Who really took Pamela?

The Star:

Who really took Pamela?






KUALA LUMPUR: Police are investigating the possibility that Datin Seri Pamela Ling Yueh was abducted either by individuals posing as law enforcement or by actual police personnel, says Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Razarudin Husain.

This follows claims made by an e-hailing driver who was ferrying Pamela to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) headquarters on April 9 when she reportedly went missing.


“We are aware of the allegation that Pamela was taken by individuals in police vests and uniforms. Further investigations are ongoing, including the possibility that those involved may have been posing as police personnel,” Razarudin said when contacted yesterday.

He said police are reviewing CCTV footage from the area where she was allegedly abducted, and statements are being collected from multiple witnesses, including the e-hailing driver.



Razarudin said police could not disclose details of the investigation, as doing so could interfere with ongoing efforts or any necessary follow-up actions.

“I have instructed the Bukit Aman Criminal Investigation Department to assist Kuala Lumpur police in investigating this case and tracking down Pamela. We will review all facts and leads that could help,” he said.

Asked whether the abduction might be linked to Pamela’s wealth or assets, Razarudin declined to comment but did not rule out the possibility that the incident was intended to implicate the MACC or police.


Pamela’s lawyer, N. Sivananthan, reportedly said he had seen a police report filed by the e-hailing driver, who claimed his car was intercepted just before reaching the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya.



The driver also claimed three cars were involved, and that a man wearing a police vest and a woman in police uniform allegedly asked Pamela to follow them.

Meanwhile, Pamela’s family lawyer, Sangeet Kaur Deo, questioned whether the MACC had done enough to ensure her safety.

“If Ling was providing information in the course of an active MACC probe, she may have possessed material or sensitive information that could have placed her in a vulnerable position,” said Sangeet in a statement.

“If MACC recognised this potential risk, did they alert the police to this possibility at the earliest opportunity to ensure that appropriate lines of inquiry could be pursued?” she asked.

Sangeet also said initial findings suggest the e-hailing ride was completed, indicating Pamela had arrived or was near the MACC building.

“She was believed to have been intercepted by several unidentified vehicles shortly after. This indicates that she was either being followed or that someone knew she was en route to the MACC to give a statement,” she said.

Sangeet further questioned whether the MACC had foreseen any risks and whether these concerns were shared with the police in a timely manner.

“Did the police actively examine the possibility that her disappearance could be linked to the investigation or to any individuals or entities implicated?” she asked.

Sangeet added that the MACC should have lodged a missing person report, especially as Pamela was assisting in investigations under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 and the MACC Act 2009.

She also criticised police statements suggesting there were no leads, calling them unacceptable.

“The family has been transparent and proactive. The same is expected from the MACC and the police,” said Sangeet.

Pamela’s brother, Simon Ling Wan Siong, previously said she was abducted in Kuala Lumpur while on her way to meet MACC officers.

As of Sunday, no ransom demand had been made in connection with her disappearance.

Kuala Lumpur police chief Comm Datuk Rusdi Mohd Isa confirmed that investigations are ongoing.

“We have recorded statements from 12 individuals, including MACC officers and the victim’s lawyer,” he said.