Plaintiffs' Press Statements

hidden text hidden text hidden text

Follow the Court
case management

2018 High Court Case No.
BKI-2NCvC-101/10-2018

2020 High Court Case No.
BKI-22NCvC-88/11-2020

Attend the Court Proceedings
The High Court of Kota Kinabalu

November 2025 — The 2020 Plaintiffs' & Legal Counsel Statements

KOTA KINABALU, Malaysia | 20 November 2025

Mohd Fadzley Izzani bin Lamsi, Witness (Malay only)
Assalamualaikum dan salam sejahtera semua. Terima kasih kerana meluangkan masa untuk mendengar perkembangan kami hari ini. Sidang media ini dianjurkan oleh Tiada.Guru dan Light Brigade.

Light Brigade adalah organisasi pelajar yang kami tubuhkan pada tahun 2017. Ia hanya adasatu matlamat: memperjuangkan keadilan dalam pendidikan, tidak kira siapa pun yang cuba menghalang kami.

Kami menang pada 18 Julai 2023 tanpa rayuan. Kami telah membuktikan bahawa setiap Defendan, termasuk guru, pengetua, malah Menteri Pendidikan sendiri, telah melanggar Perlembagaan.

Ramai lupa bahawa: ini bukan sekadar kes guru ponteng. Ini adalah kes tutup-mulut (cover-up) KPM. Kini ia menjadi aib negara: Menteri, seorang penggubal undang-undang sendiri, dan pegawai tertinggi KPM, iaitu Ketua Pengarah Pendidikan dikenali sebagai pencabul Perlembagaan. Dan macam mana? Defendan melanggar Perlembagaan untuk menafikan hak pendidikan murid Sabah.

Tema kami adalah Kepentingan Masa. Masa adalah alat penguji yang tak pernah gagalmendedahkan sifat sebenar seseorang. Tuan-tuan dan puan-puan, hari ini kita bukan hanyabercakap tentang satu kes. Kita bercakap tentang sejarah — tentang apa yang berlaku apabilakerajaan memilih untuk berdiam diri, dan apabila rakyat biasa memilih untuk melawan.

Kepentingan Masa #1: Tahun-Tahun Yang Hilang

Kes ini bermula pada 2017. Pada waktu itu, tiada siapa di luar KPM tahu apa yang berlaku.

Tidak ada media.
Tidak ada NGO.
Tidak ada tindakan.

Empat tahun berlalu-2017, 2018, 2019, 2020-tapi KPM tidak melakukan apa-apa untuk melindungi pelajar. Mungkinkah ada? Tapi saya berani mengatakan tiada kerana saya merupakan salah satu pelajar atau mangsa dalam kes ini.

Kes ini disembunyikan dengan sempurna selama tiga tahun penuh, walaupun ia mencabul Perlembagaan Malaysia. Hanya bila Mahkamah Tinggi pada 2023 menyatakan kemenangan pihak plaintiff dan mendedahkan semuanya, barulah kerajaan “sedar”. Bukan sebab merekapeduli — tetapi sebab mereka kantoi di depan negara.

Dan seperti banyak kes lain—40% Sabah, Zara Qairina, Teoh Beng Hock, Indira Gandhi, Pastor Koh & Amri, 1MDB—satu soalan jelas muncul: adakah Kerajaan terlalu takut, adakah kerajaan terlalu korup, atau adakah kerajaan terlalu tidak rela berhenti melanggar undang-undang. Sama kita renungkan. Dan inilah yang kita panggil, “Tahun-Tahun Yang Hilang”.

Tuntutan #1: Ombudsman Awam Bebas
‍
Mahu tidak mahu, kita perlukan satu badan Perlembagaan di luar Cawangan Eksekutif yang dikenali sebagai Ombudsman Awam, yang disokong oleh pendidik, aktivis, ibu bapa, dan ramai lagi. Pembaharuan kritikal ini menjadi asas kepada semua pembaharuan lain.

Siasatan bebas, penguatkuasaan bebas, perlindungan saksi & pemberi maklumat yang bebas. Semua itu tidak wujud di bawah siasatan dalaman KPM yang mudah terdedah kepada rasuah, dan ia membenarkan KPM memijak hak-hak kanak-kanak dengan sewenang-wenangnya.

Semua Ahli Parlimen harus berhenti berlagak menjadi mangsa perkhidmatan awam. Sebaliknya, tunjukkan maruah anda. Ambillah contoh daripada mangsa akar umbi di Sabah yang menjadi pemberi maklumat dan yang telah mengalahkan seluruh Kerajaan & perkhidmatan awam. Institusi yang korup sebegini tidak boleh diperbaiki dengan Ahli Parlimenyang lemah, yang hanya mampu menjerit di Parlimen, dan membuat pengakuan atau pendedahan yang terlalu sedikit dan terlambat. Ahli Parlimen mesti memperkukuh Ombudsman Awam dengan kuasa penyiasatan, punitif, pemulihan, dan penguatkuasaan.

Perkara ini bukan perkara baru, penubuhan Ombudsman Awam ini sudah disokong lebih 60 buah NGO di Malaysia: Parlimen mesti melaksanakan Ombudsman Awam di sekolah.
‍
Kepentingan Masa #2: Keberanian Cikgu Nurhaizah

Hari ini saya mahu menyebut satu nama: Cikgu Nurhaizah. Beliau adalah guru paling berani dalam KPM hari ini. Tetapi malangnya, beliau tiada perlindungan pemberi maklumat. Sebaliknya, KPM terus melindungi Defendant 1 dan Defendant 2—dua individu yang Mahkamah Tinggi sendiri panggil “saksi tidak boleh dipercayai.” Cikgu Nurhaizah dedahkan dalam NOP beliau bagaimana pihak pentadbiran mengugut pelajar; menghalang mereka melaporkan salah laku; dan pelajar terpaksa mendapatkan perintah injunksi untuk melindungi diri mereka.

Mahkamah juga menyebut bahawa sikap defendan itu “menjijikkan” — dan kebenaran itu muncul kerana keberanian beliau. Beliau kumpul bukti. Beliau ajar kelas tambahan. Beliau hadap ugutan, risiko penjara, risiko hilang kerja — semata-mata untuk selamatkan pelajar. Tetapi tiada Menteri. Tiada ADUN. Tiada Ahli Parlimen. Tiada seorang pun yang tampil mempertahankan beliau.
‍
Cikgu Nurhaizah adalah guru paling berani dalam KPM hari ini. Namun sehingga kini, Cikgu Nurhaizah tidak mempunyai perlindungan pemberi maklumat daripada KPM. Pada masa yang sama, KPM masih membela Defendan Pertama JJ & Defendan Kedua Suid, yang kedua-duanya didapati saksi "tidak boleh dipercayai" oleh Mahkamah Tinggi.

Seluruh Parlimen & DUN Sabah, termasuk yang kononnya "pembela kanak-kanak", Menteri Wanita, dan Menteri Pendidikan, berdiam diri. Mengapa Kerajaan yang kononnya “bersih” gagal menyokong pemberi maklumat? Mungkin kerana Cikgu Nurhaizah telah bercakap benar tentang bagaimana KPM menyalah gunakankuasanya terhadap kanak-kanak:

Petikan NOP Cikgu Nurhaizah: "However, I believe that many students were afraid of the potential negative reaction by the administration against them. Indeed, I understand that the administration has a tendency to harass and make threats against students who are brave enough to voice out issues concerning teacher’s absenteeism. I say so because the Plaintiffs in this case had successfully obtained an injunction order against the 1st to 4th Defendants to restrain them from harassing and threatening the Plaintiffs, in particular the 1st Plaintiff."

Apa pula pandangan Mahkamah Tinggi tentang Cikgu Nurhaizah?
...kejadian defendan pertama dan kedua secara terang-terangan mengabaikan dan sikap menjijikkan terhadap pendidikan plaintif dan seterusnya masa depan mereka dicerminkan dengan sempurna dalam rakaman perbualan peribadi Saksi Plaintif ke-10, Cikgu Nurhaizah Ejab ...
‍
Nurhaizah bertindak pantas dengan mengumpulkan bukti, mengadakan kelas tambahan, melaporkannya kepada PPD, mempertaruhkan ugutan bunuh, mempertaruhkan kerjayanya, mempertaruhkan penjara, mempertaruhkan pemulauan, mempertaruhkan keluarganya, mempertaruhkan segala-galanya untuk menyelamatkan kanak-kanak yang didera, namun tiada seorang pun Ahli Parlimen, Menteri, atau ADUN yang menunjukkan keberanian yang sama.

Bayangkan jika Cikgu Nurhaizah semalas dan selemah pemimpin kita.

Tiada.Guru melancarkan petisyen untuk perlindungan beliau, selepas YB Fadhlina mengabaikan surat terbuka TG pada Januari 2023. Dengan 4400+ tandatangan, adakah YB Fadhlina telah "hilang suara" lagi? "Tiada respons."

Tidak seorang pun Ahli Parlimen / ADUN / Menteri yang menyebut Cikgu Haiza, apatah lagimelindunginya.Kes ini telah muktamad, tiada rayuan. Cikgu Nurhaizah adalah wira Sabah & wira Malaysia. Tetapi mungkin Cikgu Nurhaizah membuat satu kesilapan besar, kesilapan yang Kerajaan tidakakan maafkan. Beliau menunjukkan keberanian yang lebih, tindakan yang lebih pantas, danintegriti yang lebih kuat daripada gabungan semua ahli politik. Mungkin keberanian & tindakan pantas beliau secara tidak sengaja telah mendedahkan sifat pengecut KPM & Kerajaan. Beliau tidak merayu sokongan popular atau merungut "reformasi memerlukan masa". Beliau tidak berkata, "Kita mesti berunding dengan semua pihak berkepentingan" atau sekadar membuat janji manis.

Tuntutan #2: Lindungi Wira Negara
‍
Semua ahli politik, dari calon DUN Sabah hingga Ahli Parlimen hingga Menteri, mesti mendesak perlindungan pemberi maklumat luaran, dari badan bebas seperti Ombudsman Awam. Tiada lagi pemberi maklumat berani yang perlu merayu kepada Kementerian yang pengecut.

Setiap ahli politik dan rakyat Malaysia mesti mempelajari kisah Cikgu Nurhaizah dan menggunakan platform mereka untuk memberikan beliau perlindungan.

Tuan-tuan dan puan-puan, kes ini bukan hanya tentang apa yang berlaku kepada pelajar. Ia adalah cermin—menunjukkan betapa lemahnya institusi kita, dan betapa kuatnya keberanian seorang guru.

Hari ini, kita berdiri bukan untuk mengulang sejarah yang sama, tetapi untuk menghentikannya. Tahun-Tahun Yang Hilang tidak boleh berlaku lagi. Sekian dari saya terima kasih, saya akan memberi ruang kepada Saudari Calvina bagi meneruskan point-point yang disuarakan hari ini.
‍
Calvina Angayung, Third Plaintiff (Malay only)
Memandangkan Keputusan Mahkamah telah muktamad selama lebih 28 bulan, kami dedahkan ini:
‍
Pengetua Nuzie dan tiga guru lelaki lain dari SMK Taun Gusi telah, melalui injunksi yang berjaya, mengganggu dan mengugut saksi & malah Plaintif untuk menarik balik kessebelum perbicaraan. Kami merakam audio rahsia ugutan mereka dan bukti ini membolehkan Mahkamah Tinggi memberikan kami injunksi perlindungan terhadap D1 hingga D4. Ini bermakna, gangguan itu sangat teruk, sehingga Mahkamah mendapati Menteri Pendidikan sendiri mesti dihalang daripada campur tangan: bayangkan, injunksi terhadap seorang Menteri Pendidikan!

Memandangkan Keputusan Mahkamah telah muktamad selama lebih 28 bulan, kami dedahkan ini juga: Pegawai KPM Ketua Bidang Bahasa Norhana Idek, Ketua Panitia BI Awang Erawan, dan PK1 Johari Hajat semuanya mengaku mereka tahu tentang ketidakhadiran JJ yang teruk, namun semuanya enggan bertindak, menurut Keputusan Mahkamah. Salah seorang daripada mereka malah menegaskan tidak mahu sebarang tindakan tatatertib diambil terhadap JJ.

