.
Ultimately, the reluctance to unlock crime data reflects a deeper conflict between institutional control and public accountability. But fear of transparency must not outweigh the far greater risks posed by misinformation, flawed policymaking and declining public confidence. A modern society cannot function without access to credible, objective information.
Unlocking crime data is not a threat; it is a necessity. For justice to work, for policies to matter, and for public trust to be restored, transparency must be the norm, not the exception. Malaysia Madani stands at a crossroads. It can either continue to shield institutions from scrutiny or take bold steps toward openness, evidence-based governance and meaningful reform.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of Twentytwo13.
