Over the past week, we at Citizens Against Enforced Disappearances (Caged) have been asked several times to comment on the Pamela Ling case. Therefore, we will do so.
We begin with a summary of the case. According to reports:
- On 9 April, on a workday, in broad daylight, an abduction squad using up to five vehicles abducted Pamela Ling Yueh from a Grab car,minutes before it was due to arrive at the Putrajaya headquarters of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
- There were at least eight perpetrators. After stopping the car, three of them removed Pamela from the car and took her away.
- Two of them were males, dressed in clothing with police markings. The third was a woman in police uniform.
- The perpetrators made off with the Grab driver’s identity card; this prompted him to report the abduction to the police.
- There has been no ransom demand.
- Pamela, a 42-years-old Sarawakian resident of Singapore, is a businesswoman.
- She is married to Sarawakian businessman Thomas Hah Tiing Siu, who, in 2013, got the “Dato’ Sri” title from Pahang.
- Thomas and the Chief Minister of Sabah, Hajiji Noor, have been questioned by the MACC in connection with a bribery allegation.
- In January, Pamela was extradited from Singapore to Malaysia in connection with investigations by the MACC. She was remanded for questioning for three days and released on 11 January.
- Pamela and her husband, parents to three children, are navigating “an acrimonious” divorce. During a previous visit by Pamela to the MACC headquarters, an MACC deputy director ‘encouraged’ her to quickly resolve her divorce from Thomas.
There is a lot more out there, including statements by lawyers acting for Pamela and for her birth family – and statements by the MACC and the police.
It is important to note that the police have made statements about the number of witnesses interviewed and about findings from video recordings. In this respect, the police have done better than it did in the enforced disappearances of Raymond Koh, Amri Che Mat, Joshua Hilmy and Ruth Sitepu.
But the public remains wary.
Because the evidence in those cases – gathered, sifted and assessed by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) – showed police complicity, lack of seriousness and lack of competence.
Yet, the government failed to resurrect investigations into these cases.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a regular pledge or periodic auto-donation to Aliran
- Become an Aliran member
The government even continues to conceal the report of the “special task force” it cobbled together to look into Suhakam’s terrifying findings.
Eight years ago, on a workday, in broad daylight, in a metropolis, an abduction squad using seven vehicles abducted Raymond. The demeanour of the abductors and other factors indicated they had training and experience in policing. Raymond’s abduction was executed like that of Amri about three months earlier.
The police never found Raymond’s car. They never found the car used by Joshua and Ruth. They never found the car owned by Special Branch operative Saiful Bahari, implicated in the abductions of Koh and Amri. They claimed to have found no fingerprints in Amri’s car.
They never found Saiful – although the Attorney General’s Chambers is defending him in civil suits springing from the abductions!
Those are just a few of the reasons which led Suhakam to conclude that Raymond, Amri, Joshua and Ruth were victims of enforced disappearance, which is defined as:
the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.
Is Pamela also a victim of enforced disappearance?
Until the government acts in the cases of Raymond, Amri, Joshua and Ruth, every abduction in Malaysia is presumed to be an enforced disappearance. The presumption will only be lifted if the police prove otherwise.
Yes. Until the truth emerges about what happened to Raymond, Amri, Joshua and Ruth, and until appropriate actions are taken against the perpetrators, Malaysia is a safe haven for enforced disappearances.
In Malaysia, on a workday, in broad daylight, in a metropolis, a person can be disappeared by an abduction squad and never be found.
In the face of the indifference of the home minister, the law minister, the prime minister and the attorney general, what else can we conclude?
Perhaps Grab Malaysia will begin selling rides in escorted vehicles. – Caged
Rama Ramanathan is a spokesperson for Citizens Against Enforced Disappearances (Caged).
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
