Luqman's musings

  Back in 2021, I lodged a complaint against a law firm. The Advocates Inquiry Committee in Kota Kinabalu heard the matter. What followed was troubling: two different signature pages were produced for the findings. One page bore the signatures of members who had actually attended the hearing. The other included members who had not been present, yet their signatures were counted toward the majority decision. The Committee then declared that it was “their practice” to circulate findings to all members—even those absent—and to allow them to sign off. On that basis, my complaint was dismissed.

  Hello, everyone, Lately I’ve been reflecting on how easy it is to get swept up in the noise of daily headlines and official narratives. In a world that moves so quickly, we rarely pause to ask difficult questions or dig deeper beyond surface-level reporting. One piece that caught my attention recently is this article from The Star: ‘Swift and robust disciplinary action is needed to break the long-standing cycle of corruption and integrity breaches within the public sector, says Tan Sri Dr Ismail Bakar.’

   Request for Goodwill Remedy and System/Training Improvement   Dear KTMB Customer Service Team, I am writing to formally complain about an incident that occurred when my son purchased ETS/Intercity train tickets for my wife and me at a ticket counter in Kuala Lumpur station for travel from Butterworth to KL Sentral .

  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 His CA qualification was revoked, effectively ending his career in accountancy.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: