Lawyer wants probe into MACC's role in Ling's abduction

Summary

• A lawyer for Pamela Ling's family calls for a probe into MACC’s role in her disappearance.

• Sangeet Kaur Deo says the graftbuster's prolonged silence on its conduct prior to Ling's abduction raises questions and doubts on its integrity.

• She demands that the agency explain, among others, who gave the order to ‘go after’ Ling.

The legal representative for Pamela Ling’s family has urged for an immediate, independent and transparent investigation into the MACC’s role in the woman’s disappearance.

Slamming the commission’s continued silence over its actions prior to Ling’s disappearance, lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo stressed that such apparent secrecy by the MACC has called into question its integrity.

“It has been 33 days since (Ling’s) disappearance, and the MACC has yet to offer any real account of its actions in the weeks leading up to her disappearance.

“This silence reinforces suspicion and erodes credibility. Malaysians deserve a corruption-fighting institution that commands trust, not one that fuels mistrust by retreating into silence when transparency is most needed,” Sangeet said in a statement today.

She warned authorities against assuming that Ling’s disappearance will be “just another national scandal” quietly swept under the carpet, questioning whether Ling’s name will be added to the list of other cases which have called into question MACC’s credibility.

Why ‘go after’ Ling?

Sangeet said the MACC must reveal who gave the order to “go after” Ling, why she was repeatedly pressed over personal matters unrelated to MACC’s legal powers and why there was no arrest warrant issued when she stopped reporting to the agency.

Pointing to how Ling had initiated matrimonial proceedings in Singapore while her estranged husband countered in Malaysia, Sangeet said Ling had also filed a suit in the Singapore High Court, accusing her husband of fraudulently transferring her company shares and forging her signature.

“That these private disputes became the subject of aggressive MACC interference raises serious questions of propriety and misuse of public power,” the lawyer said.

She also took issue with the agency’s chronology of its investigation into Ling and her husband, Sarawakian businessperson Thomas Hah Tiing Siu, claiming that the sequence of events released to the public “left out key facts”.

Such facts, Sangeet asserted, included how Ling had been arrested, remanded, questioned repeatedly and subjected to an “unexplained” travel ban which kept her apart from her children.

“MACC also failed to mention how its officers served notices improperly through (Ling’s) father.

“(The officers) had also used an arrest warrant related to a case which had already been settled months before to lure (Ling) from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur,” she added.

Assisting probe or suspect?

She also highlighted discrepancies between MACC’s description of Ling as someone assisting investigations and a suspect.

“Which was it? If she was a suspect all along, why was this not made clear? If she wasn’t, why was she hunted so aggressively?

“The fact is (that) she was never charged - even after nine interviews. Was this a genuine investigation, or was there a collateral purpose?” the lawyer asked.

It was earlier revealed that two days before her abduction, Ling had filed a judicial review application in the High Court challenging the actions of the graftbusters.

On May 7, former MACC chief Dzulkifli Ahmad questioned the agency’s conduct in its money laundering investigation against Ling, who was abducted near the commission's headquarters in Putrajaya on April 9.

Dzulkifli expressed surprise over Ling being called for further questioning at least nine times after MACC had arrested and remanded her.

He highlighted that the law does not permit law enforcement agencies to do further statement-taking from suspects after they have been released from remand.

He added that further questioning can only be conducted if they are reclassified and treated as a witness, and even then, only with the express consent and approval of the deputy public prosecutor.

On May 2, Ling’s family revealed that the 42-year-old, who is a Datin Seri, was on her way to meet MACC investigators on April 9, where she was supposed to facilitate a money laundering investigation, but was abducted before she could reach her destination.

Her Grab driver on that day claimed that individuals wearing police uniforms stopped his vehicle, forced Ling to exit and told him to mark the ride as "completed".

MACC has since denied any elements of harassment or misconduct in handling Ling’s case, emphasising that it has acted within the legal framework at every stage.

Cops seeking Interpol's help to quiz Ling's children in S’pore

MACC denies claims on Ling in viral video

Teoh Beng Hock group slams Ling's 'enforced disappearance'

Abduction: Cops find new leads, but lips sealed for Ling's safety

COMMENT | Pamela Ling kidnapping devolves into a Pastor Koh tragedy