Enforced Disappearance: The Pamela Ling Case

 

Many may remember Pamela Ling who disappeared in broad daylight. A summary of the Pamela Ling case is as follows:

 

·      -On 9 April, on a working day, 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.

Source: https://www.sinarharian.com.my

·        -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. 

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. The government even continues to conceal the report of the “special task force” it cobbled together to investigate Suhakam’s terrifying findings. 

Suhakam concluded 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. 

In Malaysia, on a workday, in broad daylight, in a metropolis, a person can disappear by an abduction squad and never be found again. In the face of the indifference of the home minister, the law minister, the prime minister and the attorney general, what else can you conclude?

Perhaps, Grab Malaysia may begin selling rides in escorted vehicles. – Caged! 

Reference:

The reason Pamela Ling is presumed to be a victim of enforced disappearance, Rama Ramanathan, Aliran, 17 May 2025