Selanjutnya, Mahkamah Tinggi mendapati JJ dan Suid sedar dan / atau mengakui ketidakhadiran tersebut, namun kedua-duanya mendakwa sebaliknya semasa perkarautama litigasi. Keterangan mereka yang tidak konsisten menyebabkan kedua-duanya didapati sebagai saksi "tidak boleh dipercayai". Mengelirukan atau berbohong kepada Mahkamah bukanlah kesalahan kecil.

Tuntutan #3: Siasatan Jenayah terhadap Pegawai KPM

KPM bukan sahaja mesti memecat pegawai-pegawai ini, tetapi mesti ada siasatan sama ada pegawai-pegawai ini telah melakukan sebarang kesalahan jenayah.

Di bawah Akta SPRM, kita membaca takrifan suapan (f):

(f) apa-apa jenis perkhidmatan atau pertolongan lain, termasuk perlindungan daripada apa-apa penalti atau ketidakupayaan yang dikenakan atau yang dikhuatiri atau daripada apa-apa tindakan atau prosiding yang bersifat tatatertib, sivil atau jenayah, sama ada atau tidak sudah dimulakan, dan termasuk penggunaan atau menahan diri daripada menggunakan apa-apa hak atau apa-apa kuasa atau kewajipan rasmi;

Kepentingan Masa #4: Akauntabiliti untuk semua

Walaupun sudah 28 bulan sejak Keputusan Mahkamah, ia telah berlalu lebih 8 tahun sejak skandal itu bermula di SMK Taun Gusi. Mahkamah Tinggi memberikan ganti rugi nominal RM30,000 kepada setiap Plaintif kerana KPM menafikan kami "peluang yang baik dalam hidup kami untuk menerima pendidikan yang lebih baik".

Ganti rugi ini diberikan kerana kami adalah pelajar 4SS (4 Sains Sukan). D1 gagal mengajar seluruh kelas Tingkatan 4 Sains Sukan (4SS), bukan hanya kami sebagai Plaintif. Oleh kerana kelas 4SS mempunyai 26 pelajar, maka setiap seorang telah dinafikan hak Perlembagaan mereka untuk pendidikan berkualiti. Hakikat ini tidak pernah dipertikaikan oleh KPM.

Tuntutan #4: Tanggungjawab Kewangan

Defendan seharusnya mendermakan RM30,000 kepada 23 orang lagi rakan sekelas kami dalam Kelas 4 SS. 23 orang x RM30K = RM690K tambahan adalah minimum untuk memulihkan hak pelajar 4SS SMK Taun Gusi.

Jika Kerajaan ini benar-benar boleh dipercayai, sudah pasti mereka telah menyerahkan RM30,000 kepada setiap pelajar 4SS. Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan RM30,000 "pampasanyang sesuai" untuk pelanggaran ekstrem Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang disebabkan oleh Defendan yang menafikan hak pendidikan. Pihak Defendan tidak boleh lari atau tapuk lagi. Selama tempoh lapan tahun ini, tiada seorang pun pegawai KPM yang bertindak ikut peraturanatau saluran yang betul. Ada yang mungkin membantah bahawa ia tidak munasabah: mengapa? Bukankah mencuri hakpendidikan lebih salah? KPM sepatutnya guna gaji dan pencen semua pegawai ini untuk membayar derma ini.

Kepentingan Masa #5: Keangkuhan Eksekutif

Akhir sekali, kami kongsi masalah yang sepatutnya paling mudah & cepat diselesaikan oleh KPM, tetapi akhirnya memecahkan tembelang mereka.

Sehingga hari ini, 28 bulan kemudian, Defendan belum membayar satu sen pun daripadapenghakiman RM150,000 disebabkan oleh pelanggaran Perlembagaan yang besar, melanggar undang-undang, keangkuhan, dan penghinaan terhadap anak-anak muda Sabah.

Bayaran Faedah sahaja kini mencecah RM17,541.67. Ramai bertanya "Percayalah Kerajaandalam rayuan 40%", tetapi dalam satu kes ini pun, Eksekutif begitu angkuh mencabar Badan Kehakiman.

Nampaknya AGC dan KPM sedang menguji nasib mereka dan melihat sejauh mana merekaboleh lepas tangan sebelum rakyat Malaysia bangkit menentang kejahatan mereka.

Kami menjangkakan lebih banyak alasan daripada pelanggar undang-undang dalam Kerajaan. Adakah mereka akan memanggil kami korup juga, dan enggan membayar penghakiman itu? Adakah mereka akan memanggil kami angkuh atau pengemis dan enggan membayar penghakiman itu? Nampaknya pihak yang melanggar undang-undang dan enggan membayar adalah pihak yang benar-benar angkuh dan pihak yang benar-benar pengemis.

Kami mengingatkan semua rakyat Sabah: semua siasatan rasuah, semua siasatan KPM, semua siasatan polis, semua pendakwaan jenayah 100% dikawal oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan. Rakyat Sabah tiada suara. PM yang melantik Ketua SPRM dan AG. Bukan rakyat Sabah. Jika Kerajaan Persekutuan benar-benar mahu menamatkan rasuah di Sabah, ia akan melakukannya esok. Ia adalah satu-satunya pihak yang boleh berbuat demikian.

Dengan jelas kini, rakyat Sabah, pemberi maklumat, belia, wanita, dan rakyat Malaysia yangjujur hidup di bawah Penjajahan Moden oleh Putrajaya & Parlimen. Rakyat Sabah dan pemberi maklumat bergantung pada badan kehakiman apabila Eksekutif menjadi terlalu angkuh dan melanggar terlalu banyak undang-undang. Tetapi kini, entah bagaimana, Eksekutif telah meletakkan dirinya di atas Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan nampaknya percaya Kerajaan boleh melanggar undang-undang dan meruntuhkan institusi demokrasi dengan sewenang-wenangnya.

Jadi, ketidakpatuhan pembayaran ini tidak menghairankan. KPM telah tahu selama bertahun-tahun bahawa skandal ini benar, namun mereka tetap mempertahankannya. Tidak hairanlah Kementerian yang melanggar undang-undang kekal sebagai Kementerian yang melanggar undang-undang. Ia hanya menyedihkan bagi rakyat Sabah untuk melihat betapa terdesaknya Defendan, termasuk KPM dan Kerajaan Persekutuan, untuk menyembunyikan ketidakadilan mereka, untuk menyembunyikan perbuatan melanggar undang-undang mereka, untuk menyembunyikan keangkuhan mereka. Dan untuk hasil akhir apa? Untuk menyakiti anak-anak Sabah?

Walaupun mereka membayar esok, ia akan menjadi bukti bahawa Kerajaan Persekutuan tidak peduli tentang melanggar undang-undang. Kerajaan Persekutuan hanya peduli apabila dunia mengetahui mereka melanggar undang-undang.

Tuntutan #5: Bayar Ganti Rugi dengan Wang Sendiri

Defendan mesti melaksanakan Keputusan Mahkamah sepenuhnya. Defendan ke-4 harus membayar faedah Penghakiman dari gaji beliau sendiri; sebagai Defendan berpangkat tertinggi, beliau sebagai Menteri dan ahli Kabinet tidak boleh membebankan rakyat kerana kegagalan beliau.

Selanjutnya, Defendan ke-1 hingga ke-2, dan rakan sejenayah mereka, harus membayar seberapa banyak daripada Penghakiman daripada gaji / pencen mereka. Tindakan ini akan menjadi akauntabiliti yang jujur dan mengelakkan membebankan rakyat dengan kegagalan Defendan.

Seperti yang kami katakan, kita ada kuasa bah.

Tiada alasan untuk mengelak pembayaran. Mungkin Defendan tidak dapat menerima kekalahan besar mereka kepada tiga gadis berusia 18 tahun, dan dari Sabah pula. Mungkin Defendan tidak dapat menerima bahawa Mahkamah Tinggi mendedahkan "pegawai KPM yang berpengalaman" ini sebagai saksi tidak boleh dipercayai dengan menggunakan rakaman yangdibuat oleh pelajar berusia 16 tahun di Tingkatan 4. Mungkin Defendan tidak dapat menerima bahawa perbuatan melanggar undang-undang, penindasan, penghinaan mereka terhadap anak-anak muda telah terdedah.

Tahukah anda Defendan ke-4, YB Fadhlina Sidek adalah seorang peguam? Sehingga hari ini, beliau tidak pernah menyebut Cikgu Nurhaizah, tidak pernah melindunginya, tidak pernah menyebut Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi ini, tidak pernah menyebut skandal ini, tidak pernah menyebut kecurangan ini, tidak pernah menyebut sebarang tindakan terhadap mana-mana Defendan. Sekali lagi, YB Fadhlina adalah seorang peguam. Beliau bukan jahil, namun sebagai seorang pengamal undang-undang, beliau telah menyertai penentangan Eksekutif terhadap Badan Kehakiman. Rakyat Sabah, adakah ini cara kita mahu sekolah kita, belia kita, dan negerikita dilayan? YB Fadhlina masih ingat untuk mengucapkan selamat hari lahir kepada PMX. YB Fadhlina masih ingat untuk mendakwa dalam temubual media nasional,

“When things happen, there will be the minimum expectation that the minister will respond.”

“Maybe it is because of my legal background. We never take anything for granted.”

“We are willing to tackle this head-on too. Ever since I came in, there have been no more complaints,” she said. “I think this is because the process of complaints is now well-established. We have that process and we resolve complaints at the grassroots level.”

“There will be no more Ain Husniza case during my time.”

Sumber:
‍
Sexual harassment, bullying must end in my time, says Fadhlina

Fadhlina: Every small victory is reformasi for me

Ini sekali lagi hanyalah penyalahgunaan kuasa Kerajaan Persekutuan terhadap belia, terhadap pemberi maklumat, terhadap rakyat Sabah, terhadap pelajar, terhadap penjawat awam yang jujur, terhadap demokrasi, terhadap pengasingan kuasa.

Kami tidak memfailkan saman ini untuk kemasyhuran atau wang; kami memfailkannya untuk pengisytiharan bagi membuktikan guru ponteng bukan sekadar perkara tatatertib dalaman, tetapi sebagai pelanggaran Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Alhamdulillah, Mahkamah Tinggi bersetuju dengan kami.

Sherzali Hezra Asli, Messrs Asli & Cham Chambers

Today, we stand here not merely to speak about a court case, but to recognise courage. My clients, who were students at the time these events unfolded, had the extraordinary bravery to challenge a system that had failed them. Their fight was never about themselves alone. It was, and remains, a victory for every young person in Malaysia, and for the future of this nation. When children dare to hold the system accountable, the least the system must do is respond with integrity.

When the High Court delivered its judgment, the Government chose not to appeal. In doing so, the Government effectively communicated its acceptance of the Court’s findings and, by necessary implication, its willingness to abide by the order. One would expect that such acceptance would be followed by concrete action,meaningful reform, and, at the very minimum, compliance with the Court’s directive to pay the damages awarded.

Yet, more than two years later, nothing has changed. No institutional reform has taken place. No meaningful steps have been taken to address the systemic failures that allowed teacher absenteeism to persist in the first place. And most glaringly, the Government has still not paid my clients the RM150,000 in damages ordered by the Court. This is not merely an administrative oversight. It is a reflection of conduct inconsistent with a progressive government and inconsistent with a system that claims to uphold accountability.

So we, as Malaysians, must ask the uncomfortable but necessary question: why has the Government not complied with a court order it chose not to challenge? Why has there been silence instead of action? Is this a problem with the Government? Is it a problem with the institutions? Is it a problem with the system itself? If a clear and unambiguous High Court order is treated in this manner, what confidence can the public have that future structural failures will ever be addressed?

Our education system is in urgent need of institutional reform. It is plagued by accountability gaps, weakened by poor integrity safeguards, and suffers from an evident lack of political will to improve. When a system cannot protect its children, cannot carry out the basic function of ensuring that they are taught, and then cannot even comply with a court order acknowledging that wrong, the system is broken.

Malaysia cannot move forward if the Government itself does not model respect for the rule of law. The first step toward repairing our institutions is simple: honour the judgment, pay what is owed, and show Malaysians that the Government isserious about reform. But that is only the beginning. What must follow is a comprehensive overhaul of our educational governance to ensure that failures like these never happen again.

If we want to build a Malaysia where every child is valued, where every teacher is accountable, and where every institution serves the people with integrity, then the Government must act decisively and transparently. Accountability cannot be selective. Compliance with court orders cannot be optional. And respect for our children’s future cannot be delayed.

It is time for the Government to do what is right, what is lawful, and what is long overdue. If Malaysia is to progress, then the system must change — and it must change now.

