In any functional democracy, when the lawyers of a kidnapped person accuse the state security apparatus of malfeasance, political operatives would be exploiting the issues and demanding that the relevant agencies be investigated.

The victims’ families would be surrounded by a gaggle of political operatives hoping the spotlight not only shines on them, but also that any investigation into government institutions not only demonstrates the integrity of the institutions but the political process as well.

What is happening here? Absolutely nothing. PSM had to wonder why this kidnapping only saw the light of day after a month and the family’s lawyers rightly pointed out that they were hoping that the state security apparatus would inform them of any developments or that they did not want to impede the investigation in any way.

Tragically, because of the way she was kidnapped, this may have given more time to the abductors.

Already, the narrative of “rogue cops” is being tested. Remember in the cases of Koh and Amri Che Mat, Zamri Yahya, a member of the Home Ministry's Special Task Force (STF) claimed (in his personal opinion, of course) - “(The STF) Found that the incident behind Amri and Koh may have been caused by the actions directly or indirectly of irresponsible rogue police officers who acted on their own individually or in a group

“They acted on their own accord, together with outside religious groups. However, this is only my view.”

Spinning narratives

Kuala Lumpur police chief Rusdi Isa said that new leads were discovered by the police but here is the thing, this press conference was only being held because this news is public.

What were the police doing for a whole month? Again, all these narratives are being spun. That there were eight kidnappers, that only two wore police vests and that there were five cars etc.

Mind you, the police have not shown the public any evidence to support these statements because they claim they do not want to jeopardise their investigations.

If you look at press conferences in other functional democracies, they want the public to know as much as possible without jeopardising the investigations.

In a case where the state security apparatus' credibility is in question, the police forces in functional democracies are even more transparent.

Keep in mind Rusdi even entertained the idea that the victim could have staged the kidnapping. Remember in Koh’s case, how the state security apparatus attempted to imply that Koh had links to underworld crime elements?

We can easily dismiss that these were rogue cops working on their own in Ling’s disappearance because what would have been their purpose for kidnapping her?

Operatives from the state security apparatus do not simply go around kidnapping citizens, and there are always reasons, either legal or extrajudicial, for their actions.

No ransom demand

Indeed, the family has received no ransom demands. No proof of life. And this is how it starts. It started like this with the Koh’s case. It started like this with the Amri’s case.

It started like this with Ruth Sipue’s case. In all these cases, the state security apparatus has come under scrutiny and decried that they are being demonised.

Imagine if the family had gone public immediately instead of trusting institutions meant to protect and serve them?

You have to ask yourself if criminals are going around masquerading as cops, and this is not the first time this has happened, why is the state so blasé about it?

Why is the state not hunting down these perpetrators? They would view these people as a threat to national security. Why doesn’t the state view them as a threat to national security?

A threat to national security is something that cannot be controlled, right?