Cable thefts: Are we missing the woods for trees?

AROUND midnight last Dec 22, the bright Christmas Street lights at La Promenade Mall in Kota Samarahan went off, plunging the area around the building into darkness.

Initially, the blackout was thought to have been caused by a power outage, but checks the next morning found that the main electrical cables powering the lights had been cut and stolen.

This theft hardly raised an eyebrow among the public, despite its audacity.

Sarawakians are resigned to cable thefts as the cause of electricity or telecommunication services disruption.

Often, the news that follows is equally familiar – a suspect has been arrested.

The arrest was often attributed to the quick action of the police, personnel of the local councils and relevant agencies or members of the public.

This would usually be followed by commendations on the good work done by the police, enforcement personnel and the people involved in apprehending the culprits, and hailed as an important step in curbing cable thefts.

However, despite the repeated arrests, the problem persists – raising the question if we are missing the elephant in the room in the fight against cable thefts.

While arresting the cable thieves brings a measure of reassurance, it can never solve the problem of cable thefts.

Ironically, by focusing on catching them, the authorities end up chasing the herring in confronting this social scourge.

The key to solving cable thefts is finding out what happens to the stolen copper.

Cable theft is not merely about individuals acting out of desperation or mischief.

It is sustained by something deeper – a market that continues to absorb stolen copper.

Stolen copper does not vanish – it changes hands.

Typically, it finds its way to scrap metal yards, sometimes directly, more often through middlemen who collect small quantities from multiple sellers.

Once the cables are stripped of insulation, cut into smaller pieces or melted, the metal becomes almost impossible to trace to its original source.

At that point, the crime effectively dissolves into the legitimate scrap trade.

Law enforcement agencies do their job where they can.

Thieves are caught because they are visible – near substations, cable trenches, or restricted areas, and are often apprehended in the act or shortly after.

Buyers, however, operate differently.

They run fixed premises, maintain transaction records, and present themselves as legitimate businesses.

To take action against them, authorities must prove that the buyers know, or should reasonably have known, that the copper was stolen.

That is not an easy standard to meet.

As a result, enforcement tends to stop at the most visible part of the problem, which is arresting the thieves.

There is another uncomfortable reality – cable thieves are easily replaced.

Many are driven by poverty, addiction or opportunity.

Arrest one, and another soon takes his place.

This does little to disrupt the underlying economics of the crime.

The buyers, on the other hand, are fewer in number and central to the trade; without them, cable theft would quickly lose its appeal.

Combating cable thefts cannot succeed by simply increasing patrols or making more arrests; to succeed, the authorities should focus on stricter monitoring of the buyers.

Measures such as cashless scrap transactions, stricter licensing, better record-keeping and firm penalties for irresponsible buying, could change the risk equation.

When buying stolen copper became dangerous, theft declined.

This is not about vilifying an entire industry.

The scrap metal trade plays a legitimate role in recycling and the circular economy, and most operators comply with the law.

A more balanced approach, which is one that looks not only at who steals, but also at who buys, would be a constructive place to start.

Catching cable thieves can make for quick headlines, but to achieve lasting solutions, we must move beyond the thief at the roadside and follow the stolen copper cables all the way to its final destination.