Luqman's musings

  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.

  Insights from the Sabah Development Bank Discussions in Sabah In Malaysia, including Sabah, a bank statement of account is generally accepted as prima facie evidence of a debt. Courts often rely on such statements to establish the existence of financial obligations. However, this acceptance is not absolute. The enforceability of a statement of account can be successfully challenged if the bank cannot explain or verify its contents when disputed. The ongoing discussions surrounding the SDB matter highlight how these principles may come into play in practice.

  In Part 7: The Unresolved Horizon (link-to-part-7), I examined the glaring disparities between foreclosure laws in Sabah and Peninsular Malaysia . While the Federal Court in the peninsula has begun curbing indefinite claims through cases like Thameez Nisha Hasseem v Maybank Allied Bank Berhad [2023] 4 MLRA 492 , Sabah still clings to its outdated Limitation Ordinance . Item 114 exempts foreclosures entirely, leaving borrowers exposed to threats that can linger for 60 years. This is not a mere legal quirk—it is a symptom of a deeper malaise: Sabah’s persistent refusal to align with evolving national and global standards.   The consequences are visible everywhere. Despite being rich in oil, gas, palm oil, and timber, Sabah remains Malaysia’s second-poorest state . Poverty rates hover between 17.7% and 19.5%, compared to the national average of 5.6%. Infrastructure failures compound the problem:   Electricity supply remains unreliable.   Internet conn...

  📌 Introduction Between 2003 and 2018, Sabah Development Bank (SDB) approved approximately RM8 billion in loans to companies based in Peninsular Malaysia . Around 95% of these loans were for property development projects in Kuala Lumpur , Selangor , and Johor —far removed from Sabah’s primary development needs. LINK - Daily Express

  For decades, foreclosure in Sabah has lingered in the shadows of dormancy. Files lie untouched, accounts remain contradictory, and yet the law continues to permit enforcement without end. In Peninsular Malaysia , the Federal Court has begun to confront the inequity of indefinite claims, as seen in Thameez Nisha Hasseem vMaybank Allied Bank Berhad [2023] 4 MLRA 492. But in Sabah, the horizon remains fixed at sixty years under its Limitation Ordinance .

  Disclaimer: This article contains personal views and analysis on matters of public interest. It is not legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified lawyer for advice on their specific circumstances. From Sivadevi to Thameez and the Question of Sabah ’s 60 ‑ Year Horizon In Part 5, I exposed the inequity: borrowers in the Peninsula lived under a 12 ‑ year horizon, while borrowers in Sabah faced a 60 ‑ year horizon. The same default, but radically different consequences depending on geography. That inequity could not stand unchallenged. Courts revisit their own decisions, and when they do, the consequences ripple across the federation.

In Part 4, I wrote about leadership — how silence and deflection erode trust when institutions fail to act. But leadership failures are magnified when the law itself is unequal. That is the inequity I confront here: borrowers in Malaysia do not all live under the same legal horizon. Different statutory regimes mean that the very rules of foreclosure are not applied uniformly.

                                                             Disclaimer: This article contains personal views and analysis on matters of public interest. It is not legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified lawyer for advice on their specific circumstances. In Part 1, I wrote about silence . In Part 2, I wrote about technicalities . In Part 3, I asked whether every injustice must be dragged through the courts before it is acknowledged. Each of these reflects a failure of institutions . But behind every institution stands leadership . And when leadership fails, the consequences are magnified.

                                                                    Disclaimer: This article contains personal views and analysis on matters of public interest. It is not legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified lawyer for advice on their specific circumstances. In Part 1 , I wrote about silence . In Part 2 , I wrote about technicalities . Both are ways institutions avoid responsibility. But there is a third, more troubling reality: that citizens are often left with no choice but to take matters to court.

  This is a continuation of Part one you can read at LINK In Part 1, I wrote about silence — the long, unbroken quiet that follows when citizens raise legitimate concerns with institutions meant to serve them. Silence itself is damaging, but sometimes it is broken. And when it is, the words that arrive often do not resolve the matter. Instead, they deflect.

Introduction Contracts are more than ink on paper — they are promises meant to endure. Yet what happens when those promises are ignored for decades, only to be challenged after circumstances change? This is the story of agreements signed nearly twenty years ago, left unquestioned until a divorce and loan settlement brought them back into dispute.