Original Document ⤤

July 2023 — The 2020 Plaintiffs' Statements

KOTA BELUD, Malaysia | 19 July 2023

Rusiah Sabdarin, First Plaintiff
I deeply thank those that have supported this case and those friends that dared enough to become brave witnesses. I deeply thank our advocate Mr Sherzali Asli who was willing to take on this case. I want the parties involved, no matter schools or up to the Ministry of Education, to constantly monitor the presence of teachers in classrooms. These parties must take student complaints’ seriously if they are made. Further, these authorities cannot simply receive a complaint, and then refuse to take action. My hope is that students now are brave to speak up and to know their rights as students.

Nur Natasha Allisya Hamali, Second Plaintiff
Alhamdulillah, after all of our many sacrifices and utmost patience, finally our prayers were answered. I admit that for as long as I was in this fight, there were ups and downs, but next to me were my comrades: my family, NGOs, journalists, and many of those beyond. This victory boosts my spirits to move forward and look forward to the future. My deepest thank you to you all.
‍
Calvina Angayung, Third Plaintiff
Assalamualaikum and greetings to everyone. Alhamdullilah, we have reached the moment that we have waited six years for while in this struggle. This incident of a teacher ignoring classes is still so fresh in my mind. We were the victims of a teacher’s injustice that made us even fail English class. But, who are we to ignore Allah’s provisions for us?

Thank God. Thank you to the Tiada.Guru Campaign for providing encouragement and support that could never be repaid. Thank you to our witnesses that bravely took to High Court. Further, NGOs, activists, my parents, friends, and community that always have supported me, no matter where I went. Today’s victory is a gift to you for your perpetual support. I cannot forget Mr Sherzali Asli that offered his legal services to become our advocate in Court: he has demonstrated deep passion for our struggle. I give my infinite thanks to him.

Today, justice has been served. I feel deeply grateful that my rights have been recognized and respected by the Court. This decision is proof that our legal system can still provide justice to every individual. I hope that this case serves as motivation for those who are still fearfully silent against injustice. May today’s victory prove that our rights as citizens should be protected and respected.

Once again, thank you to everyone who fought alongside us in this struggle. I hope that the future will bring happiness, harmony, and justice to all of us. And so, thank you.

Original Document ⤤

September 2022 — High Court Update

High Court issues historic injunction against the Ministry of Education for witness intimidation and “undermin[ing] the due administration of justice" in months-long absent teacher litigation in Sabah

2 September 2022
‍

A historic, unprecedented injunction issued against the Ministry of Education that threatened, harassed, and pressured the Plaintiffs to withdraw their litigation.
The 2020 Plaintiffs took significant bodily risks to capture evidence of the Defendants’ conduct, in line with their wishes to halt systematic oppression in Sabah.
The 2018 and 2020 Plaintiffs detail their prior interlocutory victories.
Nearly four years after filing in October 2018, Siti Nafirah binti Siman’s (“2018 litigation”) trial will start on 12 Sept to 15 Sept 2022. Nearly two years after filing in December 2020, Rusiah binti Sabdarin, Calvina binti Angayung, and Nur Natasha Allisya binti Hamal (“2020 litigation”) start their trial on 5 Sept 2022.
Both trials are at the High Court of Kota Kinabalu. The public and media may attend. Both the 2018 & 2020 public interest litigation are filed under Messrs Roxana & Co.

After decades of allegations, yet very few proven incidents, three 20-year-old Kota Beludian women have done the impossible. Being unsealed today is their successful, historic injunction application against the Ministry of Education, their former English teacher Mohd Jainal bin Jamran, and their former principal Hj. Suid bin Hj. Hanapi.
‍
The 2020 Plaintiffs filed their litigation in December 2020, but the Defendants would not file their Defence until June 2021, many months after it was expected. In the intervening months of January 2021 and April 2021, the Defendants were taking extra-judicial steps to try to force the Plaintiffs to withdraw their litigation against them, to intimidate / harass classmates and thus witnesses, and to pressure the Plaintiffs’ families to turn against their own children.

In April 2021, Rusiah binti Sabdarin as the 1st Plaintiff and key target of the Defendants, filed an extraordinary injunction application against her ex-teacher, her ex-principal, the Director General of Education, and the Minister of Education (the latter two representing the Ministry of Education).

During the injunction application hearing in August 2021, the Senior Federal Counsel did not object to the injunction application. Thereafter, YA Judicial Commissioner (now High Court Judge) Leonard David Shim allowed the Plaintiffs injunction application. This historic, unprecedented injunction against the entire Ministry of Education and its officers finally provides Court evidence of a pattern many thousands of Sabahans, Sarawakians, and Peninsular Malaysians have long witnessed. When the people rise up, we are told to use “the proper channels”. Yet when Malaysia’s youngest and bravest rakyat used the proper channel to file for an independent and fair trial where both parties can submit evidence, bring witnesses, and argue on the merits of the claims, the Defendants instead began to “undermine the due administration of justice.

The Plaintiffs note this historic injunction against the Ministry of Education for “undermining the due administration of justice” during Court proceedings is the picture-perfect example of why the Ministry of Education, and the entire Executive Branch, should no longer (and never should have had the authority to begin with) to investigate their misconduct and why whistleblower protection also from an independent body is crucial.

The Plaintiffs call for a Public Ombudsman, an independent neutral institution such as “Pembela Rakyat”, to be immediately implemented with no loopholes for the powerful or wealthy and no interference from the civil service nor politicians. It would independently and fairly investigate misconduct and allow the relevant penalties, against any party. Such a Public Ombudsman is also the only way to truly protect teacher whistleblowers, many of which have been in very similar situations to Plaintiff Rusiah binti Sabdarin.

The Plaintiffs appreciate their legal team, the local Malaysian media, activists of #MakeSchoolsASaferPlace, and their teacher and MOE officer whistleblower allies. With their help, a historic precedent has been set against the Ministry of Education.

We quote selected paragraphs from the successful injunction application and Rusiah binti Sabdarin’s Affidavit, where she had bravely compiled audio evidence and screenshots of the Defendants’ actions. Some information has been kept private to the legal parties to protect the witnesses and their families. All text bolding / emphasis is ours.

4. On 23.12.2020, the Principal of SMK Tuan Gusi, Mr Nuzie Bin Hj Balus (the "Principal") contacted my father to meet him at the school to discuss the case. I will say that, after my father's return from meeting the Principal, my father started pressuring me to drop the case to "clear his name". The Principal also urged my father to convince me to drop the case and that if I were to lose this case, I would surely be put in a juvenile detention centre. These threats and psychological intimidation have prompted me to record any conversations in the future.

7. On 22.01.2021, at the request of the Principal, I met with the Principal at his office. During the meeting, three teachers were also present, namely Mr Roslan bin Asang, Yusof bin Rakunman, Mohd Sabanah Bin Abdul Rahman. During the meeting, the following, inter alia, were said to me :

a. The Principal and Cikgu Roslan told me not to record the conversation;

b. The Principal threatened that he had the power and authority to take disciplinary action against me. The Principal brought up my absences. I verily believe that due to the impact of the global pandemic, other students suffer the same plight as myself and have been unable to attend some classes. Further, some of my absences are attributed to my father's ill health. In any event, at the material time, I had only been absent from school once. I also believe that the principal is victimising me with his threats of disciplinary action or expulsion and would not have threatened the other students in the same manner for a single act of absenteeism. The Principal has even threatened to use absences from the previous years against me. Prior to filing my case, the Principal and teachers never issued a warning letter or raised concerns regarding my absence. I verily believe that this has been raised to instill fear and force me to withdraw from the case.

d. The Principal and Cikgu Yusuf asked if I had CCTV at my house. I found this question very intimidating as they were probing the security of my house. I verily believe that whether my house had a CCTV had no relation to their duties as teachers or government servants. I also verily believe the purpose of this interrogatory line of questioning was to imply that my house's safety was under threat.

14. I would also say that the conduct of the Principal's and request to have me switch my phone off during the meeting clearly shows that he was aware that he should not have addressed the issue in the manner that he did and would continue to do so in the event he does not believe that evidence of such meeting will not be captured.

— High Court of Sabah & Sarawak Ruling on 20 April July 2021

These actions are tantamount to an interference of Court process. We further quote from the legal filings,
‍

10. I have been advised by my solicitors and verily believe that it is not part of the official duties of the Principal and teachers mentioned above to hold closed-door meetings with litigants to discuss court cases without the presence of solicitors, even if such litigants were students.

11. I have been advised by my solicitors and verily believe that the Principal and the teachers mentioned above should not have attempted to take the law into their own hands to circumvent the court process by pressuring and threatening me to give up my claim against their masters and/or employers, the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants.

12. I have been advised by my Solicitors and verily believe that the actions of the Principal and the other teachers mentioned above were intended to undermine the due administration of justice and/or to inhibit a litigant from availing themselves of that system of justice.

20. I was advised by my solicitors and verily believe that the balance of convenience lies with the Plaintiffs. In the event of the continued harassment, coercion and threats by the Defendants, whether by themselves or through their servants or agents, there is a chance that all the Plaintiffs, including myself, will withdraw this case.

23. I will say that the interim injunction as prayed will not in any way interrupt the discharge of its public duties and is limited only to outside of their duties as teachers, principals or administrators of the 5th Defendant.

10. I have been advised by my solicitors and verily believe that it is not part of the official duties of the Principal and teachers mentioned above to hold closed-door meetings with litigants to discuss court cases without the presence of solicitors, even if such litigants were students.

The Injunction Order itself will last the duration of the legal proceedings. The restrictions include:
‍

The Defendants and / or their agents are restrained and prohibited from approaching, interfering, harassing, disturbing, and / or coercing any of the Plaintiffs or their family members.
The Defendants and / or their agents are restrained and prohibited from approaching the Plaintiffs and their residences within 500 metres.
The Defendants and / or their agents are restrained and prohibited from sending unsolicited messages, statements, phone calls, or any other telecommunication to the Plaintiffs and their families.

This Injunction Order is issued against the 1st - 4th Defendants in the 2020 High Court litigation, and thus also the 1st, 2nd, 6th, & 7th Defendants of the 2018 High Court litigation.
‍

NOTICE
(Pursuant to Order 45 rule 7 of Rules of Court 2012)

If you, the within named MOHD JAINAL BIN JAMRAN, the 1st Defendant abovenamed, disobey this order, you will be liable to process of execution for the purpose of compelling you to obey the same.

If you, the within named HJ. SUID BIN HJ. HANAPI, the 2nd Defendant abovenamed, disobey this order, you will be liable to process of execution for the purpose of compelling you to obey the same.

If you, the DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION MALAYSIA, the 3rd Defendant abovenamed, disobey this order, you will be liable to process of execution for the purpose of compelling you to obey the same.

If you, the MINISTER OF EDUCATION MALAYSIA, the 4th Defendant abovenamed, disobey this order, you will be liable to process of execution for the purpose of compelling you to obey the same.

Siti Nafirah binti Siman also reiterated her three successful victories over the Defendants in her pre-trial litigation. The Defendants argued against her each time, yet YA High Court Judge Ismail Brahim sided with Siti Nafirah each time: her Discovery application, her Further & Better Particulars Application, and the Dismissal of the Defendants’ Striking Out Application (sans the striking out of Defendant 3, SMK Taun Gusi).
‍

BKI-2NCvC-101/10-2018 Dates

Court Mention: 11 October 2022
Trial Dates: will be scheduled on the 11 Oct Court Mention
‍

BKI-22NCvC-88/11-2020 Dates

Trial Dates: 20 to 21 October 2022 (start at 10:30am), 14 to 16 November 2022
‍

Original Document ⤤

September 2022 — The Plaintiffs' Speeches

KOTA KINABALU, Malaysia | 2 September 2022

Approximate video transcript

Introduction — Siti Nafirah | 2018 Litigation
‍Thank you for coming today. I will only be speaking Malay today; a written English translation will be given.

My name is Siti Nafirah binti Siman; I am 22 years old. I was born in Sabah and have lived in Kota Belud my whole life. I am a former student of SMK Taun Gusi, a secondary school in my district.

I am also the 1st High Court Plaintiff that summoned seven Defendants at the Ministry of Education in public interest litigation. Why? And why seven Defendants? Because my English teacher did not enter class for seven months and the principal, the school, the Kota Belud District Education Department, the Sabah State Education Department, and the Ministry of Education took no reasonable actions after they were notified.

