KUALA LUMPUR, May 7 — Datin Seri Pamela Ling Yueh, who was a witness in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigations, had filed a court case to challenge the agency’s actions just two days before her disappearance last month, her family’s lawyer said today.
Lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo said Ling had filed for judicial review at the High Court on April 7, where she challenged the MACC’s actions of having allegedly arrested and remanded her without proper legal basis and in breach of due process.
Sangeet said Ling’s court challenge had also claimed that the MACC had allegedly used its powers under the MACC Act and the anti-money laundering law to “exert pressure on Pamela to resolve private disputes with her estranged husband, rather than for legitimate investigative purposes”.
According to Sangeet, Ling’s court case had also alleged that the MACC had imposed a travel restriction on her without explanation despite her full compliance with MACC’s requirements.
In a three-page statement issued today, Sangeet also claimed that “available records” showed that MACC had carried out a “sustained and systematic campaign of pressure over several months” on Ling.
Sangeet later clarified to Malay Mail that Ling was the one who had made the allegations of sustained pressure in her judicial review papers filed on April 7.
“She had attended at the MACC on no fewer than nine occasions, cooperated fully, and was never charged with any offence. Despite this, she remained under an unexplained travel ban since at least October 2024, with an order to report to MACC monthly,” she said.
Sangeet said Ling was scheduled to report to the MACC on April 10, but was summoned on April 9 to the MACC to provide further statements in what would be her ninth attendance.
“She disappeared on that very day upon arriving near the MACC’s Putrajaya office,” she said, having noted that it is nearly one month since Ling disappeared.
“This pattern of conduct by MACC was far from ordinary and totally inconsistent with the treatment expected toward a witness assisting in investigations,” Sangeet said.
Sangeet said it was disturbing that MACC has been allegedly suddenly silent about Ling’s disappearance after having allegedly pursued her relentlessly and even restricting her travel for the past several months.
“How is it that an agency so invested in her whereabouts, has now chosen to say nothing about her disappearance? No public statement has been issued on the circumstances of her last scheduled attendance.
“No clarification has been offered as to whether MACC flagged any risk to her safety despite knowing that she was involved in sensitive financial and matrimonial disputes spanning locally and in Singapore, involving alleged fraudulent transfers of company shares, alongside a suit for the division of a substantial pool of matrimonial assets,” she said.
Sangeet said MACC has not confirmed whether it had shared all relevant information with the police, and what happened on April 9 in or just outside MACC’s grounds including information about the security guards on duty then, or whether MACC filed a missing person report.
If allegations that persons impersonating police officers may have been involved in intercepting Ling on the day of her disappearance were true, Sangeet said this would raise troubling questions about public safety and enforcement integrity and said it was shocking that this could occur without detection near a high-security government premises.
She said it was troubling that the police had yet to clearly state if any of its officers were officially instructed to arrest or detain Ling on the day she disappeared.
“Surely the PDRM must maintain records of such operational directives. If, in fact, no such instructions were issued, then it follows that those who apprehended her were impersonating police officers. This is a basic and critical fact,” she said.
“It is difficult to comprehend how, amidst allegations that individuals may have impersonated police officers to detain a member of the public, the authorities have yet to offer clarity,” she said.
Ultimately, Sangeet pressed for answers from the authorities and said: “The integrity of our institutions depends on full answers being provided.”
On May 2, Kuala Lumpur police chief Datuk Rusdi Mohd Isa confirmed that a police report had been lodged at a police station in Putrajaya on the same day Ling disappeared and that investigations are being carried out on her case, and that Ling’s lawyer had also made a separate police report regarding the disappearance.
On May 4, the MACC in a statement said Ling failed to appear at its headquarters on April 9 to assist in investigations and could not be contacted by MACC officers, and said it was leaving it to the police to trace her based on the police report lodged by her lawyer on April 9.
Earlier today, local daily New Straits Times (NST) reported MACC chief Tan Sri Azam Baki as saying that it was unfair to blame MACC for her disappearance “as the incident was beyond our control and occurred on a public road and not within the MACC compound”.
Azam reportedly said there was no way to predict any threat to Ling’s safety as there were no such signs in her past appearances at the MACC headquarters for the money laundering investigations: “On these occasions, nothing untoward had occurred and there were no signs that she was threatened.”
Azam also reportedly said that the police had recorded the statement of the MACC investigating officer who was supposed to record Ling’s statement, and that the MACC will continue to give full cooperation to the police’s probe on Ling’s disappearance.
Yesterday, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Razarudin Husain reportedly said police’s investigations on Ling’s disappearance are ongoing and statements had been recorded from 16 individuals so far.
