The Reason why Malaysians are unsafe

One simple reason, the Inspector General of Police or IGP.

His name is Tan Sri Musa Hassan and he believes ( or he wants everyone else to believe) that the crime rate in Malaysia is very much under control and that it is only the "public's mispeception" that it is unsafe in Malaysia.

Does he have any proof to back that claim up? Of course! His stats say that there are 772 crimes for every 100,000 residents and that this ratio compared favourably with Hong Kong where there were 1,166 cases for every 100,000 residents, Japan 1,569 cases and Australia 4,470 cases.

He goes on to point out then, that Malaysia is SAFER than Hong Kong, Japan and Australia!
Of course the Opposition has called the crime index a lie and claimed that in actual fact...

Homicide(per 100,000): Japan - 1.09, Hong Kong - 0.26, Malaysia - 2.12
Rape(per 100,00): Japan - 1.62, Hong Kong -1.54, Malaysia - 11.47
Robbery(per 100,00) : Japan - 4.78, Hong Kong - 17.56, Malaysia - 90.49

Again who does he think he is fooling? We don't even need statistics to know that Malaysia is way worse than any of those countries. But it seems like the Cabinet Ministers and National Economic Council believed him. What then does that say about them?

Since Musa is so fond of vague statistics, I have one for him. On the date I wrote this article 4th December 2008, I visited three sites. They were the major online newspaper for Malaysia, Japan and Hong Kong. I took the top stories for the day and highlighted the ones which are about crime and criminal activities.

As you can see, out of 24 top stories in Malaysia, 9 of them are about crime as compared to only 3 both in Japan and Hong Kong. Thats 300% more crime in Malaysia! I know this is a silly way to compare crime rate but I still think it is more reliable than Musa's pulled-out-of-the-arse crime index.

Mine is Bigger than Yours - a study

Abstract: A scientific study conducted to compare the absolute size of bodily organs between subject A (me) and subject B (Malaysia’s Inspector General of Police).

Methodology:

PART A

1. Place entire mass of subject B into beaker M (for Malaysia).

2. Carefully remove “Common Sense” as well as remaining “Lateral and Critical Thinking” from subject.

3. Place entire mass of subject A into same beaker.

4. Prepare a liquid mixture of

· 1/2g of acidic politics.

· 5g of unsterilized money.

· 100ml of crime preheated to melting point.

4. Pour the prepared liquid mixture into the beaker at various intervals for 2 years.

5. Monitor and record the response.

PART B

1. Expose beaker M to beaker J (Japan) and beaker HK (Hong Kong)

2. Monitor and record the response.

Results:

After 2 years of continuous exposure, Subject B has shown to posses the ability to react exothermically with the liquid mixture to form a layer of sludge which lets out a pungent odor.

Subject B seems to be able to neutralize the 100ml of crime but has preferred instead to develop a barrier to filter out the amount of crime it can absorb. This barrier has been dubbed “Shield of Ignorance”.

Subject A seems to have been gravely affected by all this but seems determined to grow and develop regardless.

In part B of the experiment, Subject A has shown a great attraction to the particles in beaker J and HK, which is not surprising seeing as they both have a more ideal environment in which to grow in.

Subject B however, produced a statistical study outlining that beaker M has a much better environment compared to J and HK and presented it to everyone.

Discussion:

Subject B has shown very peculiar actions unlike that in which was previously predicted. Subject B has been created solely for the purpose of neutralizing the ingredients in the liquid mixture. But it seems that it is more concerned with protecting itself and allowing Subject A to take the brunt of the damage. It is thought that exposure to the more ideal environments would prompt Subject B to act accordingly but instead it has ignored the other beakers and has gone so far as to further produce a statistical lie to save itself.

Conclusion:

In conclusion Subject B is totally useless and has testosities which are inferior to that of Subject A.

In layman’s term MY BALLS ARE BIGGER THAN TAN SRI MUSA’s. I am not afraid to acknowledge that the crime rate in Malaysia is worsening and I also have the decency to not lie about it. I do not say that high crime rate is “just the perception of the public” and be stupidly complacent with the situation of the country as it stands now. I do not mess with the statistics and say that Malaysia is safer than Hong Kong or Japan! Why is Tan Sri Musa the inspector general of the police anyway? He is just a frail old douche who doesn’t care about public safety. I bet as a kid he was horrible at playing hide-and-seek. When it’s his turn to be seeker instead of looking for the hiders, he would go around convincing his other friends that he found everyone, although he never did.