FEB 17 — Whenever the victim of a crime acted somewhat carelessly, some criticism would occur. It is the blame-the-victim game. One example is when a woman carries an expensive handbag and is a snatch theft victim later. It is not uncommon for the phrase padan muka to be thrown at her in an unkind manner.

I do not subscribe to the blame game because I want to live in a society where it is safe to walk alone at night, whatever handbag or watch one wears. Crimes happen in very public spaces, right in the open and it would be outrageously tiring to be vigilant all the time, everywhere.

And if this kind of thing happens often, then I think it is not entirely the victim’s fault for being a victim anymore. Instead, there is something wrong at the societal level. Besides, blaming the victim does not solve anything.

But when it comes to property-related crime, and in my mind I am thinking of theft, the flashing of wealth, with possibly a hint of carelessness and bad luck, does play a large role in the realisation of the crime.

Flashing, either intentionally or not, attracts attention and it can attract the wrong person who can and will relieve you of your easily reachable valuables. Your valuables are signals of your wealth and status and criminals make use of that to spot their potential victims.

I write so because I think there is some parallel to Thorsten Veblen’s idea of conspicuous consumption explained in his book, The Theory of the Leisure Class. Veblen was an economist in the 19th and 20th century who postulated that people consumed to signal their status in the society that they live in.

People consume to tell others who they are. From there, the whole idea of signalling was born in modern economics. Research into signalling has gone a long way since Veblen.

So, if one subscribes to Veblen’s idea, it is not far-fetched to think that that signal can be used for various purposes, from salespersons targeting a certain class of consumers who will do more than just browse, to thieves choosing their targets so that the ill-gotten gains would be worth their while.

I have to say, one does not have to flash a Chanel or a Rolex to signal wealth. In Malaysia where the median person earns less than RM2,000 a month, a lot of things that are not considered as luxuries by the upper middle class or even the middle class, are considered to be so by those in the lower quartiles.

The things one sees at a restaurant like Marini’s up in the sky for instance are cases of extreme wealth that make good exaggerated examples. Luxuries at the street level take a much humbler form.

But they signal all the same. It is all relative. For a person in rags begging under the bridge, a Kancil is a sign of wealth.

I wonder if there will come a time when concerns for safety begin to overcome our desire to show off our wealth and signal our status. If and when that happens, will we adapt by dressing more austerely and driving less flashy cars?

Some of us belonging to the middle class and definitely for those in the upper class have already retreated into guarded residential neighbourhoods, sometimes with barbed wires surrounding the perimeters. That, in some ways I think, also means showing off less to the world by shooing others off.

*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.