It will soon be a year since Pamela Ling disappeared, and the authorities have failed to uncover even a fragment of information relating to her disappearance.
After months of silence from the police, the family was recently met with a sudden request for basic information, including what steps were taken upon the discovery of Ling’s disappearance.
These are questions that had already been posed at the earliest stages. These meaningless questions now emerging without explanation or purpose confirm that this investigation indeed lacked direction and seriousness from the outset.
Not to mention unnecessarily reopening wounds for a family forced to endure the disappearance of a daughter, sister, and mother.
Almost one year on, it is necessary that publicly available facts are reiterated.
Divorce proceedings
At the time of her disappearance, Ling and her husband were engaged in a bitter divorce.
She filed for divorce in Singapore while Hah Tiing Siu later filed in Malaysia.
Both cases involved serious mutual allegations and division of significant assets across several countries.
Multi-Galaxy share dispute
At the time of her disappearance, Ling had also filed a civil suit in the Singapore High Court against Hah and the Multi-Galaxy company secretary, to, among others, nullify the transfer of her shares, which she claimed was conducted fraudulently, and to reclaim her shares.
She also lodged a report with the Singapore police, which initiated investigations.
MACC arrest and detention
On Jan 8, 2025, Ling was served a warrant for arrest for execution out of the jurisdiction, dated Dec 2, 2024, issued by the Johor Bahru Magistrate’s Court ordering her attendance at the Johor Bahru MACC office.
The Singapore Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau (CPIB), tasked with the execution of the said arrest warrant, took Ling into custody in Singapore and, thereafter, on Jan 8, 2025, surrendered her to the officers of the MACC, who then took her into custody at the Malaysia-Singapore Immigration checkpoint.
She was produced before a magistrate the next day and was remanded for a further three days. She was released on MACC bail on Jan 11, 2025, with an order to pay a deposit of RM35,000. She was also required to report to the MACC office on a monthly basis.
Simultaneously, she was ordered to attend the MACC office in Putrajaya on Jan 13, 2025. Between January 2025 and April 2025, Ling attended the MACC office for continued interrogations no less than nine times.
On the last occasion, her vehicle was intercepted, and she was taken, never to be seen again.
In court proceedings, Ling contended that she was arrested pursuant to an improperly served Section 30 order and her arrest, remand, and conditions were inconsistent with the MACC and Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Amla) powers.
She also contended that the investigation was initially supposedly related to Sky Vantage Pte Ltd, soon shifted to Ayam Kuat Maju Sdn Bhd, and she was also interrogated about other unrelated matters, including Multi-Galaxy.
MACC officers had suggested she settle her disputes with Hah to close the case. Ling believed her detention was a tactic to pressure her to resolve matrimonial claims and matters relating to her allegations of the fraudulent transfer of shares in the Multi-Galaxy suit.
Ling was later released on MACC bail on Jan 11, 2025, but was under a travel ban and required to report to MACC on the 10th of every month. She duly remained in Malaysia, incurring living costs and was separated from her children.
Despite complying with all MACC requirements, her travel ban continued, unjustified and unexplained.
Her disappearance
On April 9, 2025, one day before her scheduled reporting date, MACC summoned her again for the ninth time to provide further statements.
She disappeared upon arrival at or near the MACC office in Putrajaya.
Judicial review application against MACC
On March 24, 2025, Ling’s lawyers wrote to MACC to lift her travel ban. No reply was received.
Just two days before her disappearance, on April 7, 2025, she filed for judicial review against the MACC, alleging abuse of power, unlawful detention, and violation of constitutional rights under Articles 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution.
The averments contained in her court documents in relation to the conduct of the MACC spoke of continued harassment and intimidation by the MACC.
Ling further contended that MACC exceeded its powers, using legal mechanisms to pressure her into private settlements with Hah, in breach of due process.
Her arrest, remand, and travel restriction lacked legal foundation and violated constitutional protections. The timeline of MACC conduct and the pressure they put on her is meticulously documented in her last sworn affidavit.
She also explained that she complied with MACC requirements and attended interviews or reported on the numerous dates pursuant to multiple notices issued to her by the MACC.
Heavy-handed MACC
In light of the pressure exerted on Ling through repeated interrogations and prolonged travel restrictions, the conduct of the MACC was nothing short of heavy-handed.
What was the MACC trying to achieve? And why?
The averments in her final sworn affidavit stand as Ling’s last act of defiance, a refusal to back down in the face of what she described as sustained pressure and abuse of power.
These allegations are detailed, sworn facts, placed on the record of the court. Yet, one year on, the police have come back with nothing.
No clear account of what investigations have been carried out or whether the concerns raised by Ling prior to her disappearance were examined has been provided.
Malaysia has seen similar past incidents, including the disappearance and killing of Altantuya Shaariibuu and the death of Teoh Beng Hock while in the custody of the MACC.
Each case related to allegations of the involvement of state actors or state agencies.
To date, the prime minister has remained silent on Ling’s disappearance.
This silence is striking, given the strong and vocal positions he once took in cases such as Altantuya and Teoh, positions he advanced, regrettably, only while in the opposition.
This case involves serious allegations of abuse of power by public institutions, which this government cannot continue to ignore. - Mkini
SANGEET KAUR DEO is a lawyer representing Pamela Ling’s family.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.