In a clean & fair education system, this could have never happened. But this is Malaysia, isn’t it? This is Malaysia for orang kampung, akar umbi, kanak-kanak, dan wanita. Guru ponteng is a decades-old injustice, but still in rural areas, mentioning it can make a room go silent. No more: speak with conviction and let them listen carefully.

My litigation will build a case of misfeasance in public office, violations of both the Federal Constitutional and the Education Act, a seven-month absent teacher, and Ministry of Education officers' collaborating to fabricate government records in a chain stretching from SMK Taun Gusi to the Kota Belud District Education Department and the Sabah State Education Department.

My High Court trial will begin on 12 September 2022, almost four years after I filed it. I requested multiple declarations against the Defendants to help build a precedent against the Ministry of Education. Sabahans must be protected after my litigation: it was, is, and always will be rakyat yang jaga rakyat.

Court Updates — Siti Nafirah | 2018 Litigation
Many people ask me why I filed my case. Why summon?

First, because everyone, from teachers to parents to students, already admits the MOE’s investigation system is quite broken. Many MOE officers, now Defendants in two litigation cases, were informed of the 1st Defendant’s extreme absenteeism in 2015. Yet here we are in 2022 with one batch suffering in 2015 and another in 2017.

Second, I want to open the eyes of school administrators, parents, teachers, and students. We must priortise our education and there is nothing more basic to a quality education than teachers that enter classes. As the Ministry says, students are the evidence.

Third, many people feel comfortable dropping cases and claim their forgiveness is a sign of mercy. Yet, “when you forgive without justice, you reward injustice.” Let us be honest: “forgiving and accepting injustice is simply cowardice.” “The answer to injustice is not to silence the critic, but to end the injustice.” What we allow is what will continue—end of story.

Fourth, I want my case to be completely open to the public. I want all of Malaysia to hear from my side and the Ministry’s side. I want the evidence submitted in open Court. I want you to see what I saw. And then, let an independent judge question us all.

In my litigation, Alhamdullilah, I have been successful in the preliminary stages. But the trial will be the true test. I share these victories with all those that have supported me. These are victories for Sabahans. I will fight on during trial and I appreciate your support.

If you speak about guru ponteng in Kota Belud, some will shiver. It is very taboo. That I even filed the case was shocking to many: “So many others have failed. Why is she even trying?” But look at what the Court has said:

In July 2019, the High Court Judge gave the first decision in my case. I had applied for what are called interlocutory applications. Here, my lawyers and I found significant issues with the Defendants Court filings:

1. a Discovery application to force the Defendants to submit missing relevant evidence to the Court and;

2. a Further & Better Particulars application to force the Defendants to specifically respond to important questions that were not addressed in their Court filings.

In fact, the Defendants objected to both of my applications and asked the Judge to reject my applications.

Alhamdullilah, the High Court ruled in favour of me, a 19-year-old Kota Beludian girl, and against the Federal Government, the Ministry of Education, the Sabah State Education Department, the Kota Belud District Education department, the school principal, and the teacher. Can you believe it? A Kota Beludian girl was already defeating the Federal Government, while I remember some parties in KB thought I would instantly fail.

I pray rural communities in Sabah are proud to see that our lives matter, both in morals, but also in the law. We will not be further taken advantage of. The Defendants were then forced to comply with the Court orders after they had initially argued against my applications.

Shortly after the Federal Government lost those two complaints in High Court, the Defendants tried to strike out my case. It is the last-resort move in a legal case: it immediately causes the Plaintiff to lose before a trial. Of course, my lawyers and I objected to this Striking Out Application.

In September 2019, the High Court gave a ruling again in my favour. Again the Federal Government lost in High Court to a 19-year-old Kota Beludian girl. I pray I am making Kg. Jawi-Jawi proud. The High Court believed my public interest litigation is worthy of a full, public trial with witnesses, evidence, testimony, and an independent judgement. The Government’s striking out application failed to stop my litigation.

We poor & rural Sabahans do not ask for much. We simply ask that those on the top remove their boots from our necks: let us learn, let us become educated. Are we so disposable to them? Are we so worthless to them? Thankfully, in Court, we have a chance of transparency.

Ketika anda dianggap lama, maka bangkit lah membuktikan anda mampu mengubah sejarah dunia.

Reforms Required — Siti Nafirah | 2018 Litigation
When I started this litigation, Kota Belud was already one of the top 30 poorest districts in Malaysia. In 2019, Kota Belud was found to be one of the 10 poorest districts in all of Malaysia.

I do my best to stay resilient. But instead of relying on children to be resilient, what if we create a world that is less traumatic? Many have deep shame and cannot open old wounds; some still live in fear of the Ministry; others never healed and still suffer.

Doing nothing is not the neutral choice. It is the destructive choice.

I give a reminder: I summoned in Court, asked all parties to bring their evidence, requested a public trial, and I did not slander on social media. It is because the Court is the last, final-resort “saluran betul”—all witnesses are protected without fear and the Judge does not fear nor favour either party.

Thus, because of this miraculous legal team, I am able to have a fully independent investigation & judgement into the incidents at my school. In fact, for the wealthy, this is very normal: they always take their disputes, defamation, problems to Court. But for people like me? It is impossibly rare to have an independent authority above the Ministry to take any action against cases brought by the poor because many of us can hardly find enough legal aid, our education is so manipulative that it does not even mention our rights over the Government, and it is a massive sacrifice to prepare for Court.

Thus, we must have independent investigations, outside of the Ministry of Education and outside the Executive, to investigate such severe misconduct. It is obvious that the Ministry should not be able to investigate the Ministry itself.

As Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim explained, tiada organisasi di dunia melakukan pemantauan kendiri. Tetapi kerana kekurangan pengawasan, kita ada masalah ini. Jika tidak ada siasatan bebas, kita hanya bermain dalam memerangi salah laku dan rasuah.

Everyone deserves such an independent investigation. Even until now, Malaysia still has no “Public Ombudsman”, which is like a Pembela Rakyat. It is independent of the civil service, of the Executive Branch, and all politicians. They can investigate cases and discipline those violating our laws, without any interference and without major delays.

For honest & clean teachers: independent investigations is their only hope. Even teachers are not spared from interference from upper levels in the PPD, JPN, and even KPM.

Some say we are too young, breaking traditions and customs. Our right to clean, quality education is not so cheap. The tradition that because our grandparents and parents could not fight for their rights, then their children should also be damned? Whose tradition is that?
‍
Introduction — Rusiah - Natasha - Calvina | 2020 Litigation
Thank you for coming today. We will only be speaking Malay today; a written English translation will be given.

Our names are Rusiah binti Sabdarin, Nur Natasha Allisya Binti Hamali, and Calvina Binti Angayung. We are 21 years old. We are Sabahans and former students of SMK Taun Gusi, a secondary school in our Kota Belud District.

We are the 2nd batch of High Court Plaintiffs that summoned the Ministry of Education in public interest litigation against guru ponteng. Our Saurdara Siti Nafirah was the spark to our spotlights. Together, we summoned five Defendants to High Court after the 1st Defendant English teacher refused to enter our class for over four months:

The teacher, the principal, the Director-General of Education, the Minister of Education, and the Federal Government. This is a case for all the suffering, hardworking honest teachers that are forced to make up for their absent colleagues.

This is a case for all the suffering, shocked parents that have realised their children were cheated out of a lifetime’s potential. This is a case for all the suffering, hurt students whose testimony can and will protect our country’s future.

No more.

Our trial will start on 5 September 2022, almost two years after being filed. We will stand firm for transparency and for an impartial trial. For the first time, young women in Kota Belud and the Federal Government will be treated as equals.
‍
Court Updates — Rusiah - Natasha - Calvina | 2020 Litigation
First, because we are determined to be the last generation to suffer this problem. The cycle of poverty must end.

Second, to stand up for thousands of poor Sabahans that stood up, but were ignored while the abuse continued and no justice-centric systematic reforms were enacted. “If they do it often, it’s not a mistake: it’s just their behaviour.”

Third, to ensure our case and our evidence are put into the public sphere. Enough secret school records, enough pressure tactics, enough backdoor meetings. Everyone must see what we saw. Everyone will, by virtue of our trial, witness what we witnessed.

Foruth, our fight is for our honest and hardworking teachers. They will still suffer, even if some of the lower-ranking officers are changed. Teacher whistleblowers will only be protected once the entire system is forced to account. Frankly, it would be an insult to teacher whistleblowers across Malaysia if our litigation did not also summon the Ministry of Education.

Today, we will share two announcements. First, after six months of delays, the Federal Government filed their Court Defence last June 2021. Yes: six months of delays.

Let me explain the background: we filed our litigation on the 22nd of December in 2020 with an 11-page statement of claim. What happened? Between Jan 2021 to May 2021 and four Court mentions, the Defendants filed no Defence at the High Court. We released a statement in May 2021 noting our litigation had already waited 135 days without a Court defence.

Then, the Defendants took an additional 1.5 months after our statement. In total, we Plaintiffs and the Court were forced to wait 181 days after our filing, on 22 December 2020, until the Defendants were able to file a Defence. We remind you their Defence need only reply to an 11-page Statement of Claim by three 18-year-old girls in Kota Belud.

181 days: weeks turned into six months.

Saya agak terkilan kerana pihak defenden lewat menghantar pernyataan pembelaan diri mereka. Adakah mereka tidak ingin membela diri mereka atau mereka tidak mempunyai rasa tanggungjawab terhadap kesalahan yang telah mereka lakukan.

Kelewatan pihak defendan menghantar pernyataan pembelaan selepas 181 hari merupakan satu tindakan yang tidak bertanggungjawab.

Saya ingin katakan, strategi murahan langsung tidak mematahkan semangat kamu untuk perjuangan menegakkan keadilan.

Tukar tanggungjawab anda bahawa orang2 miskin seperti kami akan terus berdiam diri.

Bebaskan hak kami
Kembalikan hak kami
Jangan usik hak kami

The second Court update: in those six months where the Defendants were unable to produce any Defence, the Defendants were also taking extra-judicial actions to force us to withdraw the Court case against them. Yes: officers under the 3rd and 4th Defendant, the Director General of the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education himself. You’ve heard the stories: now you will see the reality. Many MOE officers have been accused of this breach of law before, especially against poor communities, Sabahans, Sarawakians, and orang asli.

You may wonder, how can we speak about this? Are we making an accusation without evidence, without following Court procedure?

No. We told you: we are determined to be the last generation and so we were ready. Between January 2021—just hours, days, and weeks after our summon—through April 2021, we gathered audio and photo evidence of the Defendants’ harassment to immediately drop the case against themselves, the Ministry of Education. Because they knew: we control our case. Only we can withdraw it. They cannot ask the Attorney General or the Ministry to stop the case. So they made extra-judicial threats against us and our families. But we secretly recorded their threats: as they say, “ludah atas langit—kena muka sendiri.”

In those four months, we obtained significant evidence of their extra-judicial harassment:

— 9 WhatsApp screenshots of the Defendants’ statements

— a 30-minute undercover audio recording of the school principal Nuzie @ Mohd Hj Balus and three other male teachers

On 22 January 2021, SMK Taun Gusi principal Nuzie Mohd Hj Balus requested for High Court Plaintiff Rusiah, a 18-year-old Form 6 student in her final semester, to meet him in a closed-door meeting. He had already met her family privately, who had been coerced into pressuring Rusiah to drop her case. Next to Principal Nuzie were Mr Roslan bin Asang, Yusof bin Rakunman, and Mohd Sabanah Bin Abdul Rahman.

Rusiah, by the quick assistance of another student, turned on her phone and started to secretly record the audio of the entire conversation.

That room held four adult men, all officers of the Defendants, with Rusiah alone. Nuzie and the others then questioned Rusiah repeatedly on her Court case, her claims, her intentions, brought up her brief absences when Rusiah had been caring for her sick father, and even her home’s safety and whether she owned a CCTV system. Notably, Principal Nuzie had pressured Rusiah’s father a few weeks earlier at her home.

Unlike the Defendants, we followed the law & Court procedures: MOE officers have no right to make closed-door meetings to question litigants on their litigation without their lawyers present, even if the litigants are students. MOE school principals are not above the law and these were egregious attempts to undermine the administration of justice.

We know how to follow the rules and how to capture those that are breaking them: Calvina was the Ketua Pengawas of SMK Taun Gusi, Natasha was a Pengawas of SMK Taun Gusi, and Rusiah was Ketua Kelas. We were trained to stop misconduct by the Defendants.

