Luqman's musings

    The above is the letter from Ronny Cham & Co. I wrote 3 emails to Puan Rosemary Ahping , the GM of LPPB , which were not replied. Then, I wrote to Puan Cristilla Korok , the head of the legal department of LPPB. Here is my email and her reply:

My Struggle to File a Complaint Against a Lawyer as a B40 SARA Recipient in Sabah In Malaysia, we often hear that the legal profession is self-regulating and that disciplinary boards exist to protect the public from professional misconduct. But what happens when the very system meant to uphold standards places financial and procedural barriers that effectively silence ordinary citizens — especially those from the B40 group ?

  In my previous post, I discussed the intimidating warning that comes with an IPCC complaint: the threat of fines or jail time for providing false information under Section 34 of Act 839 . After I shared that, I asked myself: "What if I make a mistake? What if I misremember a detail? Am I going to jail for a slip of the tongue?" The short answer is no. To understand why, we have to look at the "spirit of the law" and a concept called Good Faith (or bona fide ).

After four years of attempting to resolve this matter through amicable channels, I realized that a more formal path was necessary. I finally decided to submit an official complaint to the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC). However, when their response arrived, it contained a specific warning that immediately gave me pause—a statement so stern it made me reconsider my next steps until I took a moment to truly process its intent.

  A parent’s duty vs. a regulator’s duty If I heard any rumour about my children, I would check it out with them immediately. That is basic parental responsibility.   So why should we expect less from a professional disciplinary body whose entire purpose is to protect the public and uphold standards in the legal profession? In March 2023, I sent a detailed complaint to the Sabah Advocates Disciplinary Board (SADB) regarding what I believed was clear misrepresentation by a law firm. Here is what I wrote:

                                                                                                                                  Who is this authority? The LJS “Mysterious Authority” Scandal Publication How are we to trust our present politicians and our opposition politicians if they can’t even find out from Lembaga Juruukur Sabah (LJS) who the “authority” is? Three years after I lodged my complaint about the fabricated “as-built” survey plans at Taman Puncak Vistana Heights , LJS inspected the site in June 2023. Their report remains locked away. Their repeated excuse? It is “awaiting verification from the authority.” When pressed in writing and in perso...

  Tamil comedian Vadivelu once quipped in a film that the government and the opposition shout at each other for the public’s benefit, then retreat behind closed doors to drink and party together. It was meant as satire, but looking at Sabah politics today, one wonders if this is less comedy and more reality.

  Dear readers, It has now been more than three years since I first lodged a formal complaint with the Lembaga Juruukur Sabah (LJS) on 15 December 2022 regarding the allegedly fabricated “ as-built” survey plans for Taman Puncak Vistana (Vistana Heights Phase 1), Iramanis. The plans were submitted by the licensed survey firm Jurukur Terra Firma and accepted by Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu (DBKK). The core issue remains the unexplained and significant discrepancy between the actual road level and my son Faisal’s house platform — a problem that should have been easily resolved with proper survey data.

  I presented a case scenario to AI and received clear legal guidance on this important issue. In legal proceedings, the integrity of pleadings is fundamental. A defence filed on behalf of defendants must reflect their instructions, their knowledge, and their consent. But what happens when a defence contains false claims — or worse, is filed entirely without the defendants’ authorization ? The Case Scenario Imagine four defendants jointly asserting that Ali stole three goats from Ramu’s goat farm. Later, it emerges that Ramu never owned a goat farm at all. This raises serious questions:   Who is at fault for the false statement?   

Systemic Barriers Faced by Ordinary Citizens As a Sabah B40 citizen receiving RM100 monthly SARA aid , I often ask myself: How exactly are ordinary Sabahans supposed to seek justice when the very institutions meant to protect us create one obstacle after another? Over the past few years, I have documented several patterns on this blog. They are not isolated incidents. They form a picture of systemic barriers that make access to justice feel almost impossible for people like me.

   Does Anyone Actually Read Your Email on Procedural Fairness? In April 2026 I wrote to the Malaysian Bar Council Secretariat. I was not asking them to handle my case. I was not asking for legal advice on my specific facts. I simply wanted their expert opinion on two universal principles:

  A striking coincidence: As a former PKR grassroots member sets the ultimate benchmark for success, I finalise my police report to PDRM and IPCC , and prepare to email Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim . This morning, I came across a timely and pointed article in Focus Malaysia titled “Charges against Tun M, Ismail Sabri would mark PMX ’s anti-graft pinnacle”.

  Important Disclaimer: This is a personal blog post about my own ongoing matter and is not legal advice. It reflects my current understanding and should not be taken as guidance for anyone else’s situation. Please seek independent legal advice from a qualified Malaysian lawyer before taking any action. A recent Facebook post highlighted that destroying or fabricating evidence is a criminal offence under Sections 193–204 of the Penal Code . That got me thinking seriously about filing a police report .

  Yesterday, a good friend sent me the photo above and said: ‘Notice the elevation?’ I responded: Yes, what is important is if this was according to the DP (Development Plan). He replied: No idea…this has been going on for ages, until they meet LM (Luqman Michel).

Berikut adalah terjemahan penuh ke Bahasa Melayu When I revisited the events of 2021 in my April 3 post , I wasn’t simply looking backward. I was asking why, years later, the unfairness I experienced still weighed on me enough to write. The answer lies in perspective: with time, patterns become clearer. What felt personal then now looks systemic — the way disciplinary processes can be wielded, and how those who once sat in judgment may themselves face scrutiny.

  Datuk Roger Chin’s press statement today is powerful: “This is not about rights — it is about whether they will ever be honoured.”   He rightly slams the removal of binding timelines, warning that “complexity” should not become a permanent excuse for delay on Sabah’s 40% entitlement. Here is the full press statement. LINK    Yet in 2021, as Secretary of the Advocates Inquiry Committee, the same logic was not applied.

  Even when you and other government servants (sorry, masters) work from the office, I don't get replies to emails and letters. Now what can we expect when you work from home? That was my quick reaction to YB Datuk Seri Masidi Manjun ’s recent statement on Sabah’s plan to follow the Federal Government’s Work From Home (WFH) policy .

  A Sabahans’ Perspective on Autonomy, Accountability and Access to Justice In my previous post, I wrote about how ordinary Sabahans — especially those in the B40 group — often find it too costly and discouraging to file complaints against lawyers under our local system. Many readers asked: “If the system feels stacked against ordinary people, why not just extend the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) from Peninsular Malaysia to Sabah so we have one uniform set of rules?” It’s a fair and important question. Let me explain what I’ve learned.

  In my last post on April 2, I shared how ordinary Sabahans — especially those in the B40 group like myself who rely on RM100 monthly SARA aid — are effectively priced out of complaining about professional misconduct by lawyers. The RM100 processing fee, printing costs, and the feeling that the system is stacked against us make it almost impossible to seek justice.

Introduction In Malaysian civil lawsuits, defendants often file counter-claims against plaintiffs. Sometimes, counter-claims even extend to additional parties who were not part of the original action. But what happens if the counter-claim is weak, unsustainable, or based on questionable material? Can it simply be withdrawn? What are the consequences for costs? And what accountability exists if fabricated evidence is suspected?

  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.’