Cover image via Lotus's KepongFollow us on Instagram, TikTok, and WhatsApp for the latest stories and breaking news.
The husband at the centre of the viral Lotus's Selayang incident has criticised the supermarket chain's apology, claiming it lacks transparency and fails to answer several key questions
Fareez Shah's latest response comes hours after Lotus's Malaysia announced it had completed its internal investigation and offered its apology to the family.
The supermarket chain also stated, without specifying, that disciplinary action had been taken against those involved, and said it had strengthened its procedures and staff training to prevent similar incidents in the future.
The company also appealed to the public to stop directing online harassment and threats at its employees and their families.
Fareez claimed the company focused more on protecting staff than explaining what happened
In a series of Threads posts published after Lotus's statement last night, 14 July, @fareezshah10 said he was disappointed with the company's response.
"So this is Lotus's official statement? After everything my wife and I went through, this is all you have to say?" he wrote.
He argued that the statement appeared to spend more time asking the public to stop criticising employees than explaining how the incident had happened in the first place.
Referring to his wife, who was 38 weeks pregnant at the time of the incident, Fareez questioned why the same emphasis on dignity and privacy had not been extended to her when she was publicly accused of stealing in front of other customers without evidence.
"You ask the public to respect the dignity and privacy of your employees. Where was that same respect for my wife's dignity when she was humiliated in front of other customers?" he asked.
He also questioned a CCTV image of his wife that circulated online
Fareez raised questions about what he described as a CCTV image of his wife that had allegedly been circulated on social media following the incident.
He claimed the image appeared to have originated from inside the supermarket and questioned how it had been leaked.
"A CCTV image from inside your premises doesn't magically appear on social media. Who leaked it?"
Among the questions he posed were whether Lotus's had identified the individual responsible for the alleged leak, and whether any disciplinary action had been taken over what he described as a potential breach of customer privacy.
"An apology without transparency is nothing more than damage control," he wrote.
He added that the matter was no longer only about what he described as a false accusation, but also about alleged negligence, humiliation, and an apparent breach of customer privacy.
Fareez said he and his family intend to continue pursuing the matter through the appropriate legal channels until those responsible are held accountable.
Meanwhile, Fareez's mother said the incident has affected his wife's emotional wellbeing
In a series of comments, she claimed her daughter-in-law has been receiving medical treatment following the incident.
According to her, the pregnant woman has been experiencing severe emotional distress and depression, and has struggled to eat in the days since the incident.
She added that the family is concerned about both her wellbeing and the health of the unborn baby.
The woman questioned whether Lotus's statement was sufficient given the impact she claimed the incident had on the family, and said they would continue seeking accountability through the appropriate channels.
Earlier, Lotus's said it has taken disciplinary action and strengthened procedures
According to Lotus's Malaysia, its investigation found that the handling of the incident at its Selayang outlet "fell short of the standards" expected by both customers and the company.
At the time of writing, Lotus's Malaysia has not publicly responded to Fareez's latest claims regarding the alleged CCTV image leak or the family's latest statements.
SAYS has reached out to Lotus's Malaysia for comment on the family's latest statements. At the time of publication, no response had been received.