Most brazenly, these officers of the Ministry of Education’s 3rd and 4th Defendants had noticed Rusiah’s phone and asked her to turn it off. In a show of unbelievable bravery, Rusiah knew that Nuzie & others were breaking the law and so she kept on recording the Defendants.

On 26 April 2021, we took this evidence and filed a Court Injunction against the four primary defendants: the teacher, the principal, the Director General of Education, and the Minister of Education. A Court Injunction is a very rarely granted remedy especially against high-ranking Ministers and public servants. The burden of proof is very high, especially against an entire Ministry of Education. At the time, this meant the Defendant 3 Director-General of Education, first Habibah binti Abdul Rahim, and then Nor Zamani Abdol Hamid; and Defendant 4 Minister of Education--at the time, it was Radzi Jidin.

Yet, we pushed on. On 7 September 2021, the High Court delivered its order. We succeeded: the Court issued a restraining order injunction against the 1st Defendant Jainal Jamran, the 2nd Defendant Suid Haji Hanapi (the original principal from 2017), the 3rd Defendant Director-General of Education, and the 4th Defendant the Minister of Education.

What was going on in the Defendants and Ministry of Education officers’ minds to interfere with the administration of justice? Why would any MOE officer interfere in an ongoing Court case? Are our country’s educators unable or unwilling to accept the Constitution’s separation of powers?

There was no misunderstanding: in fact, in Court, the Senior Federal Counsel representing the Ministry of Education and all other Defendants chose not to object to our application. What made us targets here?

—Was it because the Court treats us as equals, just like the Constitution states?

— Was it because we broke their culture of fear?

— Was it because we refuse to stay silent?

— Was it because we were united and refused to back down?

— Was it because we are young women?

— Was it because we live in one of the 10 poorest districts in Malaysia?

As written by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, sometimes people that abuse their power blame everyone else for “misunderstanding” their abuse of power. Why? It is a tactic to gain sympathy from ordinary people who have ever been misunderstood by others; the abuser wants us to think “I made a mistake and maybe you have also made mistakes, just like me.” But, these people intentionally created a culture of fear and intimidation; that culture of fear is no mistake. It is meant to silence the victims. But when the culture of silence failed, they changed their answer again to “a misunderstanding”. There is no misunderstanding.

Penindas tersinggung ketika yang tertindas menolak untuk mati dalam diam.

Reforms Required — Rusiah - Natasha - Calvina | 2020 Litigation
This litigation is also for those that eagerly claim to “respect the poor”, “help Sabahans”, “support women” or “fight for education”, yet when they see our problems, they are obsessed with solutions that solve only half the problems in 15 years and still they leave many loopholes to protect their own power, so such policies to “help us” becomes completely useless. Too many learn about government from politicians or senior civil servants, while many of Malaysia’s leaders are rich, cowardly, or irresponsible: this is why so few of them spoke about period spot checks before 2020 or extremely absent teachers before 2018 or corruption in education at any time.

The real problems are found inside the kampung, inside the packed apartments, around the longhouses, and in the homes of ordinary families.

For many in Kota Belud, because they’ve accepted "it could be worse", now they have lost the ability to imagine that it could also be better. Well, we have proven them wrong once with our injunction victory and we will continue to do so. As they say, “It’s funny that the people that call us naïve for believing change is possible are actually the same people that believe the Ministry of Education should investigate itself.”

Between the time we filed our case and today, two major headlines have stuck out:

Mar 2021 | Sabah primary teacher gets longer jail term for sexual assault | Kota Belud, Sabah

Nov 2021 | Ex-teacher gets 28 more years for sexual abuse | Sipitang, Sabah

This is only a “sensitive” issue to those a part of the system. To the rest of us, it is simply showing a system failing to protect its children.

Shying away from reality has nothing to do with protecting children. It has everything to do with protecting adults that don’t want to have difficult conversations with those children. And to those that want us to keep quiet: the disapproval of cowards is praise to the brave.

How many thousands more Sabahan children received threats from their principals once they spoke up? It is time for school misconduct to be investigated by a neutral third-party: it is the only way to protect teacher whistleblowers, student whistleblowers, and Ministry whistleblowers.

As we have seen, even when a Court case is pending and the Judge expects no interference, some MOE officers still found the time to interfere in the administration of justice. You should not need to go to Court like we did. The Defendants have taken such actions for an absent teacher of four months. What are they doing in cases more severe?

We call for independent investigations and independent whistleblower protection outside of the Executive Branch. What we have in Court is what every Sabahan should have in school.

Don’t claim to support the youth with gimmicks and cheap tricks. To the youth, nobody is trying to fix the problems we have in this country; instead everyone is trying to make enough money so the problems don’t apply to them anymore.

Conclusion — Rusiah - Natasha - Calvina | 2020 Litigation
Many student and teacher whistleblowers have spoken up and continue to speak up against misconduct, abuse of power, and criminal offences in the Ministry of Education. Why the change? Because our generation understands, “Kita tidak boleh hanya membalut luka rakyat dipijak roda ketidakadilan. Kita sendiri perlu memacu jejari bagi menghentikan roda tersebut.”

This litigation is for all Sabahans: there are thousands like me across Sabah, in my class, in my school. I will testify for those that never had a voice. If you still have your voice, join me and testify. After all, until the lion learns how to write, every story will glorify the hunter.

If you feel ashamed of what happened to you, to us: shame is reserved for the things we choose to do, not for the circumstances forced onto us. There is no shame: the MOE in its public reports and interviews has admitted Malaysia has extremely absent teachers. This Court case is a mirror to Malaysia and instead of changing the reflections in the mirror, some get mad at the children holding the mirror.

If you feel afraid of what they will say: Ada kalanya kamu mesti bersuara. Bukan kerana kamu akan mengubah mereka, tetapi jika kamu tidak bersuara, mereka telah mengubah kamu.

If you feel small because of how we were treated: it is precisely because we students + parents + teachers hold so much power that they are afraid of our testimony and our voices. Tiada siapa yang benar-benar anggap kita lemah—hanya penindas yang mahu kita bersikap begitu.

Some find solace in self-blame because the alternative is admitting that our leaders & schools lied to rural and poor Sabahans: about our rights, about our education, about how widespread the problem is, about how many hardworking teachers are suffering, and about how much we, our children, and our grandchildren have lost.

"History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.” It remains clear that if teachers don’t enter classes, teachers lose nothing while students lose everything.

We would like to thank our legal team for fighting hard in Court and helping Sabahans achieve these three pre-trial victories.

We would like to thank all the students and former students that have given us solidarity. We still welcome all. We also thank teachers and MOE officers that have encouraged me to keep going. Hardworking teachers also become victims of guru ponteng.

We thank many CSOs and NGOs that did not hesitate to support our public interest litigation; your support, from Sabah, Sarawak, and Semenanjung, has lifted our spirits.

We thank many in the media that continue to cover the stories of Malaysia’s youth, scandals in education, and report without fear nor favour. You have a huge power to clean Malaysia.

We stand in solidarity with many activists, both new and old, that have stood up in great numbers to #MakeSchoolsASaferPlace and #PendidikanBersih. They have sacrificed so much. Ain Husniza, Puteri Balqis, to name a few.

Most of all, we thank and stand in solidarity with our schoolmates and co-Plaintiffs and the entire Kota Belud, Sabah, and Malaysian community.

Our litigation might look like “four girls vs the Ministry of Education and extreme teacher absenteeism”. But, we were not the first: thousands more like us are still suffering from deeply unjust systems in our education system. You will find victims like me in every kampung, in every district, in every state. While we are not the first, we are determined to be the last. In that sense, we find a real connection with this poem by Jasmin Kaur.

Scream
So that one day
A hundred years from now
Another sister will not have to
Dry her tears wondering
Where in history
She lost her voice

Original Document ⤤

May 2021 — High Court Update

The Federal Government of Malaysia Has Not Filed Its Defence Over 130 Days After High Court Summons were Filed by Three Young Sabahan Women against a Claimed Months-Absent Teacher, Principal, & Ministry of Education

5 May 2021

On 22 December 2020, High Court Plaintiffs Rusiah binti Sabdarin (19 years old), Nur Natasha Allisya binti Hamali (19 years old), and Calvina binti Angayung (19 years old) filed High Court Summons against these Five Defendants:

Mohd Jainal bin Jamran (their former Form 4 English teacher; transferred in early 2020)
Hj. Suid bin Hj. Hanapi (their former SMK Taun Gusi school principal; retired in early 2020)
Director-General of Education Malaysia
Minister of Education
The Federal Government of Malaysia

Today, over 130 days later, the Defendants still have no Defence filed at the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak in the proceedings of BKI-22NCvC-88/11-2020 ⤤. The Defendants are represented by the Attorney General Chambers.

After a Writ of Summons has been issued against Defendants and Defendants have entered their appearance, Defendants have 14 days to file their Defence under O. 18 r. 2 (Rules of Court 2012). The High Court of Sabah & Sarawak portal previously reported as its last case update,

FINAL e-Review for the Defendants to file Defence is fixed on 4.6.2021.

— High Court of Sabah & Sarawak Ruling on 20 April July 2021

High Court Plaintiffs Rusiah, Natasha, and Calvina of Kota Belud, Sabah, are supremely confident to proceed to a full public High Court trial against these Defendants by exercising their guaranteed rights under the Federal Constitution. Their litigation is the second such summons against these same Defendants (c.f. BKI-22NCvC-101/10-2018 ⤤ via then-18-year-old Siti Nafirah binti Siman also of Kota Belud, Sabah).

Further Court updates will be provided as needed.
‍

BKI-22NCvC-88/11-2020 Dates

As reported ⤤ by the Official Portal of the High Court in Sabah & Sarawak.

22 December 2020 — High Court Summons Filed (0 days)
4 January 2021 — High Court Mention (+14 days cumulative)
8 February 2021 — High Court Mention (+49 days)
11 March 2021 — High Court Mention (+80 days)
20 April 2021 — High Court Mention (+120 days)
5 May 2021 — Today (+135 days)

Original Document ⤤

December 2020 — High Court Filing

Three new Sabahan women file another High Court summons against claimed months-long absent English teacher, principal, and Education Ministry

Some of the world's youngest plaintiffs are taking on Malaysia's Ministry of Education in High Court—again. In Kota Belud, more than 1 in 3 live in absolute poverty with the 7th highest inequality rate in the nation. High Court told English teacher at SMK Taun Gusi refused to teach his assigned class for months in 2017.

22 December 2020

The Two High Court Litigation Cases: The 2018 High Court litigation filed by one Plaintiff is the “2018 litigation” (events occurred in 2015; litigation in 2018). Today’s High Court litigation filed by three Plaintiffs is the “2020 litigation” (events occurred in 2017; litigation in 2020). These are two independent legal proceedings with separate school years, separate classes, separate judges, separate evidence, and separate trials.

2018 High Court Litigation Update: Today’s High Court public interest litigation was again filed by Messrs Roxana & Co., a Kota Kinabalu, Sabah law firm. The firm previously has successfully navigated the 2018 Plaintiff, Siti Nafirah binti Siman, and her 2018 summons to an upcoming High Court trial, emerging victorious over the Federal Government multiple times including Discovery and dismissing a Striking Out Application. The 2015 High Court trial was postponed twice due to the COVID-19 pandemic and government lockdowns: expect a new High Court trial date soon.

The 2020 Plaintiffs: The three 2020 Plaintiffs are all former and/or current SMK Taun Gusi students; all three women are now 19 years old, classmates of the Form 4 Sports Science class in 2017, and residents of Kota Belud. All three came from Form 4 Sports Science class at the same school with the same principal assigned the same English teacher, relative to the 2018 litigation.
The 2020 High Court Case: The 2020 Plaintiffs state they stand in solidarity with the 2018 litigation. Their goal is identical: rid the nation of the culture of fear and silence.“ We were not the first, but we are determined to be the last. This High Court litigation is for all students: no other child should have their right to a quality education stolen....end corruption—end abuse—end negligence in education.”
SMK Taun Gusi is in Kota Belud, Sabah, a coastal district; school less than 5km from ocean and less than 90 minutes from Kota Kinabalu, state’s largest city and state capital
High Court remedies focused on declarations and aim to bring an end to these practices &the culture of fear and silence in schools for the next generation of Malaysian students

KOTA BELUD, Malaysia — Three new Sabahan ex-students have filed a public interest litigation case against five Defendants at the High Court of Kota Kinabalu. Together, they tell the High Court that the 1st Defendant refused to enter their English class for months in2017, with zero attendance after July 2017. Their claims continue that while the Plaintiffs repeatedly notified the 1st Defendant, he refused to enter. Further, the three women claim the2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Defendants failed to take any steps to rectify their teacher’s months long absences, thus are also in breach of their statutory duties declared in Malaysia’s most critical laws: the Federal Constitution, the Education Act, and the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations of 1993.‍

The Defendants

Mohd Jainal bin Jamran (their former Form 4 English teacher; transferred in early 2020)
Hj. Suid bin Hj. Hanapi (their former SMK Taun Gusi school principal; retired in early 2020)
Director-General of Education Malaysia
Minister of Education
The Federal Government of Malaysia

The 1st and 2nd Defendants are named and thus must continue to defend themselves even after transfers, retirement, and/or dismissals by their superior Defendants.

