Who wants Shuhaily OUT?? Follow the smuggling trail

When thousands of wild animals are smuggled through international air routes linked to Malaysia, the public deserves to know who is behind these criminal networks — and whether anyone powerful is protecting them.

Between 2024 and 2026, reports of wildlife smuggling have exposed a disturbing problem that Malaysia cannot afford to ignore.

According to TRAFFIC, more than 22,000 individual animals were seized in 35 smuggling incidents involving air routes linked to Malaysia in 2025 alone. In the last four months of 2024, an estimated 10,000 live wild animals were seized at destination airports after departing Malaysia. Reports have also documented baby gibbons packed into small carriers and concealed in luggage.

These are not insignificant numbers. They raise serious questions about the scale of organised wildlife trafficking, the people financing it, the networks transporting the animals and whether all those responsible are being investigated.

Who are the masterminds? Who are their protectors? And are the authorities prepared to investigate the networks all the way to the top, regardless of political connections?

WHY WAS SHUHAILY RETURNED TO PDRM? The decision to return Datuk Seri Mohd Shuhaily Mohd Zain from the Malaysian Border Control and Protection Agency (AKPS) to the police force has raised questions that deserve clear answers.

Was this purely an administrative decision, or were other considerations involved? What evidence and procedures informed the decision? The government should explain its reasoning transparently.

The incident involving two Special Branch Travel Control Officers at KLIA must also be examined fairly. The Inspector-General of Police has said these officers have official intelligence and security duties. The relevant question is whether their deployment and conduct in this particular incident were consistent with their authority and the applicable procedures.

Shuhaily has pleaded not guilty to charges of voluntarily causing hurt. Those charges must be determined through the courts. Equally, the administrative decision affecting his position should not prevent legitimate scrutiny of the wider circumstances.

MY CONCERN ABOUT POLITICAL CONNECTIONS

During Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's time as Prime Minister, I became concerned about allegations of serious criminal activities involving politically connected individuals. I also have personal knowledge that has led me to question whether influential people may have used private aircraft in connection with illicit activities.

These are serious matters. They warrant proper investigation and corroboration, not assumptions about the guilt of any particular individual.

My concern is whether criminal networks can survive because of money, influence and protection from people in powerful positions.

I believe investigators should examine any credible evidence of links between organised crime, wildlife trafficking, corruption and political connections, regardless of whether those implicated are associated with UMNO, PKR or any other political party.

I have no verified evidence establishing that UMNO, PKR and wildlife-smuggling cartels conspired to remove Shuhaily. Nevertheless, I believe the circumstances deserve transparent examination, and the public should not be expected to accept unexplained decisions without asking questions.

WHO IS PAYING FOR THE TWO OFFICERS' LEGAL ACTION?

Another question concerns the civil legal action involving the two police officers.

Who is paying for the proceedings? Their lawyer has reportedly said he is acting pro bono and denied claims that a cartel or other parties are financing the legal services. That explanation must be acknowledged.

But if other financial assistance or public resources are involved, the relevant facts should be disclosed where legally appropriate. The public should not be left to speculate about who is funding whom.

There is nothing wrong with officers seeking legal remedies. The issue is transparency, especially when the case has attracted considerable public attention.

THE PUBLIC DESERVES ANSWERS

Malaysia cannot effectively combat organised crime if investigations stop at the lowest level while the people financing or protecting criminal networks remain beyond scrutiny.

The government must explain the decision concerning Shuhaily. The police must clarify the circumstances surrounding the officers' deployment. The relevant agencies must continue investigating wildlife trafficking and follow credible evidence wherever it leads.

If political connections are discovered, they must be investigated without fear or favour. If allegations cannot be substantiated, that too must be made clear.

My concern is simple: Are we confronting organised crime at every level, or are we only seeing part of the picture?

I want the public to ask questions, demand transparency and insist on an independent, evidence-based investigation.

When thousands of animals are trafficked through international air routes, the issue is bigger than one officer, one checkpoint or one department. It concerns the integrity of our border controls and the ability of powerful criminal networks to operate.

Follow the evidence. Follow the money. Identify the masterminds. And let no political connection place anyone above the law.