From P Sundramoorthy
The assassination attempt on a Malaysian border control and protection agency (AKPS) commander in Bukit Kayu Hitam represents a stark and dangerous escalation in the tactics used by criminals to resist law enforcement and challenge the rule of law.
While Nasaruddin Nasir escaped unscathed, the incident wasn’t random—it was planned.
From a criminological perspective, this attempted assassination must be understood not merely as an isolated act of violence but as a symptom of deeper dynamics between organised crime, border enforcement and state authority.
The Bukit Kayu Hitam crossing is one of Malaysia’s busiest land checkpoints, a vital conduit for legitimate trade and travel as well as a focal point for illicit activity, including smuggling of goods, contraband and undocumented migration.
The sophistication of criminal syndicates operating in and around these border zones is well documented: such networks are highly adaptive, employ covert surveillance and respond aggressively when enforcement measures disrupt their profits or operations.
Police investigators are exploring whether the assault was retaliation linked to AKPS seizures of contraband including large hauls of rice and pork and a series of arrests of smugglers and migrant traffickers in the area. Preliminary inquiries suggest that criminals may have struck back after their smuggling operations were repeatedly thwarted by intensified enforcement efforts.
This context is critical: targeted violence against law enforcement, especially attempts on their lives, is not characteristic of petty or spontaneous crime but rather suggests organised actors willing to use lethal force to deter further policing.
Criminologists categorise such violence as instrumental aggression where strategic violence intends to influence the behaviour of authorities by instilling fear, reducing enforcement pressure or exacting retribution.
Unlike expressive violence, which is driven by emotion or personal grievances, instrumental violence is rooted in rational calculation: it aims to preserve criminal markets, safeguard supply chains and reinforce the reputation of syndicates as powerful and untouchable. The choice of a semi-automatic firearm and a motorcycle approach—tactics commonly used in ambushes—underscores the premeditation and training behind the act.
The targeting of a senior officer is particularly alarming. Law enforcement officers are symbols of state authority; attacks on them carry implications far beyond the individual. Such assaults corrode institutional legitimacy, embolden criminal networks and discourage frontline personnel. If unchecked, they can erode the very foundations of law and order.
From a criminological perspective, normalising violence against officers can precipitate a spiral of violence where both criminals and enforcement agents escalate tactics, increasing the likelihood of further bloodshed and destabilisation.
Society at large must respond firmly to such violent incursions. There are three intertwined imperatives here: moral, legal and strategic.
Morally, the attempted assassination is unconscionable; it ought to be condemned unequivocally by all levels of society. Law enforcement officers are tasked with protecting the public and upholding laws that safeguard every citizen.
When members of the public or criminal entities seek to harm those officers, they strike at the social contract itself — the agreement through which citizens collectively empower the state to ensure safety, security, and justice. Civil society must reaffirm its support for the principle that no dispute with the law warrants violent retaliation.
Legally, the incident underscores the necessity of robust statutory frameworks that punish the use of violence against officers with the utmost severity. Malaysian law already contains provisions, such as the Firearms Act, to penalise discharging a firearm with intent to cause death or injury, especially against law enforcement personnel.
However, legal frameworks must be enforced with rigour and accompanied by investigative resources and forensic capacities able to trace and apprehend perpetrators swiftly. The near-immediate launch of operations to track suspects and the activation of enhanced security measures at national entry points affirm that authorities take the matter seriously; swift justice will be essential not only for this case but also to deter future targeting of officers.
Strategically, enforcement agencies need to reassess protective measures for personnel operating in high-risk environments. Discussions within AKPS about deploying bodyguards or enhanced protective assets for commanders and frontline officers reflect a necessary evolution in threat assessments.
In an era where organised crime adapts rapidly, enforcement agencies must harness both defensive and offensive capacities from better protective equipment and intelligence sharing to community engagement that disrupts criminal networks’ social support structures.
Beyond the enforcement realm, the public should recognise the broader societal cost of attacks on law enforcement. When officers are targeted, community safety is imperilled. Response times may slow, morale may falter, and the everyday public could feel less secure.
The moral obligation then is not confined to condemning the act but also supporting policies and community partnerships that prevent criminal penetration and violence at all levels.
In conclusion, the assassination attempt is a clarion call to law enforcement, policymakers and citizens alike that violence against those who uphold the rule of law cannot be tolerated.
P Sundramoorthy is a criminologist at the Centre for Policy Research at Universiti Sains Malaysia and an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