The three Plaintiffs were 16-year-old girls at the time of the claimed events in 2017. Their district, Kota Belud, Sabah, is one of the poorest in Malaysia: more than 1 in 3 live in absolute poverty while the district records 7th highest inequality rate in the nation. This litigation comes from Malaysia’s villages and families; it comes from Sabah’s daughters and Sabah’s hopes; it comes our brothers and sisters.

The First Plaintiff is Rusiah binti Sabdarin. Rusiah was born in Kota Belud, Sabah, in 2001 and lives in Kampung Taun Gusi II at Batu Empat. She is the youngest of five siblings. When she was three, her parents separated. As a single parent, Rusiah’s father has raised his five children through his occupation as a chicken trader; he prays one day Rusiah will have a proper education and can change the family’s standard of living one day. Rusiah studied at SMK Taun Gusi from Form 1 to Form 5; she was 16 years old during the claimed 2017misconduct by the Defendants. Rusiah was the Form 4 Sports Science Class Monitor.

The Second Plaintiff is Nur Natasha Allisya binti Hamali. Natasha was born in Ampuan Rahimah, Selangor in 2001; her family moved to Kota Belud, Sabah, when Natasha was nine years old. Natasha has two elder brothers and one younger sister. Of a simple background and poor family, Natasha’s parents sacrificed decades of their lives, including years of school and transportation fees, so their children could have a better chance than they did. Natasha’s father is a temporary imam at a local surau, while her mother is a homemaker. Natasha studied at SMK Taun Gusi from Form 1 to Form 5; she was 16 years old during the claimed 2017 misconduct by the Defendants. Natasha was an SMK Taun Gusi Prefect.

The Third Plaintiff is Calvina binti Angayung. Born in Kampung Nibang, Pitas in 2001, Calvina moved to Kampung Rampayan Laut, Kota Belud, when she was 6 years old. Calvina’s mother is a homemaker and her father is a fisherman. Together, they struggled to survive and raise their children: “Kais pagi makan pagi, kais petang makan petang.” Calvina studied at SK Nanamun from Standard 1 to Standard 6. Then, Calvina studied at SMK Taun Gusi from Form1 to Form 5; she was 16 years old during the claimed 2017 misconduct by the Defendants. Calvina was SMK Taun Gusi’s Head Prefect.

These students’ families, like so many others, spent generations waiting for the chance of a better chance, waiting at the door of hope. Education is the only way out of the poverty cycle for thousands of Malaysia’s families: they keep knocking and they keep waiting. Today, this public interest litigation sets the new standard for the new normal: integrity and the safeguarding of the right to a quality education are the only path forward. Anything less is an abdication of duty by the very public servants who benefited from the right to a quality education. “If the deaf are to hear, the sound must be very loud.”

Alongside the 2018 litigation, this 2020 litigation will be fiercely protected, humbly stated, and passionately fought for our future generations and yours. The four Plaintiffs, all young women from Kota Belud, Sabah, are writing the next chapter. The culture of fear and silence will end.

Summary of the 2020 Claim (PDF) ⤤

December 2020— The Plaintiffs' Speeches

KOTA BELUD, Malaysia | 22 December 2020

Approximate video transcript

Introduction
775 days ago, something revolutionary began in Malaysia in one of the unlikeliest places: Kampung Taun Gusi in Kota Belud, Sabah. An 18-year-old girl, Siti Nafirah binti Siman—born and raised in Kota Belud, filed a Court summons. Not any summons, but a High Court summons against her Form 4 English teacher because she claimed he refused to enter her class for seven months in 2015.

An 18-year-old girl from Kota Belud. She didn’t stop there: she said, “I’m doing this for all students.” She said, “I raise my voice for the generation that has been silenced—teachers lose nothing if they don’t teach; students lose everything if they don’t learn.”

And she didn’t just sue the teacher; she knew the law and she kept fighting for declarations: these are Court precedents that other students can use in future cases. She knew responsibility went up the chain: she sued the school principal, who she claimed threatened her entire class and then instructed the teacher to fabricate his attendance record. She sued the Kota Belud District Education Department, the Sabah State Education Department, the Ministry of Education, and the Federal Government—to the Prime Minister.

In Kota Belud and in many districts in Sabah and Malaysia, many will tell you, “Be reasonable. You can’t get justice! You’re too poor and they are too powerful. Just accept the blame, even if it isn’t your fault; we cannot talk about corruption, as we need to follow powerful people—that’s what ‘orang susah’ must do.” Corrupt people will yell their fears the loudest—they want to make sure the lights don’t turn on.

Siti Nafirah already beat the Defendants three times in High Court: a Kota Belud girl is defeating the Federal Government in High Court.

In reality, we are only as sick as our secrets: Siti Nafirah was the spark. Her High Court trial is coming soon after the CMCO is lifted.

How do I know so much about Siti Nafirah? Because that same English teacher was also assigned to me, two years after her.

Nur Natasha Allisya binti Hamali
The culture of absent teachers is deeply embarrassing to our nation’s education system. It has stolen the rights of my education and all students who have suffered, particularly in Kota Belud, Sabah. This culture continues headstrong, with little consequences from the nation’s principals and the Ministry of Education. While this problem is incredibly common to hear in any kampung, what’s remarkable is that the existing, clear-cut, easy-to-follow disciplinary procedures are not used to discipline absent teachers.

At my school, monitoring is incredibly lacking, especially for the presence of teachers actually inside classrooms. It’s clear that when teachers refuse to teach, a school’s culture quickly degrades: more students fight, more students break the rules, and more students themselves begin to leave classes and even school. How do I know this? I was a school prefect and these consequences of absent teachers are abundantly clear.

While in Form 4 in 2017, our English teacher was not present for a significant amount of time. This teacher came to school, but repeatedly gave various excuses to avoid teaching our class. No teacher soon leads to no students. Over time, I began to feel less and less interested & focused in learning—as there was no teaching. As the exam came close, I began to feel depressed because I knew I could not do well without the curriculum—we so desperately needed a teacher then. As a result, nearly everyone in the class—including myself—failed the Form 4 English exam.

During the periods of teacher absenteeism, our friends in “superior” classes continued to focus on their education because they were “targeted” to excel. Parents & guardians are quite concerned, but this problem remains persistent because little to no action is taken by the disciplinary authorities, that is the principal and school administrators.

Should such public servants, teachers and MOE officers, be given another chance after years of hurting students? Too much time has been wasted by a teacher who remorselessly refuses to teach for months, each year. I wonder what was the fate of the students before us? Because after what happened to Siti Nafirah, it continued to happen to us even two years later.

Why would a principal protect a teacher who refused to teach? Why don’t principals think about their students who are losing their only chance at an education through this emotional trauma of teachers refusing to teach and then causing students to fail exams?

We know we—like you—deserved a quality education. The same goes for prior generations and future generations. We want those who have had their right to a quality education disabused and twisted to realize and continue to rise above our nightmares.

Even today, I still hold onto the words of UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador David Beckham, “Are we listening? As adults, are we humble enough? Are we smart enough to realize that in the face of every single child, we can see the future of the world? Children never stop learning. Neither should we. Children never stop asking questions and demanding more. Neither should we.”
‍

Calvina binti Angayung
Assalamualaikum and peace be upon you, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to give this speech. My name is Calvina binti Angayung: I am 19 years old and I am from Kota Belud.

I have no intention of becoming a warrior; I did not build the pillars of war. For me, it is enough to become someone who seeks the substance of justice in this struggle.

What my class experienced is gut-wrenchingly heartbreaking for both of my parents: their sacrifices of energy, money, and time were wasted by the teachers who left us for months without a teacher in the classroom. Our school expenses, our nightly labours to learn were not given their due fruits because this teacher shirked his responsibilities.

We are Siti Nafirah’s generation: it is one and the same generation and one and the same problem. I believe this problem plagues nearly all of Sabah’s schools, but the victims do not have the courage to fight the terrorizing tactics that will be used against them. It could range from shame to threats by the teacher.

Thus, this struggle must persist. This struggle must rise to the High Court. It has not crossed our minds even once to resign and give up on this struggle. The time that has passed has not passed in vain.

What further amplifies my courage is our solidarity: we support this mission together, we do not forget Siti Nafirah’s struggles in this work: our hope is that her struggle, and now our struggle, will open Malaysia’s eyes to the problem of extreme teacher absenteeism.

When my class had no teacher, the Form 4 exam results were distressful and heartbreaking as we had never learned the Form 4 English curriculum. I hope teachers like that are taught a lesson, so our generation is no longer associated with this problem.

I hope responsible teachers do not join them. If we had been given an opportunity to be in their places, we would immediately and forcefully halt these people from preventing Malaysia’s children from receiving an education.

Rusiah binti Sabdarin
Cases of absent teachers have been recurring for decades, but it has never been raised as a critical, urgent issue in our communities. I myself have experienced this event. It’s not only in Sabah, but throughout Malaysia.

At my school, when I was in Form 4 in 2017, our English teacher did not enter the classroom and he did so without an excuse. In the beginning of the year, he entered, but as the year went on, he refused to enter completely for months. He willfully denied us our right to an education. The burden of investigating absent teachers often falls on students—a tactic destined to fail. We reported this teacher to the principal, but he was more protective of the absent teacher than of students wanting to learn and use their right to a quality education. Do other school principals work like that? Is that the official policy of the Ministry of Education?

A stunning amount of our nation’s time has been wasted because of absent teachers. This particular teacher was hurtful and unfair, forcing students to cobble lessons on our own. We often waited in the classroom—watching the doorway, to see if he may come: he rarely ever did.

We hope that for other students who are experiencing similar cases: stand up. Dare yourself to fight for our educational rights. Do not let their terrorizing tactics overwhelm you. Together, we will uphold education for future generations. If not now, when else will progress forward?

Conclusion
We were not the first, but we are determined to be the last. This High Court litigation is for all students: no other child should have their right to a quality education stolen.

“If the deaf are to hear, the sound must be very loud.”

We want to be perfectly clear: teachers who do not teach yet maintain their salary and maintain their classes hurt everyone. It hurts hardworking teachers who break their backs for their students, it hurts students & families who gave up so much just for a chance at education and a better life, it hurts the Ministry of Education, it hurts the government, it hurts the public service, it hurts our nation, it hurts our future generations, it hurts everyone.

We love all the teachers who work hard in educating and teaching us. We deeply appreciate the sacrifices of our teachers. We all need teachers who are caring and dedicated like all of you. Teachers do not deserve to suffer while absent colleagues tarnish the reputation of the nation. Teachers do not deserve double-work because they’re forced to make-up for absent colleagues.

Quality education is our only hope to leave the cycle of poverty. Many in Kg. Taun Gusi, and in villages across Sabah & Malaysia, are of poor families. Out of 158 administrative districts in Malaysia, Kota Belud is 134th in median monthly household income. Out of 158, Kota Belud is 152nd in income inequality. As they say, “In reality, people aren’t going hungry because we cannot feed the poor. People are going hungry because we cannot satisfy the rich.” Enough is enough: end corruption in education, end abuse in education, end negligence in education.

October 2020 — High Court Update

20-year-old Plaintiff Siti Nafirah binti Siman's public interest litigation case against the Ministry of Education and an allegedly seven-month absent teacher now has a new trial date.
‍
The High Court trial is set for November 2 - 6, 2020. The previous May 4 -6, 8 dates were vacated by the High Court due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ever vigilant, Siti Nafirah remains extremely eager to proceed to a full High Court trial against the seven Defendants. Siti Nafirah's explosive allegations include misfeasance in public office, a seven-month absent teacher, and Ministry of Education officers' collaborating to fabricate government records in a chain stretching from Kampung Taun Gusi to the Kota Belud District Education Department and the Sabah State Education Department.

