Luqman's musings

  My recent posts have exposed how complaints about serious misconduct in our schools — including teachers defying court orders — are routinely twisted or ignored by education authorities. A clear example: On 5 June 2026, a complaint was lodged against a teacher at SK Bukit Kuchai for allegedly violating a court order and having major financial liabilities. Instead of proper investigation, the Selangor Education Department’s Integrity Sector reframed it as a mere “ bankruptcy check ,” quickly declared it “unfounded,” and closed the case. This is classic deflection that protects the system while betraying parents and students. Now the same pattern hits higher education.

  I submitted a formal complaint on 5 June 2026 to the Selangor State Education Department regarding a teacher (Veni A/P Munusami, SK Bukit Kuchai) who allegedly failed to comply with a court order and has serious financial liabilities as a public servant. Instead of addressing the actual issues I raised — failure to obey a court order and serious debt by a government employee — the Integrity Sector replied by claiming I had complained about her being bankrupt. They then checked with the Malaysian Insolvency Department (MDI), confirmed she is not bankrupt, and immediately closed the case.

  Here is the reply to my email to the Selangor Education Director which you may read at LINK . This is a translation of the email written in Malay by the Integrity Sector : Sir/Madam, Referring to the complaint that you submitted on 5 June 2026 regarding the financial status/bankruptcy of our officers, the management has taken appropriate action by conducting a detailed investigation.     For your information, an official check has been made with the Malaysian Insolvency Department ( MDI ) to confirm the validity of the allegations.

  When the Deputy Home Minister declared in Parliament that refusing to accept police reports is a serious offence punishable by dismissal, he was not merely speaking about police procedure . He was affirming a principle: public officers exist to serve the public, not to obstruct them. LINK Yet across Malaysia, ordinary citizens face another form of obstruction — civil servants who simply ignore emails.

  The Daily Express recently reported that tribunal losers must comply with orders or face enforcement through court action. The Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living (KPDN) reminded the public that compliance is not optional — it is a legal duty. LINK   This principle should apply equally to all, including educators entrusted with shaping the next generation. Yet, in West Malaysia, a teacher continues to defy a High Court order to pay RM3,000 in costs. Such defiance is not a private matter; it is a breach of integrity that undermines both the judiciary and the teaching profession .

  We sing with pride: “Dari Perlis sampai lah ke Sabah kita sudah MERDEKA…” Yet in reality, our governance under the present leadership is terkandas — stranded in silence, stuck in inefficiency, and failing the very people it claims to serve.   My Experience with SK Kuchai, Puchong In 2022, I wrote three emails to SK Kuchai, Puchong.   In June 2026, I sent two more emails to the new Headmaster.   No response.

  Lawyers are duty-bound to represent their clients. But they are also officers of the court, sworn to uphold justice. What happens when those duties collide — when a lawyer continues to act despite clear contradictions and even evidence of fraud?

  India has already demonstrated that pensions can be forfeited for corruption and misconduct. In 2025, amendments to the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules made it clear: dismissal for fraud, corruption, or negligence means loss of pension, gratuity, provident fund, and even family pension. Malaysia , however, has had the principle embedded in law since 1980 — Section 3 of the Pensions Act — but has never tested it. This raises a crucial question: why has Malaysia left this provision dormant, and what benefits could accrue if it were finally enforced?

  On 6 June 2026, I sent an official complaint via email to the Director of Education, Selangor, followed by a registered letter on 8 June 2026.After receiving no reply, I followed up with another email this morning,19.6.2026, and a telephone call. The Director’s Personal Assistant, Puan Aliah, who answered my call, informed me that the Director has instructed the complaint to be forwarded to the Integrity Department for further action. I asked her to acknowledge receipt of my email and have yet to receive it.  Now, I'll wait for another two weeks to see if this matter has to be escalated.   For those who missed my earlier post, below is the English translation of the email and formal letter I sent to the Director.

  In contentious civil cases, lawyers often face a difficult balancing act: the duty to follow client instructions versus the overriding duty of candour owed to the court. This tension becomes most acute when a client’s narrative conflicts with documents already on the court record.

  Under Malaysia’s Pensions Act 1980 , pension rights are conditional on good conduct — integrity is lifelong.   In earlier parts we saw how affidavit fraud (Part 9) and unused sanctions (Part 8) expose gaps in enforcement. Part 11 now asks: why has pension reduction for misconduct scarcely been litigated, despite clear statutory powers?   Malaysia: Powers Exist, Precedent Is Thin

  In Part 6, we saw disciplinary powers left unused. In Part 7, we examined governance failures when court orders were ignored. In Part 8, we explored punishments that exist but are rarely applied. In Part 9, we asked whether fraud in affidavits could justify pension reduction. Part 10 now grounds the debate in law itself: Section 3 of the Pensions Act 1980 (Act 227).

  Under the Pensions Act 1980, pension rights remain conditional upon good conduct — because integrity is lifelong. In Part 6, we saw disciplinary powers left unused. In Part 7, we examined governance failures when court orders were ignored. In Part 8, we explored punishments that exist — even pension reduction — but are rarely applied. Part 9 now asks: What if contradictions in affidavits amount to fraud , and what happens if a complaint is lodged after the verdict?

  A Closer Look at the Pensions Act 1980 In recent discussions about Malaysia's national budget and fiscal responsibility, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu) has taken a clear stance on the pension scheme for civil servants. The party emphasizes protecting the retirement benefits of ordinary public servants while suggesting reviews for politicians' perks. 

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.

  School culture is not written in mission statements.   It is revealed in how obligations are honoured — or ignored. The Supplementary Agreement in this case is more than a legal document; it is a mirror of the values, silence, and choices that shape institutional culture. 1.      1. The Supplementary Agreement dated 22 April 2004 was executed between the Vendors, Parimala Devi A/P Muthu and Pachy A/P Karuppiah, and the Purchaser.

This series begins where a recent LinkedIn reflection left off — on the quiet ways culture is learned, reinforced, and revealed in schools. Leadership protection, daily behaviour, and fairness under pressure matter far more than polished words on paper.

  This series begins where a recent LinkedIn reflection left off — on the quiet ways culture is learned, reinforced, and revealed in schools. Leadership protection, daily behaviour, and fairness under pressure matter far more than polished words on paper. In the coming posts, I’ll examine how these dynamics play out in real cases, starting with a teacher's refusal to comply with a High Court order . Her conduct is not just personal defiance; it is a mirror of the institutional culture that shields, ignores, or rewards such behaviour.