COMMENT For all the terrible crimes Malaysia has to endure, we used to be able to say, "At least there aren't a whole lot of gun crimes."

We may not have been at the level of Great Britain, where police aren't even armed, but we are definitely miles away from places with endemic gun crimes, like the many cities in the United States.

Now, we have lost even that.

MP Sim Tze Sin calculates that in July 2013 alone, we saw 23 shootings, 10 of which were fatal. Victims range from everyday working folk to banking tycoons.

Nearly all Malaysian crises are followed almost immediately by the media blame game. This has proved no different.

Fallacious logic, no proof

The police and authorities jumped on the opportunity to shout: "This is all because we no longer have the Emergency Ordinance and preventive detention!"

This logic is as flawed as it is fallacious.

NONE Firstly, while the police make wild claims about the correlation between preventive detention and a rise in crime, they have failed completely to provide convincing statistical proof of any substance whatsoever.

When federal CID director Hadi Ho Abdullah was asked to provide statistics of how many of those arrested are previous EO detainees, Hadi said he would " consider releasing the statistics at a later date". How very convenient.

Take as well the example of the shooting case involving a man many major news outlets immediately branded as an "ex-EO detainee".

This man was detained under the EO three times.

The police will have us believe that it is because the EO no longer exists that this man is out in the public, shooting people.

Again, a convenient line of reasoning (for them). However, let us think about this a little harder.

Failed systems

This man was detained without trial three times. Three times they arrested him, threw him in Simpang Renggam, in all likelihood forgot about him, and eventually released him some time later.

I have written recently that a major problem with preventive detention without trial is that it makes law enforcement lazy.

Why collect sufficient evidence to charge someone when you can much more easily just say, "Yes, we believe he is guilty, because, you know, something in our gut tells us so. So let's lock him up."

Note as well that once you are detained under a law like the EO, you essentially have no hope of judicial review: the courts can't help you. You sit and suffer for as long as the police want you to - theirs is an absolute power, with absolutely no checks or balance.

Going by this logic, why do we need to try criminals in court at all? The way they talk, it's as if the cops believe that trials are for pansies and losers.

Coming back to our three-time EO detainee. So, three times this man was detained, and three times the police apparently either failed or did not bother to gather sufficient evidence to charge and convict him in court.

Is it not as logical if not more to assume that had the police instead succeeded in securing a proper conviction for this man, he might have been serving a proper, longer sentence in jail?

Why is it that the police believe that the better path is instead to put such a man into a system he has already been through thrice already, and come out just the same as before? This looks to me to be a complete failure of the multiple levels of our justice system.

Perhaps the police feel that the solution is to give themselves the power to keep such a man detained without trial for his whole life. However, the question then is, do you feel safe giving the police power to lock you up for life without ever having the chance to prove your innocence?

Better solutions

Detention without trial violates basic human rights and runs afoul of the very concept of a civilised society. For us as a nation, travelling down such a path will end only in perdition.

If the problem is that we have insufficient or disproportionately assigned police, then increase or reassign the police. (I hesitate to say that if the problem is inadequate equipment, because that very easily becomes a crony-enriching buying spree).

If the problem is that it is too difficult to secure a conviction, then firstly, train, enable and empower our police to become better at gathering evidence.

Some might say that if the burden of proof in a court of law is too high, then have the legislature lower the burden of proof. Such a discourse is extremely controversial, for good reason, but talking about this is probably at least marginally better than talking about locking up people who will never be given a chance to defend themselves in court.

Corruption lets guns into the country

The other major question in this controversy is: how are these guns coming into the country?

In pondering this question, the most likely answer that comes to mind is: the same way anything illegal comes into the country.

Corruption has reached such a level in Malaysia that I doubt anyone believes there is anything you can't smuggle in on a big scale with a big enough bribe - drugs, sex slaves, and now, guns.

The same culture that induces us to bribe our way out of a speeding ticket has so entered the lifeblood of Malaysia that we are effectively unable to protect our borders against elements that will literally bring death to our doorsteps.

None of the authorities seem willing to acknowledge this, pointing instead to preventive detention and spending our energies yelling at foreign newspapers for telling it like it is in Malaysia.

As has been pointed out, the authorities also seem to have contradicted themselves regarding the question of whether we are seeing an increase in crime (due, as they say, to the end of preventive detention), or whether it is all "perception."

If those in power spent half the time they did scolding people for creating "bad perceptions" on actually focusing on improving their work, and if we stop letting the cycle of corruption poison our society, then we will stand a fighting chance of combating crime effectively and once again keeping guns off our streets.

NATHANIEL TAN tweets @NatAsasi.