Luqman's musings

  In the early 1980s, a close friend—a qualified Chartered Accountant —was caught embezzling funds from his employer. He was rightfully dismissed, but then a mutual colleague reported the matter to the professional body . His CA qualification was revoked, effectively ending his career in accountancy.

  Disclaimer   This post is a purely hypothetical discussion created for educational and debate purposes only. It does not describe, refer to, or imply any real individual, firm, case, or ongoing matter. Any resemblance to actual persons or events is entirely coincidental. The modern scenario outlined is fictional, and the historical example referenced is drawn from publicly available records of disciplinary actions taken decades ago, without naming or identifying any person. Nothing in this post should be read as an allegation, accusation, or statement of fact about any current or past professional. Readers should not rely on this discussion for legal or regulatory advice; if you have concerns about actual conduct, seek guidance from qualified professionals or the relevant regulatory body.

  A recent reflection in LinkedIn argued that judges must resist the temptation to mediate sentiment or emotion, and instead ground their determinations strictly in facts, admissible evidence , and applicable law . It warned that any departure from these fundamentals risks perverting justice and rendering advocates redundant.   One recent reflection captured this principle well, and I reproduce it here in full before turning to the case I am handling:

  The recent Court of Appeal decision affirming a RM4.8 million judgment against Sime Darby Property for defective bungalows in the Primo Bukit Jelutong development marks an important moment for property buyers in Malaysia. This case, reported by Free Malaysia Today on January 30, 2026, involved six homeowners who sued the developer (and its predecessor) over breaches of sale and purchase agreements related to poor workmanship and substandard materials. The High Court initially ruled in their favour in April 2024, awarding damages plus interest and costs, after rejecting defences such as owner-induced damage, wear and tear, or "as-is" purchases. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the developer's appeal, finding no merit in the arguments and ordering additional costs to the owners. LINK

  Officers of the Court, Not Mouthpieces Lawyers are not mere advocates for their clients. They are officers of the court, bound by duties of candour, honesty, and professional integrity. When lawyers knowingly cover up for clients—especially in cases involving corruption—they cross a line. They cease to defend justice and instead become complicit in its erosion.

  Transparency at What Cost? The recent Focus Malaysia article , “ Transparency at What Cost? ”, raised a critical warning: exposing corruption by compromising sensitive defence information does not strengthen reform—it weakens the nation. Adversaries gain insights into vulnerabilities, and the shield meant to protect citizens is eroded.