UPLANDS (The International School of Penang) Visa Processing Failure — Detailed Factual Report

Chapter 1: Introduction — Why This Report Was Written

This report details the facts surrounding the visa procedure deficiencies experienced by our family at UPLANDS (The International School of Penang), located in Batu Ferringhi, Penang, Malaysia (hereinafter referred to as “UPLANDS” or “the School”).

In January 2025, we transferred our children (then 6 and 4 years old) from Stonyhurst International School Penang to UPLANDS. After the transfer, the school stated that it would provide “visa support” and assist in switching from an Employment Pass (EP) to a Guardian Visa (GV).

In retrospect, such problems did not occur at Stonyhurst International School Penang, where our children were initially enrolled. Stonyhurst is directly operated by a prestigious British school founded in 1593, with the British headquarters overseeing curriculum standards, teacher recruitment, and the quality of administrative operations. This direct governance by the British headquarters was also reflected in the quality of visa support and parental support, and the sense of security we felt stemmed precisely from this organizational foundation. We came to realize this difference painfully after transferring to UPLANDS.

However, after transferring to UPLANDS, for approximately 14 months, the school’s visa support staff provided inaccurate guidance, followed by 6 months of neglect, and a sudden change of policy, which led to the family facing the risk of illegal overstay, the virtual freezing of bank accounts, and forced emergency departure.

Furthermore, the school’s response further complicated the situation. Instead of acknowledging the deficiencies, they insisted that the responsibility lay with the parents and explicitly stated discriminatory treatment based on the exercise of legal rights, as recorded below.

The purpose of publishing this report is threefold:

• To provide information to families who are experiencing or may experience similar problems.
• To convey to Japanese families considering educational immigration to Malaysia the importance of “administrative processing ability” and “governance system,” which are often overlooked when choosing a school.
• To preserve the facts of this case as a public record.

All facts stated in this report are based on evidence such as emails, WhatsApp messages, written documents, and receipts. A response letter dated March 5, 2026, was received from the school’s lawyers, Murad & Foo, in response to the Letter of Demand sent on February 19, 2026, and its contents will also be analyzed in this report.

Chapter 2: Summary of the Incident

This case is a dispute arising from the fact that the visa guidance provided by UPLANDS through a dedicated staff member with the official title of “Admissions & Visa Support” was, in the end, inaccurate.

The Core of the Problem — 7 Breaches of Duty

• [Inaccuracy of Initial Guidance] The school affirmatively assured that it was possible to switch from an Employment Pass (EP) to a Guardian Visa (GV) without confirming with the Immigration Bureau. Based on this assurance, the family decided to enroll and paid a Security Deposit of MYR 5,000 and an admission fee of MYR 23,343.
• [Two Incorrect Options] The school presented two options for handling the existing visa: “cancel it first” or “wait for it to expire,” both of which were inaccurate. The correct procedure was to “apply for a changeover while the existing visa is valid.”
• [Written Approval in Writing] When Saori chose Option B, the person in charge confirmed in writing, “Yes you may.” This is central evidence in this case.
• [6 Months of Neglect] For a full 6 months from April to September 2025, no records of any action taken by the school regarding the visa matter have been confirmed. No formal application was made to the Immigration Bureau, and no reference number existed.
• [Sudden Policy Change] The school notified us 6 days before the EP expired that “there is not enough time,” forcing the entire family to depart urgently.
• [Assertion Regarding Responsibility] The school claimed that “the wife chose to wait for the visa to expire.” Ignoring the fact that they had allowed her to choose from the options they presented and approved with “Yes you may.”
• [Discriminatory Treatment Based on Exercise of Legal Rights] The principal stated in writing that “because you have suggested litigation, we cannot provide the same flexible response as other families.”

Overview of Damages

The damages suffered by the family are diverse and include the following:

• Emergency travel expenses to Thailand (airfare, accommodation, and transportation for 5 family members)
• Virtual freezing of financial assets due to restrictions on bank account functions
• Refusal to transfer funds from the husband’s account to the wife’s account
• Inability to open a new account for the wife
• Difficulty in paying tuition fees (a period occurred when payment was physically impossible even with the intention to pay)
• Additional visa application fees
• Interruption and re-accumulation of the “3 months of continuous bank transfer records” required for the Guardian Visa application
• Hodaka’s emergency trip to Japan (to reactivate the bank account)
• Psychological impact on the 3 children (sleep disorders, refusal to attend school, separation anxiety)

Chapter 3: About the Parties

We, the Goto family, are a Japanese family with 3 children.

• Hikari (eldest daughter, then 7 years old) — Enrolled at UPLANDS
• Zen (eldest son, then 5 years old) — Enrolled at UPLANDS
• Yukari (youngest daughter, born August 26, 2024)

The husband, Hodaka, was staying in Malaysia on an Employment Pass through a Labuan corporation, and I (Saori) and the children were staying on Dependent Visas. The Employment Pass was valid until October 20, 2025.

