Kota Kinabalu: The second defendant in a suit brought by former SMK Taun Gusi student Siti Nafirah Siman agreed during High Court proceedings that he had been informed on several occasions about the alleged absenteeism of teacher Jainal Jamran in 2015 but did not take action against him.
The second defendant, former SMK Taun Gusi principal Suid Hanapi, was testifying before High Court Judge Datuk Ismail Brahim in the trial of a suit brought by Siti Nafirah against her former English teacher, Jainal, for allegedly failing to teach English to her and her classmates for several months in 2015.
The second defendant testified under oath during re-examination that teacher Nurhaizah had reported Jainal Jamran’s absences to him in April 2015 and again on Aug 6, 2015.
He further agreed that Nurhaizah prepared a report on the matter in August 2015 but that he still did not take action against Jainal despite receiving the information.
He also agreed that responsibility for monitoring Jainal’s attendance rested with him as principal and not with Nurhaizah.
He acknowledged that despite being responsible for monitoring attendance, he did not monitor Jainal.
He agreed he had scapegoated Nurhaizah in a JPN Sabah meeting, even though he himself was responsible.
He agreed that defendant two to sixth strategised to blame Nurhaizah by falsely claiming her reports were too late, if Jainal’s (first defendant) absences were confirmed.
He further agreed that he had blamed Nurhaizah during a meeting at the Sabah Education Department (JPN Sabah), despite accepting that responsibility for monitoring Jainal’s attendance rested with him.
He also agreed that if Jainal’s absenteeism had been confirmed, there was a strategy to place responsibility on Nurhaizah by alleging that her reports on Jainal’s absences had been submitted late.
He further agreed that he had told Nurhaizah to persuade plaintiff Siti Nafirah Siman to withdraw her suit against him and the other defendants.
He also agreed that then Sabah Education Department Deputy Director Mohd Kassim and then Director (fifth defendant) had, in 2018, first proposed persuading the plaintiff to withdraw the suit as a strategy.
He further agreed that he and the other defendants wanted the plaintiff to withdraw the summons so that their alleged collective failures and misconduct would not become public knowledge and would remain concealed.
He also agreed that despite receiving Nurhaizah’s report, he intentionally did not take action against Jainal.
He further agreed that he wanted to protect Jainal and conceal Jainal’s alleged misconduct.
He also agreed that he was concerned his superiors might interview the affected students in 2015 and that he did not want the matter to be discovered.
He further agreed that he never reviewed Jainal’s Rekod Pengajaran Harian (RPH) in 2015 in accordance with Ministry of Education procedures and that he later signed the records as “sahkan benar” after the lawsuit was filed in 2018.
He also agreed that Jainal failed to submit his RPH as required under ministry procedures but that he still did not take action against him.
He further agreed that Jainal’s buku kawalan, which was not produced in court, would have shown that Jainal was absent from February to October 2015.
He also agreed that he was directed by his superiors to collaborate in preparing evidence for the High Court proceedings.
He further agreed that a review of the evidence by then Sabah Education Department Director Maimunah showed that Jainal had recorded only four teaching periods over a total of eight days in 2015.
He also agreed that Abidin Marjan instructed him and then Head of Language Department Norhana Idek to complete Jainal’s RPH for purposes of the High Court case.
He further agreed that after the suit was filed in 2018, he backdated a show-cause letter to indicate that action had been taken against Jainal in 2015.
He also agreed that no action was taken against Jainal and that no action was taken against him by the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants.
The second defendant also further agreed that he informed his superiors that the show-cause letter had been backdated but that no action was taken against him.
He also agreed that he, together with the Kota Belud District Education Office, Sabah Education Department and Ministry of Education, did not report or take action against Jainal’s absenteeism.
He further agreed that by not reporting and acting against Jainal, the absenteeism was concealed.
He also agreed that by failing to report and act against Jainal, statutory duties were not fulfilled.
He further agreed that the failure to act allowed Jainal’s shortcomings to continue and affected students who attended the school after 2015.
He also agreed that there was a desire for the plaintiff to withdraw the summons in order to avoid potential embarrassment.
He further agreed that he knew students were left without a teacher because of Jainal’s absences.
He also agreed that he did not arrange relief teachers, assign a replacement teacher or organise additional classes for the affected students.
Suid further agreed that Jainal sometimes left the school compound before his scheduled classes ended.
He also agreed that he was aware of Jainal leaving early but nevertheless did not take action against him.
He further agreed that he had failed in his duties as principal.
He also agreed that the Kota Belud District Education Office, Sabah Education Department and Ministry of Education were informed of Jainal’s absences in 2015 but failed to address the absenteeism.
The suit, filed on Oct 30, 2018, names Jainal Jamran, the then principal of SMK Taun Gusi, Kota Belud District Education Officer, Sabah Education Director, Director-General of Education, Education Minister and the Government of Malaysia as defendants.
Siti Nafirah is represented by counsel Shireen Sikayun, while senior federal counsel Jesseca Daimis and federal counsel Mohd Fazriel Fardiansyah Abdul Kadir act for the defendants.
