Does MOE's 'you touch, you go' policy actually hold up in sex abuse cases?

 

KINIGUIDE | In 2024, Education Minister Fadhlina Sidek sternly warned teachers: “You touch, you go”. The slogan, which has been repeated over the years, was meant to deter sexual abuse and bullying by teachers.

However, documents, police reports and interviews gathered by Malaysiakini show a wide gap between that vow and what happens when sexual abuse cases occur, especially when it's out of the public eye.

In several cases, teachers accused of such misconduct did “go” - either to another school, on leave, or up the career ladder.

Malaysiakini explores where the gaps lie in the Education Ministry’s complaints system, how they played out in four cases, and the implications for the law and integrity.

What’s the actual rule?

“You touch, you go” may be the policy, but the implementation is less straightforward.

How schools handle sexual misconduct against students is mainly guided by a 2023 circular titled “Professional Circular No 13”.

It gives the headmaster 24 hours to contact the parents or guardians, report to the police, record the complaint and submit a report to the district education office.

If the alleged perpetrator is a teacher, the headmaster must report directly to the police and refer the case to the state education department. If the parents refuse to make a report, the headmaster must immediately lodge a police report under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The procedure must begin immediately and confidentially, whether the headmaster receives a complaint or learns of the case through media reports.

So where does the circular fail?

The failure begins after the referral reaches the state education department.

First, unlike schools, the department has no strict timeline to take action once it is alerted to such cases.

Second, there is no obligation to suspend the accused teacher. This is despite mechanisms for suspension pending investigation already in place under civil service rules.

The circular also does not prohibit the transfer or promotion of an accused teacher pending investigation.

Additionally, there are no guidelines that compel a probe into past accusations against a teacher before they are transferred.

A transfer is an administrative action, not a disciplinary punishment, so it does not go through disciplinary proceedings, leaves no record of punishment, and has no appeal mechanism or independent review.

There is also no written protection for school officers who report, and no obligation to report the outcome of investigations to anyone.

Meanwhile, the same circular allows the headmaster to set up a conciliation committee to resolve dissatisfaction over how the school itself handled a case. This means the party complained against can help decide who hears the complaint against them at the school level.

Who holds the power?

In the cases Malaysiakini examined, key decisions after a complaint is made sit with four levels in a single chain.

The headmaster decides whether the complaint is reported and how it is handled at the school.

The district education office and state education department decide where the teacher complained against is placed, including whether they go to “the pool” - an insider term for being transferred to administrative duties - or back to teaching.

At the top, the Education Ministry director-general can issue transfer orders at his discretion.

Decisions at the upper level, which often take the form of transfers, rest or promotion, are made at the discretion of an individual, not through a committee or commission.

How do these gaps play out in reality?

Kedah case

On Jan 3, 2024, a Year 5 pupil complained to the guidance and counselling teacher that a senior assistant teacher had sexually harassed her verbally in the administration room.

The parents and the school lodged police reports, complete with video evidence.

The alleged predator was then transferred to another school and later promoted to headmaster.

Meanwhile, a senior assistant teacher for student affairs who prepared a report on the incident - on the headmaster’s instructions - was reportedly subjected to administrative action following an anonymous poison-pen letter. They were allegedly denied a transparent investigation or allowed to defend themselves.

Johor case

Between February 2024 and August 2025, an 11-year-old girl was allegedly sexually assaulted repeatedly by a primary school teacher in Masai, Johor.

The parents initially did not lodge a police report when the school alerted them of the abuse in September 2025.

This was because the teacher allegedly promised to marry the girl when she turns 18 - a resolution that a policewoman reportedly helped to mediate. A police report was later lodged by the mother in November 2025 - ostensibly to hold the teacher accountable to his promise.

Pursuant to this, the district education office transferred the teacher to “the pool” in December that year but was later allowed to resume teaching at the same school a month later.

Action was only taken after the case went viral in May this year, with the teacher charged with five counts of sexual assault against the girl. He pleaded not guilty.

The behind-the-scenes negotiation and acceptance of a “marriage promise” raise serious questions about the integrity of the police officer involved.

Meanwhile, it is not clear whether the school reported the incident within 24 hours. The school, which informed the parents and told them to go to the police station, must also explain whether it met the duty to report within 24 hours under the 2023 circular.

The district education office and state education department officials who allowed the teacher to return to teaching in January 2026 must also explain the basis of that decision.

Negeri Sembilan case

Complaint documents and a copy of an official Education Ministry placement directive sighted by Malaysiakini show that a former lecturer at a teacher institute allegedly sent obscene and sexually harassing messages via WhatsApp to several Malay Language and TESL students between January and March this year.

The victims made a formal complaint through the Public Complaints Management System (Sispaa), and an internal investigation led by a special committee confirmed the incident.

However, the lecturer was neither suspended nor brought before a disciplinary hearing.

Instead, the lecturer was merely “rested” in a separate room for two months and was later transferred to a secondary school in another state - allegedly on orders from higher-ups.

Kuala Lumpur case

As detailed in a Malaysiakini report last month, a 46-year-old primary school teacher in the capital, who also ran tuition classes at his home, was charged in two Sessions Courts in Kuala Lumpur with six counts of sexually abusing three 11-year-old boys.

A police source said a report had previously accused the same teacher of sexual abuse was lodged when he served at another school, but the investigation was not pursued because of insufficient evidence and alleged lack of cooperation from the Federal Territory Education Department.

What are the legal and integrity implications?

The Johor case raises the most serious legal questions. The Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 does not recognise any consent or promise of marriage in the criminal offence of sexual assault.

Allegations that a police officer acted as an intermediary in working out the agreement also raise questions.

In all cases, there are also questions about whether the school had acted within the mandated time frame required to report such cases.

The rationale for allowing teachers accused of misconduct to return to school, or getting a transfer or promotion, is also in question.

Likewise, the reported blowback against the school officer who reported the Kedah case also calls into question protections accorded to those who help expose or report such misconduct.

Malaysiakini has contacted the relevant district education offices, state education departments, and Education Ministry officials for comment.

Is the minister addressing these problems?

While Fadhlina has been reported as commenting on disciplinary action when such cases come into the public eye, there have been no reports of her amending rules and circulars to improve enforcement against such cases. - Mkini