SELANGOR, MALAYSIA: A 23-year-old Jawi teacher, who was also a caretaker from a religious school linked to Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings (GISB) was sentenced to 10 years in prison for physically abusing three pupils, with one incident involving kneeling on a student’s chest.

The Klang Sessions Court handed down the sentence after the teacher Muhammad Barur Rahim Hisam pleaded guilty to four charges under Section 31(1)(a) of the Child Act 2001.

Judge Noridah Adam ordered Barur to serve two years for each of the first two charges and three years each for the third and fourth charges.

These sentences will run consecutively, starting from his arrest.

The court also imposed a five-year good behaviour bond, secured by a RM10,000 (approximately US$2,421) surety.

If Barur violates the bond, he will face an additional six-month jail term.

Barur, who was unrepresented in court, initially said he had nothing to offer in mitigation but later expressed regret, asking for a lighter sentence.

“I am truly repentant and vow not to repeat it. I am 23, unmarried, and supporting my parents,” he said.

The charges relate to separate incidents of abuse involving three boys aged 10 and 11 at two schools in Bandar Bukit Raja, Klang.

Barur, who also served as a warden, was accused of repeatedly caning two boys on their palms and kneeling on the chest of a third student. These incidents occurred in June, July, and September of this year.

Section 31 of the Child Act 2001 prescribes a maximum penalty of 20 years in jail or a fine of up to RM50,000 for child abuse. The act also requires courts to impose a good behaviour bond and community service as additional measures.

Prosecutor Criticises the caretaker’s Action As “Inhumane”

During the trial, Deputy Public Prosecutor Datin Kalmizah Salleh urged the court to impose the maximum sentence, stating that Barur’s actions were “inhumane” and should serve as a deterrent to others.

“As a caretaker, he should have protected these children. ”

“Instead, his acts of abuse, which were caught on video and went viral, have caused public outrage. The trauma inflicted on the victims will likely haunt them for years,” she said.

The facts of the case revealed that Barur caned one of the boys five times for littering, while another victim was caned six times on the palm.

Barur also abused a third student with a rotan, broomstick, and badminton racket, and recorded himself kneeling on the child’s chest while the boy screamed.

Medical reports confirmed the boys sustained multiple bruises and injuries.

Videos of the abuse went viral on social media, drawing public condemnation.

The Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Razarudin Husain, confirmed that GISB, the organisation linked to the school where Barur worked, had been under police scrutiny since 2011.

Several cases of child abuse linked to GISB-operated homes have surfaced, prompting a police crackdown known as “Op Global.”

Launched on 11 September, the operation targeted 20 welfare homes in Selangor and Negri Sembilan operated by GISB, leading to the rescue of 402 children, some as young as one year old.

Subsequent raids have brought the total number of rescued children to 572, and 355 individuals, including religious teachers, have been arrested.

Investigations revealed that many children had suffered physical and emotional abuse, and 13 were victims of sexual assaults, including sodomy.

In response to these revelations, GISB chairman Datuk Nasiruddin Mohd Ali acknowledged that “one or two” cases of sodomy had occurred within the organisation’s welfare homes but insisted they involved only a few individuals.

Sultan of Selangor Orders Immediate Closure of Unregistered GISB-Linked Charity Homes and Schools

On 21 September, Sultan of Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah ordered the immediate closure of all unregistered charity homes and Islamic schools linked to GISB in the state.

The Sultan expressed disappointment over the criminal activities reported and emphasised the need to protect children from further harm.

He noted that many of these homes had been operating illegally for years without proper registration, particularly in Selangor.

On 25 September 2024, the Singapore Court of Appeal delivered a judgment in two civil appeals, ruling that foreign counsel seeking ad hoc admission cannot personally argue their own applications before the court.

The appeals, heard by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice of Appeal Belinda Ang Saw Ean, and Senior Judge Judith Prakash, concerned two King’s Counsel—Theodoros Kassimatis KC and Edward Fitzgerald KC—who sought ad hoc admission under Singapore’s Legal Profession Act (LPA) to represent clients in civil proceedings.

The court’s decision has significant implications for foreign legal practitioners seeking temporary admission into Singapore’s legal system.

The appellants, Mr Kassimatis KC and Mr Fitzgerald KC, applied for ad hoc admission to act as advocates for Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed, Saminathan Selvaraju, Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah, and Lingkesvaran Rajendaren—four individuals convicted under Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), all of whom were sentenced to death.

The appellants sought to represent the claimants in civil appeals, challenging certain provisions of the MDA and prior convictions. Both the Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore opposed their admission.

In earlier proceedings, a High Court judge dismissed their applications, and a preliminary issue arose as to whether the appellants, being foreign counsel not yet admitted to the Singapore Bar, could address the court on the merits of their own ad hoc admission applications. The High Court ruled that they could not, prompting this appeal.

The main legal question concerned whether foreign counsel applying for ad hoc admission under section 15 of the LPA could be considered “self-represented” and thus entitled to personally argue their own application under an exception in section 34(1)(e) of the LPA.

Section 33 of the LPA prohibits unauthorized individuals from acting as advocates or solicitors, with section 34(1)(e) providing an exemption for individuals acting in matters in which they are personally involved.

The appellants contended that they were self-represented in their applications and were not acting as advocates for others.

They argued that they should be allowed to address the court in their own interest since the applications were personally theirs.

Furthermore, they challenged the High Court’s interpretation of Re Nicholas William Henric QC, a case that had previously dealt with the issue of foreign counsel seeking admission in Singapore.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that the appellants were not self-represented persons acting in their own legal interests but were instead applying for the right to represent their clients in separate legal matters.

The court emphasized that the ad hoc admission process under section 15 of the LPA is fundamentally about whether a foreign lawyer should be granted the privilege to represent another party in court, rather than their own interests.

The judges highlighted that “the real question” in ad hoc admission cases is whether the foreign counsel’s client is entitled to have the applicant represent them. This precludes the foreign counsel from arguing their own case for admission.

The court further clarified that section 34(1)(e) of the LPA does not override the broader restrictions in section 32, which prohibits unauthorized persons from practising as advocates or solicitors.

While the LPA allows some exemptions for self-represented litigants under section 33, these do not extend to foreign counsel applying for admission to represent others.

The court noted that the appellants, by seeking ad hoc admission, were effectively attempting to perform functions reserved for local advocates and solicitors, thus falling within the scope of the prohibitions in the LPA.

The appellants’ reliance on the Re Henric case was found to be misplaced.

The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the High Court’s interpretation was correct, and the precedent set by Re Henric did not support the appellants’ position that they could address the court in their own admission applications.

The court dismissed the appeal on the preliminary objection, confirming that the appellants could not personally address the court in their ad hoc admission cases.

However, the ruling leaves the door open for the claimants to engage local counsel to represent them in the upcoming hearing on 9 October 2024, where the substantive issues regarding the appellants’ applications will be argued.

Additionally, the claimants are permitted to address the court personally if they choose not to engage local counsel.