I am appalled to read that a senior federal counsel (SFC) is defending the male teacher who cracked rape joke in the class and the ex-headmistress of the school who were named as defendants in a counter-claim filed by student Ain Husniza.
How can a SFC act for for them since the teacher and headmistress were sued in their personal capacities? Moreover, it was little Ain Husniza who was first sued for defamation by the teacher who cracked rape joke in the class. Ain who was at the receiving end was forced to defend herself and had to make a counter-claim against the teacher.
Let us get the facts right here, all Ain did, as a female child, was to legitimately express disdain against her male adult teacher who trivialised rape and left it at that. She did not initiate any legal action, though it was within her rights. But she and her father were sued by the teacher.
Clearly, this is a private suit between teachers and their ex-student. How can a government lawyer step in to act for the private parties, a civil servant and a retired civil servant? The SFC should limit his representation for the government entities only. Isnโt this setting a bad precedent for federal counsels to act for civil servants and even retired civil servants in their private suits?
Besides, how proper is it for a government counsel to take sides and defend an adult male teacher who cracked rape jokes to young male and female students in a class? Is this not tantamount to endorsing the misconduct of the male teacher in school. This sends a wrong message to the teachers and educators.
I urged the Attorney-General Tan Sri Idris Harun to withdraw the representation for the teacher and the ex-headmistress in this private legal tussle and stick to defending the government entities only.
Teresa Kok