Teacher charged with sexually abusing pupils, but were warning signs missed for years?

A 46-year-old Tamil primary school teacher who also ran tuition classes from his home has been charged in two Kuala Lumpur Sessions Courts with six counts of sexually abusing three 11-year-old boys.

The charges are grave. But beyond the courtroom, where the truth of the allegations will be determined, another troubling question remains.

Were there warning signs years before the alleged abuse came to light, and if so, why was nothing done?

Malaysiakini spoke to more than 10 people, including parents, pupils, former teachers and school administrators, and examined copies of police reports and other documents related to the case.

Their accounts point to concerns about the teacher’s conduct allegedly circulating among school personnel and education authorities for years. Yet, Malaysiakini found no record of any action being taken in response to those concerns.

Four of the charges, brought under Section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, involve alleged physical sexual assaults against the three boys at a house between July and September this year.

The provision carries a maximum jail term of 20 years and whipping.

The teacher also faces two charges under Section 377C of the Penal Code involving alleged carnal intercourse against the order of nature with one of the pupils at the same location, on Sept 18 and Sept 30.

Under this provision, he faces imprisonment of between five and 20 years and whipping.

The teacher was allowed bail. The cases will be mentioned again on Nov 23 and Dec 18.

Five reports involving male victims

In a written reply to Malaysiakini, Kuala Lumpur police chief Fadil Marsus said police had received five reports involving five male victims.

The first report was lodged on Oct 6. Subsequently, four reports were lodged between Oct 10 and 11 at a police station near the school.

Fadil said the school, the families and the district education office (PPD) had fully cooperated with the investigation.

Malaysiakini’s interviews, however, suggest that eight boys, excluding one former pupil, may have been affected, meaning that four families did not take the matter to the police. Those parents are understood to have decided against lodging reports.

Under the Education Ministry’s 2023 guidelines on handling sexual misconduct cases, that decision should not have ended the matter.

The guidelines state that where the alleged perpetrator is a teacher, the headmaster must report the incident directly to the police and also refer the case to the state education department.

Separately, within 24 hours of learning of an incident, the headmaster must contact the parents or guardians and lodge a police report immediately under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code if the parents refuse to do so.

Police did not say whether the school itself lodged any report. Malaysiakini has asked the ministry whether the headmaster did so for the children whose parents did not.

However, accounts from parents and a source familiar with the matter suggest that the alleged abuse might have remained undisclosed had a female pupil not overheard male schoolmates discussing it and alerted another teacher.

The school subsequently summoned pupils who had attended the tuition classes in question. One parent told Malaysiakini that the pupils were asked to provide written statements about the alleged incidents.

Flagged years earlier

Meanwhile, a former PTA chairperson told Malaysiakini that he had heard allegations about the teacher four years ago, which he raised during a PTA meeting back then.

“However, the headmaster said there was no evidence. After that, nothing was done,” he said.

However, the ministry’s guidelines state that the procedure for handling sexual misconduct cases must begin swiftly and confidentially, once a headmaster is informed of a complaint or learns of a case through media reports.

Malaysiakini has asked the ministry whether the concerns raised at the PTA meeting were recorded or reported to the district education office at the time.

The former PTA chairperson further alleged that the headmaster had urged the PTA not to pressure the teacher, saying the teacher might harm himself and that the PTA could face legal issues.

Malaysiakini could not contact the headmaster because Education Ministry policy bars the media from approaching headmasters for comment.

Previous report not acted upon?

The concerns may have extended beyond the school at the centre of the current investigation.

A police source said a report had previously been lodged against the same teacher while he was serving at another school, before his transfer to his current posting.

According to the source, the matter was not pursued due to insufficient evidence and alleged poor cooperation from the Federal Territory Education Department.

Kuala Lumpur police neither confirmed nor denied the existence of the earlier report when asked. The former PTA chairperson, however, said a police officer had informed him of its existence.

This raises questions that Malaysiakini put to the authorities: Did the ministry or the PPD know about the report when the teacher was transferred?

If so, what consideration was given to it? And how was he able to continue teaching while also conducting tuition classes at home for pupils, apparently without monitoring?

Malaysiakini also found that the teacher had provided tuition to several pupils from another nearby school.

One parent also alleged that the current PTA had refused to get involved on the grounds that the incidents occurred outside school.

Malaysiakini’s written questions to the current PTA chairperson went unanswered.

For some parents, the concerns extend beyond whether earlier warnings were ignored to how the school has handled the investigation since the allegations surfaced.

Several parents claimed the school had refused to let them see their children’s written statements, saying these were investigation materials.

"They are our children. We have the right to know," said one mother.

The ministry’s guidelines require headmasters to handle such cases confidentially, which may explain the school’s position on the statements. The guidelines do not address whether parents may see their children’s written statements.

Psychosocial support

Meanwhile, affected parents informed Malaysiakini that four counsellors came to the school yesterday to provide support to the victims, about two weeks after the incident was uncovered.

However, parents claimed that they were kept in the dark regarding the latest status of the case.

“We even had to find out about this incident through the media. Neither the school, PPD, the state education department, nor the police gave us updates.

“Imagine the deep trauma and grief we are forced to endure.”

Under an Education Ministry professional circular on guidance and counselling, the target ratio is one counselling teacher for every 500 pupils.

The guidelines, however, are not limited to schools with a counselling teacher. They require headmasters to ensure that victims and witnesses undergo rehabilitative intervention sessions conducted by a guidance and counselling teacher, regardless of the outcome of any court proceedings.

Malaysiakini understands that smaller schools can access such services through existing teachers appointed to counselling roles or mobile counsellors provided under the PPD.

Malaysiakini sent written questions to the Education Ministry and the Federal Territory Education Department about the earlier report, the teacher’s transfer, support for the pupils and the implementation of counselling policy.

It also asked whether the teacher had been suspended or subjected to disciplinary action following the charges.

No reply had been received at the time of publication.

On Oct 19, Malaysiakini visited the Federal Territory Education Department but was informed that its director was on medical leave.

However, a spokesperson confirmed that the department had received Malaysiakini’s questions via email.

Editor’s note: Malaysiakini is not naming the pupils and parents interviewed, nor the school or the teacher.

All the victims are children, and Malaysian law, including the Child Act 2001 and the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, prohibits publishing information that could identify them.

Naming the school, the teacher, the judges or the location of the alleged offences could indirectly reveal their identities and invite stigma, bullying and repeated trauma. The teacher is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

'Building in safety' to tackle child sexual abuse material

COMMENT | We need to fight harder against online child sexual abuse material

Deepfake child sexual abuse: 'Like animals trapped in a circus'

MCMC finetuning safety code for child sexual abuse material under Online Safety Act

69 detained over distribution, sale of child sexual abuse material