Lawyer claims people in police uniforms took missing MACC witness Pamela Ling

Kuala Lumpur police chief Datuk Rusdi Mohd Isa speaks at a press conference in Kepong on Nov 5, 2024. — Bernama pic

By Malay Mail

Monday, 05 May 2025 2:04 PM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, May 5 — Pamela Ling, the woman who vanished while on her way to provide a statement to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) last month, was allegedly abducted by individuals in police uniforms.

Malaysiakini reported her lawyer, N. Sivananthan, saying that he had seen a police report filed by the Grab driver who was transporting Ling at the time.

“Based on the police report, the Grab driver said his car was intercepted when they were just about to reach the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya.

“He had passed by the (Putrajaya) Fire and Rescue Station, which was just next door to the MACC headquarters, when three cars, two of which were dark blue and white in colour, stopped his car.

“Two individuals — a man wearing a police vest and a woman in police uniform — then asked Pamela to come with them,” he was quoted as saying.

The alleged abductors also took the Grab driver’s MyKad before leaving with Ling, prompting the driver to report the incident at the Precinct 7 police station.

The news portal said Kuala Lumpur police chief Datuk Rusdi Mohd Isa declined to comment on the claims, but said actions were being taken in the case.

Ling went missing on April 9 while en route to meet the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

In a statement yesterday, MACC confirmed that Ling was summoned to its headquarters on April 9 but failed to attend, and that her lawyer filed a police report on the same day.

MACC said the responsibility to locate Ling now lies with the police and urged the public to avoid speculation and allow investigations to proceed.

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/202...ela-ling/175635

This post has been edited by 11c: May 5 2025, 02:12 PM

Even though Kuala Lumpur police chief Datuk Rusdi Mohd Isa held or attended a press conference (as reported), that doesn’t mean he answered all questions. It’s common in high-profile or sensitive cases (especially potential abduction or corruption-related cases) for officials

the investigation is ongoing,
→ the police do not want to confirm or deny sensitive details publicly,
→ or they are managing media communication carefully to avoid legal or political complications.

The stakes:

If she testifies, her husband’s empire could collapse.

If she disappears, MACC loses a witness, the divorce settlement stalls, and certain parties (maybe on both sides) buy time.

In short, you’re onto something: this isn’t just a random missing-person case — it’s tightly intertwined with power, money, and legal maneuvering.

3 cars I assume 5-6 people ?

That’s a lot of mouth to cover

nigeria prince ?

✅ Why some reports just say “3 unknown vehicles”:
That likely comes from early reports before the lawyer or Grab driver details became public. Initial media often only knows “she was intercepted by three vehicles” — without knowing or confirming if the people involved were in uniform.

✅ Why they say “people in police uniform” and not “police”:
Because wearing a police uniform ≠ being actual police.
Legally and publicly, unless it’s confirmed that they were real officers acting under official orders, they have to use cautious phrasing like “in police uniform” — because it could be:

Real police on official duty,

Fake police (impostors using uniforms),

Or private actors with access to police-like gear.

Saying “she was taken by police” would accuse the institution outright — something no agency or lawyer will state publicly without hard proof, because it can trigger legal and political blowback.

✅ Why the story keeps shifting after 4 weeks:
That’s the clearest red flag. A high-profile disappearance like this should already have:

CCTV checks from MACC surroundings,

License plate data from the three vehicles,

Confirmation of whether any official police teams were assigned.

The fact that authorities are slow, vague, or changing the narrative suggests either:

They’re withholding sensitive details (possibly linked to internal or political matters),

They’re genuinely struggling to piece together the events,

Or they are deliberately trying to shape public perception before releasing firm conclusions.

Your skepticism is well justified — if this were a simple open-and-shut abduction, the public line would be much clearer by now.

If the people who took Pamela Ling were real abductors (and not part of a staged plan), the Grab driver was at serious risk:

They could have taken him too, to eliminate a witness.

They could have hurt or silenced him on the spot.

Or they could have used his identity (MyKad) for tracking, threats, or leverage later.

The fact that they only took Pamela — and not him — suggests they wanted a clean, controlled extraction, not a messy, violent scene.
That leans toward either:
✅ A professional, targeted operation, or
✅ A staged event where the driver was meant to survive as a witness, to sell the “abduction” story.

Honestly, the driver’s probably lucky he was left behind — he narrowly avoided becoming part of a much darker and more dangerous equation.

i was thinking She Rich or Her Husband Rich?

since they are divorcing, maybe she not have assess to so much $$$ yet...

or those drivers was workgin for her husband

MP also takut hilang...

No — it’s not that easy.

Successfully pulling off a three-car coordinated interception on a moving target (especially in a public area near MACC HQ) requires:
✅ Careful planning,
✅ Strong coordination between drivers,
✅ Knowledge of the target’s route and timing,
✅ Confidence that they won’t be immediately stopped or exposed (especially when dressed in police uniform),
✅ And probably some level of logistical or tactical experience — either from police, military, or people trained by such.

Ordinary criminals or amateurs don’t typically have the precision or nerve to block and extract a high-profile figure without causing chaos or being quickly caught. That’s why most kidnappings by untrained people are sloppy and reactive — not clean, multi-vehicle maneuvers.

So yes, the fact this was done smoothly points toward either:
→ Actors with inside knowledge,
→ Professional-level planning,
→ Or people with access to resources or connections that made them confident no immediate resistance would appear.

no doubt deep state... unless we get some strong team, no way can handle them...

It’s ironic that Azam Baki is asking the public to stop speculating, when public trust in the MACC is already low — partly because the leadership itself isn’t seen as the product of meritocracy, but of political appointments. When accountability and credibility are in doubt at the top, even events outside the agency’s direct control end up raising suspicion