Statistics can paint illusions — Ravinder Singh

JULY 16 — That no less than the former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan found it necessary to comment on the crime statistics is a matter of concern. Statistics on anything can either show as nearly as possible the real situation, or they can be presented to show what one wants the audience to believe. It all depends on the purpose of producing and presenting them.

One thing is clear: no one would want statistics to point an incriminating finger at oneself, unless he is so upright that he is prepared to face the consequences of his neglect, inefficiency, failure to perform his duties, etc.
Rather, in our society today, the opposite is the norm and it has been refined into an art, i.e. creating illusions by going into denial mode in the false belief that constant repetition will make people believe that what is being dished out by those in authority must be the truth simply because they are the authority.

Police statistics, to a very great extent, depend on the frontliners who write down reports made by the public, and those investigating them. Thus the credibility of the statistics is only as good as the credibility of these persons, and maybe some others up the rank, and policies related to them.

One creative way to reduce crime statistics is by the use language when recording reports and taking statements or writing investigation papers.

In one case in Kulim some years back, a woman’s handbag was snatched by someone on a motorcycle. She proceeded to the police station to make a report. At that time police reports were required to apply for replacement of lost identity cards. She related the snatch-theft incident to the frontliner taking the report. Not being conversant in the Malay language, she signed the report without knowing what was actually recorded.

Some time later I had occasion to see the report and was shocked to note what was written. Instead of recording a criminal act, what was recorded was an act of carelessness. The Malay word for “snatch theft” is ragut, but the report stated tercicir, i.e. “dropped”. So, with the change of just one word a criminal act became an act of carelessness of the victim.

In another case in Sungai Petani, some time in the mid-80s, a person was injured by someone wielding a baton-like stick. He made a police report, and was then asked to see the IO (Investigating Officer) to record a statement. The person said he was beaten, and there was blood on him. When he was asked to sign the statement, he read through it and found that an extra word had been inserted by the IO. The person had said “telah memukul saya”, but what was written was “telah cuba memukul saya”, i.e. the attacker had attempted to beat him. The person insisted that it be corrected before signing the statement. Very obviously, the IO wanted to close the file at that stage by concluding there was no case.  

In the first case, the person taking the report was either a policeman/woman, or a corporal. In the second case, the person taking the statement (i.e. IO) was an inspector.

These incidents are likely to be dismissed by the powers that be as “isolated cases”. However, they tell a story, and a bad one. Statistics can give, or be made to give, a totally different picture from the reality. Take the case of school discipline. So many cases of gross indiscipline have come to light over the years, but the Education Ministry maintains the problem is not serious. So is school indiscipline merely a perception of the public, like the authorities make street crime out to be?

There are reasons for the statistics not showing the true picture. In the case of schools, indiscipline cases are investigated by the schools, and schools heads are responsible for reporting to the ministry. Which school head will admit that there is indiscipline in his school? If he were honest and admitted lack of discipline in his school, what would the consequences to his position as school head, of his chances of promotion? What would be the reputation of the school?

In the case of the police, if reports and statements were truthfully recorded, there would be extra work to do, i.e. to carry out investigations and prepare reports. If evidence were uncovered of wrongful acts, there will have to be prosecutions, i.e. more work. It would also add to the statistics of crime at the station concerned and those holding the fort would be pulled up to answer for the rising crimes in the area. Promotional chances of the personnel could be affected for being inefficient. Thus it is easier and beneficial to show efficiency through acts such as the above, for who could detect the manipulations. What a perfect game!

On a different front, it was a requirement of the higher-ups that led to the achievement of statistical requirements although the reality was different on the ground. In the ‘80s and ‘90s lecturers in teacher-training colleges were required to write reports when they failed any trainee. The reports had to detail all that was done by the lecturer to counsel, motivate and assist the student to achieve the required minimum standard for passing, and why the student could not achieve that. The rational of the Teacher Training Division then was that the colleges are training centres, and if the training is properly carried out, no one should fail. The fact that the raw material sent to the colleges should be of a certain standard was completely ignored. If a student failed, it was the lecturer’s fault, not the student’s. The consequence was that the lecturers would rather pass an unfit student and have no questions to answer, or be honest and have reports to write for each student they failed. In one case, a lecturer gave an “A” to everyone in the class and the higher-ups did not raise an eyebrow even though that class’ results in the other subjects did not reflect that the whole class was of “A”’ quality. So the statistics were excellent, but what was the quality of the teachers being sent out to schools? And what has been the consequence of this foolhardy policy?

It is time the authorities stopped dishing out a diet of statistics. People cannot stomach the statistics produced by authorities in a denial mode. While statistics about certain things may be reliable, there are others that can be manipulated to give a good feeling when the opposite is true. The case of school indiscipline is an excellent example, and police statistics on crime are no better. It is not the public’s perception that is wrong but the truthfulness of the statistics sent up to the leaders. The public surely does not have a skewed vision. What it does not have are the resources to collect data and produce statistics to counter the official statistics. But that does not mean the public is grossly wrong in its assessment of the situation on the ground, as against assessment by remote control from the ivory towers.