Iktibar perbezaan pandangan wacana dunia dan lokal tentang status keselamatan bandar Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract

The understanding of urban safety assessments is somewhat confusing, and conflicting conclusions often arise between international and local discourse. Observing the city of Kuala Lumpur (KL), Malaysia, foreign discourse evaluates KL as a ‘medium low-safe city’ (below average). However, local discourse sees KL as a safe city that is highly suitable to live in. Accordingly, this study attempts to understand the extent to which differences exist between international and local discourse in evaluating the safety of the city of KL, and what perceptions can be understood from an examination of the discourse of both parties. This article adopts a case study method based on comparison matrixes, distance from mean values and score analysis. The results show that international institutions view the topic from a broader perspective (usually from an economic, investment and tourism perspective), and evaluate KL according to five aspects of security, namely public safety, personal, health, infrastructure and digital. Meanwhile, local scholars focus on more local factors, and their approach involves the needs of the population, namely the implementation of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, crime prevention and the effectiveness of safe city programmes. However, it was found that the rating of KL city as a ‘medium low-safe city’ in the eyes of the world receives less attention from the locals, as long as their lives are prosperous, and criminal cases kept at a controlled level around them. In the opinion of researchers, differences of opinion should be regarded as instructive and should not be underestimated, while adaptation to the fear of crime should be studied. This study is the first to contribute a comparison between the world and local perspectives on the concept of a safe city in Malaysia, specifically, the city of KL.