The recent revelations about covert operations against major drug cartels have triggered an important national debate, one that goes beyond political rhetoric and touches the core of criminological reasoning: how should Malaysia balance the necessity of operational secrecy with the public’s legitimate demand for transparency?

This question is not merely administrative or procedural. It goes to the heart of what makes drug enforcement effective, credible and professionally grounded in a modern crime-control environment.

Drug syndicates today are not amateur groups operating in isolation. They are highly organised, technologically sophisticated and deeply networked across borders. Many function like multinational corporations, complete with specialised roles, advanced logistics, professional money launderers and violent enforcement arms. Their operations often transcend jurisdictions, exploiting differences in national laws, enforcement capabilities and border controls.

In this context, Malaysia’s law enforcement agencies cannot rely solely on visible policing or intermittent raids. They must use intelligence-led strategies, undercover work, controlled deliveries, cyber-surveillance and long-term infiltration. These methods form the backbone of contemporary criminological practice in combating organised crime.

It is for this reason that working “behind the curtains” is not only common but essential. Premature disclosure can compromise deep-cover investigations that may have taken years to develop.

Revealing operational details too early risks tipping off syndicates, enabling them to destroy evidence, move assets or relocate key operatives. It can also endanger informants, many of whom operate under immense personal risk, and expose enforcement personnel to retaliation.

Criminologically, secrecy is thus not a shield for incompetence but a tactical necessity that allows the state to understand criminal structures from the inside before dismantling them. Covert operations also allow authorities to build strong, prosecutable cases.

Successful anti-cartel strategies worldwide – from Italy’s fight against the Mafia to DEA operations against Latin American cartels – show that real progress occurs when enforcement targets leadership structures and financial networks, not only the foot soldiers who are easily replaced.

Secrecy gives investigators the time to trace money-laundering flows, intercept communications, map organisational hierarchies and gather evidence linking kingpins to trafficking activities. These approaches weaken cartels structurally and disrupt their operations in a sustained way, rather than producing symbolic, short-lived arrests that fail to change the broader criminal landscape.

It is in this context that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s recent remarks on drug cartels carry significant criminological weight. His firm statement that he “cannot tolerate major drug cartel operating for decades” reflects not only political frustration but an acknowledgement of systemic shortcomings that allowed such groups to flourish over time.

Cartels that survive for decades do so not by accident. They benefit from institutional blind spots, regulatory loopholes and, at times, corruption that shields them from serious disruption. By declaring his refusal to accept this status quo, the prime minister signalled the need for a structural and cultural shift in enforcement priorities.

His insistence on confronting these long-standing threats provides essential political cover for intelligence-led operations and reinforces the message that dismantling entrenched syndicates is not merely a policing task but part of a broader project to restore the integrity of Malaysia’s criminal justice system.

At the same time, secrecy cannot become absolute, nor can it be allowed to transform into institutional opacity.

Once operations are successfully concluded and cases enter the judicial phase, there are no criminological or operational reasons to withhold key information.

In this regard, the prime minister was right to question the lack of clarity surrounding past missions and to raise his legitimate concerns. When the state claims success, it must be prepared to substantiate that success with evidence. Transparency at this stage does not compromise future investigations; instead, it enhances institutional legitimacy.

The public deserves to know what exactly was achieved: which cartels were disrupted, how many members were arrested, what quantities of drugs were confiscated, and how many cases were charged and ended in convictions.

Such disclosures allow citizens to assess the performance of enforcement agencies and ensure that anti-drug campaigns are delivering real outcomes rather than political messaging. From a criminological perspective, post-operation transparency is vital for maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system and protecting it from undue suspicion.

The absence of structured transparency has its dangers. Without clear, timely communication, the public space becomes vulnerable to speculation, conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Worse, it opens the door to politicisation. When political actors dominate or shape the narrative around cartel investigations, the line between operational necessity and political expediency begins to blur.

This politicisation may create the perception that enforcement priorities are driven by political interests rather than intelligence, risk assessment or criminological evidence.

Once public trust erodes, citizens become less willing to cooperate with authorities, informants may hesitate to step forward and international partners may question Malaysia’s commitment to professional, depoliticised enforcement.

This last point is critically important. Drug cartels are inherently transnational. They exploit international maritime routes, container systems, airports, free-trade zones and cross-border financial networks.

Malaysia cannot confront such well-resourced syndicates alone. Effective cooperation with regional partners – especially Australia, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and the Philippines – is indispensable.

These partners require assurance that the intelligence they share will be handled with discipline, confidentiality and political neutrality. Any erosion of this trust could disrupt joint operations, slow information flows and ultimately embolden syndicates seeking to expand their presence in Southeast Asia.

In this context, civil society, the media, criminologists and research institutions play an essential oversight role. The media functions as a watchdog by scrutinising outcomes after operations conclude, not by interfering with investigations but by demanding accountability once evidence is secured.

Civil society organisations monitor governance gaps and advocate for stronger institutional safeguards. Academics and criminologists contribute independent, evidence-based analysis, ensuring that public debate is anchored in facts and comparative global experiences rather than emotions or partisan narratives.

Ultimately, Malaysia’s long-term strategy against drug cartels must rest on three interdependent pillars: operational secrecy during active investigations, post-operation transparency to maintain public trust and political neutrality to safeguard professionalism.

Achieving this balance is not easy, but it is essential if Malaysia is to dismantle sophisticated, deeply entrenched and increasingly transnational drug syndicates.

DATO’ DR P. SUNDRAMOORTHY
Criminologist
Centre for Policy Research
Universiti Sains Malaysia