A former student who sued her teacher for allegedly missing class testified today that she and her classmates were forced by the school principal to write a letter persuading the teacher to return.
During her examination-in-chief by her counsel Shireen Sikayun, Siti Nafirah Siman, 23, told the High Court in Kota Kinabalu that the principal told the class the letter was a letter of undertaking.
“The principal said this is your surat aku janji where you apologise to teacher (Mohd Jainal Jamran) and ask him to come back and teach the class again.”
When examined by her lawyer, Siti Nafirah (above) said the letter was false but had to be written under duress because they needed an English teacher for the upcoming final examination.
In her witness statement, Siti Nafirah claimed Jainal started missing class after a classmate Mohd Fauzi Mul said or did something that angered the teacher.
She believes Jainal’s refusal to teach her class was a form of punishment imposed by the teacher.
In connection with that, the principal purportedly asked Siti Nafirah and her classmates to write a letter of apology and admit Jainal stopped teaching the class because of their misconduct.
They conceded and wrote the letter out of fear and desperation to regain the English-language teacher.
Jainal returned to teach two weeks after the letters were written, but only for a week before the final examination began.
Attendance book
Meanwhile, Siti Nafirah also told the court there was evidence of Jainal’s absence in the form of a class attendance book, which is signed by teachers before the end of each lesson and is used to record their attendance.
She claimed to have personally seen the contents of the record book, which showed the column for Jainal’s English lessons was only signed from January to February 2015 and is left blank from early-March until one week before the final examination.
She said the book is kept by the school and her request to obtain the book through her solicitors had failed.
During cross-examination by the senior federal counsel Mohd Hafizi Abdul Halim, Siti Nafirah said among the damages incurred by her and her classmates was that they were unable to obtain a good education and had to set aside time in Form 5 to relearn Form 4 lessons they had missed.
She also claimed to have faced intimidation after filing the civil suit against her teacher.
She said it started with two school officials trying to persuade her to withdraw her suit. Not long after, a white van purportedly turned up outside her home to take pictures around her house.
When the federal counsel asked whether she reported the incident, Siti Nafirah said no police report was made and she lodged a report to the MACC instead.
No evidence of the report was tendered in court.
Siti Nafirah was a student in the 4 Perdagangan (4PD) class at SMK Taun Gusi in 2015. On Oct 30, 2018, she filed a suit against her teacher Jainal for supposedly missing class for seven months in 2015.
In addition to Jainal, she also named Suid (in his capacity as the school’s principal), SMK Taun Gusi, the Kota Belud district education officer, the Sabah education director, the education director-general, the education minister, and the Malaysian government as defendants.
Details of the suit
She claimed the first defendant (Jainal) had failed to attend and teach English lessons, and in his absence, the second defendant (Suid) failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the first defendant taught the 4PD students, knowing that the failure would result in the 4PD students not being prepared for the examinations stipulated by or under the Education Act 1996.
Therefore, the plaintiff is seeking, among other things, a declaration that the first, second, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth defendants breached their statutory obligations under the Education Act by failing to ensure that she was taught English from February 2015 to October 2015 and by failing to prepare her for the exams as stipulated under the Education Act.
She also seeks a declaration that the first, second, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth defendants have violated their obligations under Regulations 3C, 25, 26 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993, and a declaration that the actions by the first, second, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth defendants constitute misfeasance in public office.
Further, she requests a declaration that the first, second, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth defendants have violated her constitutional right to education guaranteed under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution read together with Article 12, as well as compensation, costs, and any further relief and other matters deemed fit by the court.
Siti Nafirah is represented by the lawyer Shireen, while senior federal counsel Mohd Hafizi appeared for the defendants with assistance from federal counsel Fazriel Fardiansyah Abdul Kadir.
The trial before high court judge Ismail Brahim will continue tomorrow. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.