The children initially attended Stonyhurst International School Penang. We visited UPLANDS in October 2024 and decided to transfer. They started attending in January 2025 (2nd semester of the 2024/2025 academic year).

It should be noted that the fact that the children transferred from Stonyhurst International School Penang to UPLANDS is also confirmed in the Murad & Foo response letter (§24).

Chapter 4: Comparison Between Stonyhurst and UPLANDS (The International School of Penang) — The Difference in Security Created by Governance Differences

This chapter describes the differences in governance systems between Stonyhurst International School Penang, where we initially sent our children, and UPLANDS. This comparison is a real-world example of how important the “governance system” is in choosing an international school.

Organizational Foundation of Stonyhurst

Stonyhurst opened in Penang in 2022 as a directly managed campus of Stonyhurst College, the world’s oldest Jesuit school founded in Lancashire, England in 1593.

• The UK headquarters (Stonyhurst College UK) directly supervises curriculum standards, teacher recruitment/training, and education quality assessment.
• Partnership with LAPIS, an experienced Malaysian education management partner (also operates St Joseph’s Institution International School in KL)
• Systematic quality control system based on 430 years of educational tradition
• Official member of FOBISIA (Federation of British International Schools in Asia) (joined April 2024)
• External evaluation framework is in place (subject to BSO Inspection)

The Sense of Security We Felt

During the period we attended Stonyhurst, we never felt uneasy about the school’s administrative response or parent communication. We felt that the existence of the UK headquarters as an “anchor” ensured that the school’s operations did not depend on the judgment of a particular principal. Even if a problem occurred, we felt secure that the UK headquarters’ governance would guarantee quality.

Important Differences with UPLANDS (The International School of Penang)

After transferring to UPLANDS, this sense of security was lost. The following organizational problems became apparent at UPLANDS:

• Lack of systematic supervision and verification of visa support staff
• Staff handover was done without explanation and lacked continuity
• An organizational structure where the principal (校長) himself admits that “the operational framework may not be fully established.”
• The organization condones the principal personally taking action against parents for exercising their legal rights, citing the exercise of legal rights as the reason.
• Formal templates and forms necessary for visa applications were not prepared (a redacted copy of another parent’s documents was provided as a “template”).

The presence or absence of a governance system is an important factor that is often overlooked when choosing a school. There is a decisive difference in how problems are handled between schools with external supervision by UK headquarters or a global education network, and schools that rely solely on the judgment of local management.

Chapter 5: Complete Timeline — What Happened

The following is a timeline of key events based on evidence. All dates and content are supported by email, WhatsApp, and written records.

Chapter 6: Admission Process and Reliance on Visa Support

6-1. From School Tour to Admission Decision

On October 18, 2024, the family participated in the UPLANDS school tour. After the tour, Hodaka sent an email to the former person in charge of the admissions team, informing them of their decision to apply for transfer.

Importantly, the possibility of visa support was confirmed as a prerequisite for the admission decision. On October 30, Hodaka inquired by email before admission was granted, “Is it indeed possible for parents to be issued a guardian visa?” This email is direct evidence that the feasibility of visa support was a prerequisite for the admission decision.

During the admission interview period (after October 30), the school verbally confirmed that visa switching (EP→GV) was possible. The family proceeded with the admission procedures in reliance on this verbal confirmation and paid Security Deposit MYR 5,000 on November 21.

6-2. Appearance of the Person in Charge and Disconnection of Handover

On November 1, 2024, despite the former person in charge being the point of contact in the previous communications, another staff member (hereinafter referred to as the “Person in Charge”) suddenly appeared in the email thread. This Person in Charge was completely unaware of the following situations:

• Hodaka’s inquiry email regarding the guardian visa on October 30
• Saori’s visa copy sent to the former person in charge on October 25
• The content of the verbal confirmation during the admission interview period

The former person in charge disappeared from the email thread without any explanation, and the Person in Charge took over all visa-related communications without any handover or continuity. This disconnection of handover was the first sign of a problem with the school’s organizational management system.

6-3. Two Contradictory Answers (November 1 vs November 22)

The Person in Charge’s first answer (November 1) was as follows:

“Currently, you and your wife are holding an employment visa and a dependent visa, respectively. As such, there is no need to apply for a guardian visa, as immigration policy permits only one visa per individual.”

(Currently, you and your wife hold an employment visa and a dependent visa, respectively, so there is no need to apply for a guardian visa due to the principle of one visa per person)

This answer reveals the Person in Charge’s fundamental misunderstanding. They understood that a new visa could not be applied for while an existing visa was valid due to the “one visa per person” principle. This same inaccurate premise became the basis for the later “two options” (cancel or wait for expiration). Precisely because they did not understand the correct procedure (switching application while valid), both options were incorrect.

However, just three weeks later, on November 22, the Person in Charge reversed their position 180 degrees.