Siti Nafirah is one of the youngest Plaintiffs in Malaysian history. Her triple victories over the Federal Government during pre-trial case management have set the tone that children will no longer accept the culture of fear & silence by the Ministry of Education and its officers: 1) her victory over the Federal Government's striking out application, 2) her victorious Discovery application over the Federal Government's refusal to produce evidence, and 3) her victorious Further & Better Particulars application against the Federal Government's Defense.

"For most people, education is the best way out of poverty. Return to our students their right to a proper education."

— Datin Noor Azimah Abdul Rahman, Chair of the Parent Action Group for Education Malaysia on 18 April 2018 ⤤

Kota Belud is one of Malaysia's poorest administrative districts: ranked 134th of 158, the median monthly income is RM3,025. Worse yet, Kota Belud has been struck hard by income inequality. Registering a Gini Coefficient of 0.412, Kota Belud is ranked 151st of 158 with nearly Malaysia's highest level of income inequality. This data is sourced from the Department of Statistics Malaysia "Laporan Sosioekonomi 2019" released in early August 2020.

Still, cases of Education Ministry misconduct continue to affect Kota Belud, Sabah, in 2020. First, an English teacher was recently convicted to 11 years jail ⤤ after sexually assaulting an eight-year-old female primary student repeatedly in the school classroom. The girl's mother met the Kota Belud primary school principal, who then investigated and referred the case to the Kota Belud District Education Department. The mother lodged a police report against the teacher and he was arrested at school the next day. Second, 600 days after this civil suit was filed, the Sabah State Education Department admitted at least eight cases of absent school principals ⤤.

As Siti Nafirah stated at her High Court filing,

I want to be firm here. I love all the teachers who work hard in educating and teaching us. I deeply appreciate the sacrifices of my teachers. We all need teachers who are caring and dedicated like all of you. My anguish is from the teachers who stole our rights...

— 18-year-old Plaintiff Siti Nafirah on 31 October 2018

But with the existence of teachers who deny the right to education and school principals who are willing to lie in order to safeguard their own reputation, then the right to education,our hopes, and our dreams are shattered just like that. On a national level, I hope that the right to education for everystudent in the whole of Malaysia is prioritised. Never again should such mistreatment occur. When teachers do not enter their classes, it destroys our education and our future.

— 18-year-old Plaintiff Siti Nafirah on 31 October 2018

Upcoming notable dates

The High Court trial will commence on Monday, November 2nd. It will continue on Tuesday, November 3rd | Wednesday, November 4th | Thursday, November 5th | Friday, November 6th.

The High Court has updated the trial dates from May to November, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures that affected nearly all cases.

January 2020 — High Court Update

20-year-old Plaintiff Siti Nafirah's public interest litigation case will soon be heard, noted the High Court at the late December Mention.

To 21.1.2020 for further Mention at 9am. Trial dates on 4-6 & 8 May 2020.

— High Court of Sabah & Sarawak on 23 December 2019

Thus, May 4 - May 6, 2020 and May 8, 2020 have been set by the High Court as the TRIAL DATES. The High Court has also set Jan. 21, 2020 as final pre-trial case management.

Siti Nafirah is confident and enthusiastic for the High Court trial to commence, where she will prove her stated allegations against these seven Defendants and their multiple officers in a court of law.

Public interest litigation systematically breaks down walls of injustice, built against society's powerless, and thus casts light into dark corners. Recently, the High Court ruled in Plaintiff Siti Nafirah's favour in two victorious High Court interlocutory applications (Discovery; Further & Better Particulars) and a third near-total High Court victory in dismissing the Defendants' Striking Out Application.

"School is a place for teachers to teach, students to learn. But with the existence of teachers who deny the right to education and school principals who are willing to lie in order to safeguard their own reputation, then the right to education, our hopes, and our dreams are shattered just like that.
...
‍It is time to end this culture. I want each school to give the best education to its students. If there are teachers who do not enter class, this matter must be solved immediately. Teachers lose nothing if they don’t teach: students lose everything if they don’t learn. The culture of fear for speaking up must end."

— 18-year-old Plaintiff Siti Nafirah on 31 October 2018

Siti Nafirah's allegations against these seven Defendants, in a chain that ran from a school in coastal Kota Belud, Sabah to the Ministry's offices in Putrajaya, include, but are not limited to, misfeasance in public office, extreme teacher absenteeism, Constitutional violations, and breach of statutory duty at Malaysia's Ministry of Education and will now be demonstrated in a full, public High Court trial in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.

Upcoming notable dates

The seventh High Court Mention was on Monday, December 23rd, 2019.
The Final Pre-Trial Case Management date is set for Tuesday, January 21st, 2020.
The High Court trial will commence on Monday, May 4th; Tuesday, May 5th; Wednesday, May 6th; and Friday, May 8th, 2020.

A High Court trial date has now been set: May 4 - May 6, 2020 and May 8, 2020.

September 2019 — High Court Update

In a second major victory, 19-year-old plaintiff Siti Nafirah binti Siman has again succeeded at the High Court: High Court Judge YA Tuan Ismail bin Brahim dismissed the Defendants' striking out application. Conversely, the High Court did strike out the 3rd Defendant SMK Taun Gusi as a named Defendant.

All seven other Defendants remain, including the (1) allegedly seven-month absent teacher Jainal Jamran, (2) SMK Taun Gusi school principal Hj. Suid bin Hj. Hanapi, (4) the Kota Belud District Education Officer, (5) the Sabah State Education Department Director, (6) Director General of Education Malaysia, (7) Minister of Education, and (8) the Government of Malaysia.

The Court will not strike out the application but however allow the 3rd Defendant to be struck out as one of the Defendant . There shall be no order as costs.

— High Court of Sabah & Sarawak Ruling on 4 September 2019

This ruling marks the beginning of the end of pre-trial case management. The Defendants have a 30-day window from this ruling to appeal their striking out application's dismissal at the Court of Appeal (editor's note: no appeal was filed).
‍
Barring any further delays, Siti Nafirah's public interest litigation against alleged extreme teacher absenteeism, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance in public office at Malaysia's Ministry of Education will now proceed to a full High Court trial in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.

In regards to the July 2019 — High Court Update, the Defendants were forced to comply with the High Court Ruling & Court Order. Siti Nafirah, the Plaintiff, is now in possession of government evidence from Discovery that the Defendants did not voluntarily produce for the High Court previously in pre-trial case management. Likewise, the Plaintiff now has in writing the Further & Better Particulars demanded from the Defendants (from the same High Court Ruling & Court Order as as Discovery).

Upcoming notable dates

The fifth High Court Mention was on Thursday, October 10th, 2019.
The sixth High Court mention was on Thursday, November 14th, 2019.
The seventh High Court mention is scheduled for Monday, December 23rd, 2019.

No trial date has been set.

July 2019 — High Court Update

In the first High Court ruling of the case—after four High Court mentions and five High Court hearings—19-year-old Plaintiff Siti Nafirah binti Siman has succeeded in both her Interlocutory Applications at the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak against the eight (8) Defendants.

Allowing both applications for Enclosure 19 and Enclosure 17. The costs of the applications shall be costs in the cause.

— High Court of Sabah & Sarawak Ruling on 18 July 2019

High Court Judge YA Tuan Ismail bin Brahim's Ruling against the eight Defendants:

Allowed the Plaintiff's Interlocutory Application for DISCOVERY (Enclosure 17) for evidence NOT voluntarily tendered by the Defendants;
Allowed the Plaintiff's Interlocutory Application for FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS (Enclosure 19);
Set costs of the Applications to be costs in the cause.

Upcoming notable dates

Meanwhile, the Defendants began an Application to strike out this public interest litigation brought against them at the High Court. The Defendants' application has been filed under Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19; a ruling on the Defendants' Application from the High Court is expected on 4 September 2019 at 9:00 am.

No trial date has been set.

October 2018 — High Court Filing

Seven months without a teacher: principal, Ministry of Education officers in breach of statutory duty, claims High Court case

Kota Belud District is one of the poorest in Malaysia

30 October 2018

SMK Taun Gusi is located in Kota Belud, Sabah, a coastal district; school less than 5 km from ocean and less than 90 minutes from Kota Kinabalu, state’s largest city and capital
Numerous notifications were cumulatively sent to district, state, and national education officers over seven-month absence (beginning in March, second month of absences)
At the end of year, “positive steps” were taken by the teacher, principal, Kota Belud District Education Office, & Sabah State Education Dept. to conceal seven-month absence
High Court remedies focused on declarations and aim to bring an end to these practices & the culture of fear and silence in schools for the next generation of Malaysian students

KOTA BELUD, Malaysia — By a public interest litigation case filed at the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak, 18-year-old Siti Nafirah binti Siman, a native of Kota Belud, Sabah, is standing up for the children who cannot so that failures of integrity and accountability in the education system can be remedied. A recent report by the Khazanah Research Institute showed 3 years of idle education in Malaysian schools due to poor education quality: this case is one such example of the widening education gap existing in Malaysian schools.1

Nafirah and her former classmates live in one of Malaysia’s poorest districts. A coastal area of Sabah, Kota Belud district is ranked 134th out of 158 administrative districts in median household income. Kota Belud also has one of the highest poverty rates (15 times the national average of 0.4%) and one highest levels of income inequality in Sabah.2 For Nafirah and her class, SMK Taun Gusi was their only hope to exit the cycle of poverty.

Nafirah was fifteen years old at the time of the events in the writ. Her father passed away when she was seven years old and she is the youngest, and only daughter, of five children. She is originally from Kg. Sembirai in Kota Belud; when she was four years old, her family moved to Kg. Jawi-Jawi, the village immediately beside SMK Taun Gusi and SK Taun Gusi, to be closer to the schools and to be taken care of by her grandmother.

These students’ families, including the Plaintiff’s, had been preparing their children for a brighter future for decades, making enormous sacrifices just for a chance that perhaps their children’s life may be better than theirs. Many can trace in our own family histories one person who overcame insurmountable odds to succeed and set their future progeny on a course of prosperity. For these once-in-a-generation individuals, it was often education that was the key and in our Plaintiff’s case, it was this right that was denied by the very people trusted to safeguard this right to education, above their personal interests and to act with integrity and accountability.

Footnotes:
1. Khazanah Research Institute, The State of Households 2018: Different Realities, October 2018.
2. Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2016.

Summary of the 2018 Claim (PDF) ⤤

October 2018 — The Plaintiff's Speech

"To make matters worse, this teacher was protected by the school."

The international release of Siti Nafirah's public statement about her case at the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak. This public interest litigation centers on the right to a quality education in Malaysia.

KOTA BELUD, Malaysia | 7 August 2019

This statement was issued by Siti Nafirah binti Siman on 30 October 2018, the date when summons were sent to the eight Defendants. This statement has been approved by Siti Nafirah binti Siman's legal team.
The original language was Bahasa Malaysia; below is a verified English translation.

In 2015, I was one of the Form 4 Commerce students that was victimised by our English teacher who did not enter our class from the month of February until the month of October. My friends and I were deeply disturbed at that time as we were afraid we would fail our examinations. We wanted to learn. We always waited for our English teacher to arrive and enter class to teach. Only just before the final year examinations began, this teacher entered into class once again, after having abandoned us for months.

On this day, I raise up the voice of our generation that has been silenced all this while. I am a representative of this generation of students who calls upon all the students in Malaysia to be courageous in defending their right to education without fear and hopelessness. School is a place for teachers to teach, students to learn. But with the existence of teachers who deny the right to education and school principals who are willing to lie in order to safeguard their own reputation, then the right to education, our hopes, and our dreams are shattered just like that. On a national level, I hope that the right to education for every student in the whole of Malaysia is prioritised. Never again should such mistreatment occur. When teachers do not enter their classes, it destroys our education and our future.

I want to be firm here. I love all the teachers who work hard in educating and teaching us. I deeply appreciate the sacrifices of my teachers. We all need teachers who are caring and dedicated like all of you. My anguish is from the teachers who stole our rights, who did not teach us well to the point we failed our examinations. To make matters worse, this teacher was protected by the school. No action was taken. This teacher is still at the school and still had not entered to teach. Why did the school silence this case even though it was obvious that our right to education was stolen? Where is the accountability from all parties in our case? Why did the principal not take any action? Why did the PPD ignore us? Why did the JPN keep silent?

