Luqman's musings

Translated from my post in English. Pada Bahagian 6, kita meneliti bagaimana kuasa tatatertib terhadap guru-guru yang berhutang dibiarkan tidak digunakan, sekali gus melemahkan kepercayaan terhadap pentadbiran. Dalam Bahagian 7, kita melihat bagaimana penguatkuasaan yang selektif menjadikan peraturan sebagai janji kosong. Bahagian 8 kini mengambil langkah seterusnya: apa yang berlaku apabila salah laku berterusan selama bertahun-tahun, walaupun di hadapan perintah Mahkamah Tinggi ?

  In Part 6, we examined how disciplinary powers against indebted teachers were left unused, eroding trust in governance . In Part 7, we saw how selective enforcement turned regulations into hollow promises. Part 8 now takes the next step: what happens when misconduct persists for years, even in the face of a High Court order ?

In Part 6, I showed how disciplinary powers exist but are often applied selectively. Fraud and corruption invite sanctions, but civil debts are frequently treated as “private.” Whether that pattern will repeat itself in the case of my complaint remains to be seen. I have written to the Director of Education , and I await her reply. The question is whether the Department will act on the clear authority it possesses, or whether it will avoid confronting dishonesty.

In my last post, I shared the disciplinary complaint lodged against a serving teacher who has defied a High Court order and remains in financial indebtedness . That letter was not written lightly. It was written because the law is clear, and yet enforcement has been selective.

Untuk versi Bahasa Melayu, sila skrol ke bawah. In my earlier posts, I argued that school culture is not written in mission statements but in the daily conduct of its teachers. When a teacher defies a High Court order and remains in serious financial indebtedness, it is not merely a private failing — it is a breach of trust that undermines governance and erodes the integrity of the profession. This is why I have formally lodged a disciplinary complaint against the teacher whose refusal to comply with the judgment debt order exemplifies how dishonesty corrodes institutional culture. Here is an English Translation of my letter to the Education Director written in Malay:

                                                          In Part 3, we examined the Supplementary Agreement of 22 April 2004 . Its clauses left no ambiguity: the property was to be re ‑ transferred once the government loan was repaid, the Vendors waived RM35,000 , and they retained the liberty to reside or rent. It was an arrangement of trust and family support, not a commercial sale.