Part 6: Disciplinary Powers That Remain Selectively Applied

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.

 

The Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 explicitly prohibit a public officer from being in a state of financial indebtedness due to an unsettled judgment debt. The Education Service Disciplinary Board possesses wide powers: it can issue warnings, freeze salary increments, stall promotions, and even dismiss officers whose conduct undermines the integrity of the service. These powers are not theoretical; they have been exercised in cases of fraud, corruption, and misconduct tied directly to official duties.

 

But when it comes to civil debts — even those arising from dishonesty and defiance of court orders — enforcement has been rare. Administrators often dismiss such matters as “private,” even though Regulation 13 makes clear that unsettled judgment debts are a disciplinary breach. This is not silence, but selective enforcement. And selective enforcement is itself a governance failure.

 

Governance requires asking harder questions: Can a teacher who openly defies a High Court order be trusted to uphold the values of the profession? Administration may focus on timetables and reports, but governance must confront dishonesty. When misconduct is tolerated, it becomes normalized. And when dishonesty is normalized, it becomes part of the school culture.

 

The disciplinary powers are there. The regulations are clear. What is missing is the will to apply them consistently. Until departments begin to enforce the rules they already possess, governance will remain compromised, and the culture of selective enforcement will continue to erode trust in our schools.

 

That is why the disciplinary complaint in Part 5 is not just about RM3,000. It is about testing whether the Education Service will use the powers entrusted to it. If it does not, then the public has every right to ask: What is the value of regulations that are enforced only in some cases, but ignored when dishonesty is at stake?