Quality education is our hope to change from poverty. At SMK Taun Gusi, most of the students are from poor and needy families. At this school, too, most teachers have experienced suffering and poverty when they were students like us. Now, all of them are successful and their lives are better because they received a good education. To the teachers who victimise us, who steal our right to education: we too want to learn. We too want to be successful and improve our families’ lives.

It is time to end this culture. I want each school to give the best education to its students. If there are teachers who do not enter class, this matter must be solved immediately. Teachers lose nothing if they don’t teach: students lose everything if they don’t learn. The culture of fear for speaking up must end.

Without teachers, we cannot be successful; we fail to achieve our ambitions. Without teachers, we lose direction, we lose education. Without education, our lives become abject and meaningless.

For the future of our generation, what is more important than teachers in the classroom teaching?

— Siti Nafirah binti Siman, 18-year-old Plaintiff

Court Timeline

click here to open in a new tab ⤤

Key Legal Definitions

provided as-is

Interlocutory applications

In the course of proceedings, parties may file various applications in court to seek various relief and orders from the court which could provide temporary relief pending disposal of the matter at trial, to assist that party in preparation of its case leading to trial or to even settle the dispute by consent.

— LexisNexis' Practical Guidance Malaysia Dispute Resolution series: "Applications—overview". Author: LexisNexis. Direct link to this source ⤤.

Interlocutory application

In the interim period, there are various applications that could be made by one party or the other to strengthen its position or weaken the other party’s position.

Otherwise one party may seek particulars of the claim or defence from the other. On other occasions, specific information may be sought through interrogatories. Yet in other cases, steps may be taken to get the other side to disclose documents.

— The Malaysian Bar Members' Opinions and Comments: "Articles of Law — long process". Author: Bhag Singh. 25 November 2008. Direct link to this source ⤤ .

An Interlocutory Application for DISCOVERY

Documents subject to discovery

A court can order the discovery of the following documents (order 24, rule 3(1), Rules of Court 2012 (ROC)):

Documents that the party relies on or will rely on.
Documents that could adversely affect the party's case, adversely affect another party's case or support another party's case.

Discovery is ordered for relevant documents. An order for discovery is subject to the the test of "necessity". The ROC does not provide a specific period of time within which discovery must take place. This is handled through courts' directions during the case management meeting, and will depend on the volume and complexity of the documents involved.

Failure to make discovery

In the case of failure to comply with a discovery order, the court has wide discretionary powers to (order 24, rule 16, ROC):

Dismiss the claimant's action if the claimant fails to make discovery.
Strike out the defendant's defence if the defendant fails to make discovery.
Make a judgment in default of discovery by the defendant

...

Other non-disclosure situations

Confidential documents must be disclosed if they are relevant, except where such disclosure is prohibited by law. Privilege does not apply to confidential documents. The court can allow confidential documents to be redacted or produced for limited viewing.

— Thomson Reuter's Practical Law series: "Litigation and Enforcement in Malaysia : Overview ". Author: Shanti Mogan of Shearn Delamore & Co. Law stated as at 01-Nov-2015. Direct link to this source ⤤.

An Interlocutory Application for FURTHER & BETTER PARTICULARS

Request for further information—overview

There are two circumstances wherein the Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012) allows you to obtain further information from the other party to an action.

The first situation is when the other party serves on you a pleading that fails to set out their case with adequate details and clarity. The appropriate mode of discovery in such a situation is to request for further and better particulars.

The second situation is when you wish to obtain admissions of facts from the other party in order to minimise the issues to be tried and make your burden of proof easier. The proper means of discovery in such a situation is to serve interrogatories.

Request for further and better particulars

Order 18, rule 12(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012), requires the pleadings in an action to contain the necessary particulars of any claim, defence or any other matter pleaded. The case of Dato’ Seri Dr Ling Liong Sik v Krishna Kumar s/o Sivasubramaniam [2002] 2 MLJ 278 ⤤ held that the purpose of this requirement is for both parties to have a full understanding of the other party’s position so that neither party is taken by surprise at the trial.

The Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012), O 18, r 12(5) states that request for further and better particulars will normally be made as soon as after a pleading is served. However, an order for further and better particulars will not be made before service of the defence, unless the court orders otherwise.

According to the Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012), O 18, r 12(6), you must make a request for further and better particulars by letter before applying to the court for an order. The further and better particulars requested or ordered and supplied must be served in accordance with Form 31 as laid down by the Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012), O 18, r 12(7).

In general, you must supply the requested particulars if the response would undoubtedly form part of your client’s pleadings. However, there may be valid reasons why you cannot or must not respond. If you object to the other party’s request, you must notify them promptly with reasons for your objection within the time frame given in the request.

If the other party fails to respond to your request within the time frame given in the request or the response is inadequate, you may apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars following the Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012), O 18, r 12(3). The court struck out the pleadings of the party failing to comply with an order in the case of Mirzan bin Mahathir v Star Papyrus Sdn Bhd [2000] 6 MLJ 29 ⤤.

(emphasis ours)

Interrogatories

Pursuant to the Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012), O 26, r 1(1), you may apply to the court in Form 44 for an order to serve on the other party interrogatories in relation to any matter in question. The Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012), O 26, r 1(2) requires the application to be accompanied by a copy of the proposed interrogatories in Form 45.

The court may then make an order using Form 46 requiring the interrogated party to answer the interrogatories by affidavit in Form 47 within a specified period of time.

The court has the discretion under the Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012), O 26, r 1(3) to allow or disallow interrogatories. The court will only allow the interrogatories if the objective is to obtain admissions of facts for disposing fairly of the cause or matter, or saving costs.

It must be noted that leave of the court is not required where the interrogatories are made before the close of pleadings as stated in the Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012), O 26, r 2. The case of Shum Kai Cheong v See Too Woon Yee [1998] 4 MLJ 155 ⤤ confirms that interrogatories are as of right if made before the close of pleadings. However, leave of the court is a requisite condition where the interrogatories are made after the close of pleadings. The party must explain the filing of the application for interrogatories after the close of pleadings. The case of Yew Yin Lai v Teo Meng Hai & Anor [2007] 4 MLJ 703 ⤤ held that absence of any explanation for the delay is fatal to the application.

The Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012), O 26, r 3 governs the situation where the interrogated party is a corporate or unincorporated body. Such interrogatories must be answered by an individual member or officer who is sufficiently familiar with the facts in issue. If more than one person is required to answer the interrogatories, it would be prudent to include a note at the end of the interrogatories in relation to that.

The course of action to be followed where the interrogated party answers the interrogatories insufficiently is contingent on whether the interrogatories have been served with or without an order of the court.

If the interrogated party fails to comply with an order, the court may dismiss the action or strike out the defence and enter judgment accordingly under the Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012), O 26, r 7. In addition, the court may make an order for committal.

"Costs in the cause"

The party in whose favour an order for costs is made at the conclusion of the cause or the matter in which the proceedings arise shall be entitled to his costs of the proceedings in respect of which such an order is made.

— Malaysia Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012). Direct link to this source ⤤.

Court Mention

A mention was given judicial consideration in the decision of Ger-Mal Sdn Bhd v Zulkifli Hassan & Anor [2001] 6 CLJ 376 where Suriyadi J said as follows:

"I need to add that even though the terminology of “mention” has no place in the Rules of the High Court 1980, courts have generally adverted to its usage not infrequently, due to its acceptability by the legal fraternity and the judicial system. In general, that word has been accepted to cover a date supplied by the court, specifically fixed to resolve certain questions, but certainly does not include a hearing date. To be more specific, a court may fix a mention date purposefully to obtain some feed back from the parties due to some reason or other, or for some other administrative reasons. In contradistinction, if a hearing date were supplied, it is universally accepted that on such a date a trial is anticipated (PP v. Ng Goh Weng[1978] 1 LNS 159; [1979] 1 MLJ 127; Chung Sow Mun v. TRR Kurup[1989] 3 MLJ cix). At that trial date there will be a final determination of the case, whereupon judgment may be given (Merlimau Pegoh Limited v. Collector of Land Revenue Jasin[1969] 248; Koperasi Serbaguna Cuepecs Tanggungan Bhd v. City Investments Sdn Bhd[1983] 1 LNS 13; [1983] 2 MLJ 33)."

— LoyarBurok: "Of Mentions and Mentioning on Behalf". Author: Fahri Azzat. 28 November 2008. Direct link to this source ⤤.

What Is a Court Mention?

For civil matters, this is typically a time allocated to the parties attending for the purposes of furthering the matter. Time spent appearing at a Court mention usually involves putting in place a timetable for the remainder of proceedings for parties to follow and abide by. It may also involve the following:

filing of a defence
exchanging of evidence
dealing with preliminary issues
or requests to move the matter to another Court

— Lawpath: "Blog: What is a Court Mention?". Author: Paul Taylor. 11 June 2019. Direct link to this source ⤤.

A mention of a case is the early part of the court’s due process to ensure all necessary documents and evidence are submitted.

— The Star Online: "Lim's case going for mention?". Author: Arnold Loh. 29 September 2016. Direct link to this source ⤤.

Court Hearing

Hearing of application

Generally, interlocutory applications will be heard by a judge in chambers unless otherwise provided in the Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012), O 32, r 11(1), any written law, practice directions or on the direction of the judge.

An application may also be heard by a registrar who is given the same powers as a judge in such applications under the Rules of Court 2012 (P.U. (A) 205/2012), O 32, r 9.

Prior to the hearing, it is good practice for parties to exhaust all affidavits and file their respective written submissions. During the hearing, parties may take the court through their submissions or highlight salient points therein. They may also make further oral arguments and reply to arguments put forward by the other party.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court will either deliver its decision and make the necessary orders or adjourn to another date for decision.

— LexisNexis' Practical Guidance Malaysia Dispute Resolution series: "Applications—overview". Author: LexisNexis. Direct link to this source ⤤.

hidden text hidden text hidden text

Follow the Court case management

2018 High Court Case No.BKI-2NCvC-101/10-2018

2020 High Court Case No.BKI-22NCvC-88/11-2020

Attend the Court ProceedingsThe High Court of Kota Kinabalu

November 2025

July 2023

September 2022

High Court Update

The Plaintiffs' Speeches

May 2021

December 2020

High Court Filing

The Plaintiffs' Speeches

October 2020

January 2020

September 2019

July 2019

October 2018

High Court Filing

The Plaintiff's Speech

Court Timeline

Key Legal Definitions

November 2025 — The 2020 Plaintiffs' & Legal Counsel Statements

July 2023 — The 2020 Plaintiffs' Statements

September 2022 — High Court Update

High Court issues historic injunction against the Ministry of Education for witness intimidation and “undermin[ing] the due administration of justice" in months-long absent teacher litigation in Sabah

BKI-2NCvC-101/10-2018 Dates

BKI-22NCvC-88/11-2020 Dates

September 2022 — The Plaintiffs' Speeches

May 2021 — High Court Update

The Federal Government of Malaysia Has Not Filed Its Defence Over 130 Days After High Court Summons were Filed by Three Young Sabahan Women against a Claimed Months-Absent Teacher, Principal, & Ministry of Education

BKI-22NCvC-88/11-2020 Dates

December 2020 — High Court Filing

Three new Sabahan women file another High Court summons against claimed months-long absent English teacher, principal, and Education Ministry

December 2020— The Plaintiffs' Speeches

October 2020 — High Court Update

Upcoming notable dates

January 2020 — High Court Update

Upcoming notable dates

September 2019 — High Court Update

Upcoming notable dates

July 2019 — High Court Update

Upcoming notable dates

October 2018 — High Court Filing

Seven months without a teacher: principal, Ministry of Education officers in breach of statutory duty, claims High Court case

Kota Belud District is one of the poorest in Malaysia

October 2018 — The Plaintiff's Speech

"To make matters worse, this teacher was protected by the school."

The international release of Siti Nafirah's public statement about her case at the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak. This public interest litigation centers on the right to a quality education in Malaysia.

Court Timeline

click here to open in a new tab ⤤

Key Legal Definitions

provided as-is

Interlocutory applications

An Interlocutory Application for DISCOVERY

An Interlocutory Application for FURTHER & BETTER PARTICULARS

"Costs in the cause"

Court Mention

Court Hearing

Return to The High Court Case

Follow the Court
case management

2018 High Court Case No.
BKI-2NCvC-101/10-2018

2020 High Court Case No.
BKI-22NCvC-88/11-2020

Attend the Court Proceedings
The High Court of Kota Kinabalu