Safety score
Personal safety, institutional trust, and resilience signals informed by international safety and crime data.
Safety in Kuala Lumpur78/100
Safety
Safety in Kuala Lumpur
Kuala Lumpur has solid overall safety with neighborhood variation and property-related opportunistic risks the main day-to-day concern. Safety in Kuala Lumpur scores 78/100, placing it in the solid group of the indexed set.
- Last updated
- 2026-05-16
- Data year
- 2025
- Module score
- 78/100
Safety score
78/100
Solid score with neighborhood-level variation.
Violent-crime context
Low
Violent-crime context is comparatively low globally.
Watch item
Property
Property crime is the main practical day-to-day concern.
Kuala Lumpur safety data table
This HTML table mirrors the visible score cards so important comparison data is never trapped in a browser-only chart.
| Metric | Value | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Safety score | 78/100 | Stable institutional response reinforces the score. |
| Violent-crime context | Low | Long-run stability supports daily life. |
| Watch item | Property | Common-sense precautions remain useful. |
Safety city comparison
A crawlable comparison across a selection of same-country and top-scoring cities. The complete set is reachable via the rankings, the cities index, and each city profile.
| City | Score | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Kuala Lumpur (this page) | 78/100 | Kuala Lumpur has solid overall safety with neighborhood variation and property-related opportunistic risks the main day-to-day concern. |
| Singapore | 95/100 | Singapore is among the safest cities globally, with very low violent-crime context and strong institutional response. |
| Tokyo | 93/100 | Tokyo scores at the very top globally on safety, with very low violent-crime context, strong institutions, and high resident perception of safety. |
| Kyoto | 93/100 | Kyoto scores very high on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Copenhagen | 92/100 | Copenhagen scores high on safety due to strong public trust, low violent-crime context, and reliable institutional response. |
| Osaka | 92/100 | Osaka scores high on safety, with strong institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Zurich | 91/100 | Zurich is among the safest large European cities, with very low violent-crime context and strong institutional response. |
| Seoul | 90/100 | Seoul is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context, strong institutional response, and consistent public-space confidence. |
| Taipei | 90/100 | Taipei is among the safer large global cities, with very low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Doha | 90/100 | Doha is among the safer global cities, with very low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Abu Dhabi | 90/100 | Abu Dhabi is among the safer global cities, with very low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Helsinki | 90/100 | Helsinki scores well on safety, with strong institutional response and stable public-safety perception. |
| Wellington | 90/100 | Wellington scores high on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Munich | 89/100 | Munich scores well on safety, with strong institutional response and stable public-safety perception. |
| Amsterdam | 88/100 | Amsterdam scores high on safety, with low violent-crime context and strong everyday public-space confidence. |
| Vienna | 88/100 | Vienna is among the safer large European capitals, with low violent-crime context and consistent everyday public-space confidence. |
| Hong Kong | 88/100 | Hong Kong scores high on safety with low violent-crime context and reliable institutional response across the metro. |
| Dubai | 88/100 | Dubai scores high on safety, with very low violent-crime context and reliable institutional response across the metro. |
| Prague | 88/100 | Prague is among the safer European capitals, with low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Oslo | 88/100 | Oslo scores well on safety, with strong institutional response and steady public-safety planning. |
| Edinburgh | 88/100 | Edinburgh scores well on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Perth | 88/100 | Perth scores well on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Sydney | 87/100 | Sydney is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context and strong institutional response. |
| Geneva | 87/100 | Geneva's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Auckland | 86/100 | Auckland is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context and strong institutional response. |
| Lisbon | 86/100 | Lisbon is among the safer European capitals, with low violent-crime context and strong public-life stability. |
| Warsaw | 86/100 | Warsaw is among the safer European capitals, with low violent-crime context and stable resident experience. |
| Shanghai | 86/100 | Shanghai is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Melbourne | 86/100 | Melbourne is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Brisbane | 86/100 | Brisbane is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Riyadh | 86/100 | Riyadh scores well on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
Interpretation
Safety scoring weighs violent-crime context, neighborhood variation, and institutional response. Kuala Lumpur's resident experience is mostly stable. Across the indexed cities the safety average is 64/100, so Kuala Lumpur is 14 points above the median. Data year 2025; last updated 2026-05-16. Drawn from 2 institutional references.
Read this module with the main open the kuala lumpur city profile and the read the scoring methodology page so single-topic pages do not hide tradeoffs across dimensions.
Structured indicators on this page are directional and intended for orientation. Verified datasets are being integrated; official sources should be used for critical decisions.
Sources
2 institutional references inform this view, listed below with reliability notes. Structured indicators on this page are directional and intended for orientation; verified datasets are being integrated and official sources should be used for critical decisions.
- United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: UNODC Data Portal
Used as a directional benchmark for relative city safety framing.
- UN-Habitat: World Cities Report 2024
Used as a policy and methodology reference for urban exposure and resilience signals.
Continue exploring
These links connect module pages back to city, ranking, and sibling topic paths with crawlable href values.
Kuala Lumpur city profile
Return to the complete Kuala Lumpur profile with all module scores and source context.
Cost of Living in Kuala Lumpur
Affordability, essential costs, and day-to-day financial pressure for residents.
Air Quality in Kuala Lumpur
Health-oriented air-quality conditions with context from WHO, EEA, and EPA benchmarks.
Energy in Kuala Lumpur
Clean-energy readiness, grid resilience, and solar or efficiency opportunity signals.
Internet Speed in Kuala Lumpur
Broadband and mobile connectivity quality, latency, and digital-readiness signals for residents and remote workers.
Climate Risk in Kuala Lumpur
Climate exposure, hazard frequency, and adaptation context for floods, heat, storms, and wildfires.
Overall Intelligence
A balanced ranking of cities across affordability, air quality, clean-energy readiness, and resilience.
Quality of Life
Cities that combine strong services, mobility, safety, clean air, and resilience into a healthy day-to-day profile.