Unveiling the deceptive charade: Parents have strong case against school over alleged education fraud

SHAH ALAM - What does one do when silence persists and becomes too deafening to ignore?

As those in power remained eerily muted in the face of mounting evidence against an international school falsely peddling Canadian curriculum, calls for legal action have been echoed by those who understood the gravity of the situation.

Their logic was clear and simple: inaction must be countered with recourse, a legal battle to expose and confront the seemingly dodgy institution once and for all.

But of course, to kickstart the pursuit of justice, the litigation process must be initiated by those who with locus standi; in other words, concerned parents whose children were enrolled in said school.

“Now that it appears that there has been shortcoming, the parents need to act fast,” urged Parents Action Group for Education (Page) president Datin Noor Azimah Abdul Rahim.

She argued that they can lodge police reports and file for a judicial review against not just the school but also the Education Ministry (MOE).

Or if they do not want to, the alternatives could be to take their children out of the private institution and seek refunds.

The MOE, Noor Azimah explained can be implicated in the legal battle because it had, briefly registered the school in its database of all private schools in the country, before eventually removing it due to increasing complaints.

In Sinar Daily’s previous expose of the controversy, it was revealed that Education Minister Fadlina Sidek has allegedly received no less than 14 letters – via emails – from vigilant parents over the issue but has been tight-lipped in responding.

And this alleged inattention, noted Noor Azimah, was one of the many reasons why many have little trust on MOE.

“The Minister has to realise now that she is no longer an activist but a strategic leader playing a crucial role in cutting and fashioning the country's fabric moving forward,” she needled on Fadlina.

Without mincing her words, Noor Azimah argued that the MOE has been suffering from trust deficits because of its tendency to shy away from addressing problems through bureaucratic red tapes.

“Paper shuffling, endless postponements of meeting after meeting, filtering emails, not reading letters of complaints and appeals, hoping that parents will tire and go away.

“But parents’ wont’ (give up) because we have high aspirations for our children and we will do everything possible until pupils are educated according to the wishes of their parents,” said Noor Azimah.

Doubts over the legitimacy of school’s Canadian curriculum bubbled up when Ontario Ministry of Education clarified – to an email inquiry – that only a single international school in Malaysia was authorised to teach the Canadian Matriculation Programme (CIMP).

On top of that, Ontario also pointed out that there is currently a moratorium on applicants for new international schools wishing to cut a deal with Ontario in offering CIMP outside of Canada.

Legal experts also weighed in on this alleged education fraud, believing that disgruntled parents wishing to take the matter to the court seemed to have a strong case.

“In this case, if they can prove that with the school’s certificate, a child who graduated could not get placement, making the money invested and more importantly time spent worthless, you’d have a strong case,” lawyer Fatihah Jamhari reasoned.

She added that there were several provisions in Malaysia’s Education Act 1996 that the school seemed to have contradicted – which in turn would be able to help strengthen their legal suit.

These include Article 84 (b) which deals on how the registration of an educational institution can be denied if it used or likely to be used for a purpose detrimental to the interest of Malaysia, the public or the pupils.

Or Article 87 (1) (c) and (d) that delves on grounds for cancellation of registration of an educational institution due to false or misleading statements in promoting educational institutions.

“The MOE too can be liable, for that short time period where the school was registered only to have its name removed from the registry and also for not taking action to close the school,” Fatihah added.

To recap, in November 2022, the school’s name appeared in MOE’s database – a feat that essentially legitimised its operations since its inception in 2020 – but only for it to be removed and rendered unsearchable in the registry a few months afterwards.

Lawyer Megat Syazlee Mokhtarom also concurred on the “clear contravention” to the Education Act, however, the provisions in said legislation only can only be wielded in court by the authorities, namely the Attorney-General.

In order to compel the authorities to take action, Megat Syazlee pointed out that the parents or complainant must lodge a police report against the school because ministries “are usually hesitant and reluctant” to make a police report based on public concerns.

However, even if the authorities do not take action and enforce the Education Act against the school, the public can still, he argued, mount a civil suit.

“The parents could sue the school for tort action based on misrepresentation,” Megat Syazlee stressed.

In this case, he clarified, the MOE could still be held liable for misrepresentation damages if parents can prove that they had relied on MOE’s database representation, and the ministry has a fiduciary duty to protect the victim’s interests.

At the time of writing, the MOE still has not responded to Sinar Daily’s inquiry.

And while the name of the Selangor-based international school still remained absent and unsearchable in MOE’s public registry, the controversial education institution continued to operate without interruption even till today.