“Yes, the immigration allows both parents to apply for the guardian visa”

Moreover, in the Person in Charge’s email at 8:28AM on the same day, they used expressions such as “upon your arrival” and “when you are planning your trip to Malaysia,” indicating that they assumed the family had not yet arrived in Malaysia. They did not even grasp the basic fact that the family already resided in Malaysia and held existing visas. Only after Hodaka sent a detailed email at 9:03AM (Labuan corporation EP, existing Dependent Visa, intention to switch in about 6 months) did the Person in Charge return an affirmative answer at 9:40AM.

The two contradictory answers given by the same staff member within three weeks are important evidence that the Person in Charge’s guidance lacked consistency and was issued without any confirmation with the immigration bureau.

6-4. Causal Relationship between Admission Decision and Financial Commitment

The causal relationship between the school’s representations (verbal and written) and the family’s financial commitment is directly proven by the following timeline:

• October 30: Hodaka inquires about the possibility of GV (before admission is granted)
• After October 30: The school verbally confirms that switching is possible during the admission interview
• November 21: Security Deposit MYR 5,000 payment (the day before the Person in Charge’s written confirmation; relying on verbal guarantee)
• November 22: The Person in Charge confirms in writing, “Yes, the immigration allows both parents to apply”
• December 17: Admission fee MYR 23,343 payment

The fact that the Security Deposit was paid the day before the written confirmation proves that the family was already relying on the school’s verbal guarantee. The written confirmation on November 22 reinforced this reliance and led to further financial commitment.

Chapter 7: Details of Incorrect Guidance — Meaning of “Yes you may”

7-1. Two Options Presented by the School

In March 2025, the school presented two options regarding the handling of existing visas.

• Option A: Cancel the existing Dependent Visa first and then apply for a new visa.
• Option B: Wait for the visa to expire and then apply.

On March 26, Saori chose Option B. The person in charge confirmed this choice with a clear “Yes you may.”

7-2. Why Both Were Incorrect

Both options were incorrect. When the family later confirmed directly at the Immigration Bureau counter, the correct procedure was to “apply for a switch while the existing visa is valid.”

Neither of the two options presented by the school was a “switch.” They involved invalidating/canceling one and then applying for a new one from scratch, which is different from the “switching” mechanism that exists in the Malaysian immigration system.

This single email—the person in charge’s “Yes you may” on March 26, 2025—is the central evidence in this case.

• The school presented two options (both created by the school).
• Saori chose from among them (selected from the school’s menu).
• The school approved the choice in writing (“Yes you may”).

The school’s subsequent claim that “the wife chose to wait for the visa to expire” is inconsistent with the facts due to this. Saori chose from inaccurate options created by the school itself, and the school approved it.

7-3. What Was the Correct Procedure?

As a result of independent investigation, it was confirmed that the following switching mechanism exists in the Malaysian immigration system.

Correct flow: ① Shorten Pass (Shorten Pass) → ② Obtain Special Pass (bridge, RM100 + service fee RM250) → ③ Apply for new pass

The existence of this procedure is supported by multiple sources:

• Switching-related procedures exist in the official ESD (Electronic Services Division) system.
• Clearly stated in the official Immigration Guide of another international school in Penang (St. Christopher’s International Primary School): “Kindly make sure that current visa is one (1) month before expiry date before submission of application” (application is premised on the visa being valid).
• “Special Pass (RM100 + service fee RM250)” is listed as “only if necessary and optional” on St. Christopher’s Guardian Visa checklist. It is systematically maintained as a bridge pass during switching.
• Testimony from an acquaintance (female international school owner) that her spouse (British) actually switched from EP to GV.
• Even in the Japanese immigration system, switching while the existing status is valid is institutionalized as “Application for Permission to Change Status of Residence.”

UPLANDS was not aware of this basic procedure and presented only two inaccurate options: “apply after canceling” or “apply after waiting for expiration.” This was considered basic knowledge for an international school’s visa support staff.

Chapter 8: 6 Months of Neglect — Visa Not Applied For

8-1. Absence of Reference Number

For a full six months, from April to September 2025, the school took virtually no action on the visa case. A reference number was never assigned. The absence of a reference number means that the case was not officially submitted to the Immigration Bureau.

Despite being aware of the October 20, 2025 work visa deadline, the school took no steps to complete the switch within the deadline.

8-2. Absence of Prior Consultation

Even more serious is that the school did not conduct prior case consultation with the Immigration Bureau. It is a basic of professional visa support to consult and confirm with the Immigration Bureau in advance regarding the special case of EP→GV switching. However, the school took a method of collecting all the documents and then applying without any prior confirmation.

In a normal visa application process, documents are first submitted to obtain a reference number, and then the Immigration Bureau is continuously contacted through that number to revise and add documents as necessary. However, the UPLANDS staff member did not obtain a reference number, interacted with the Immigration Bureau without a system for managing the case, and furthermore adopted an extremely dangerous method of submitting in a single shot after the staff member independently judged that “preparation was complete.” With this method, recovery is difficult if there are deficiencies in the documents, and the family’s visa status is exposed to unnecessary risk.

8-3. Problems with Staff’s Document Handling

There were the following important problems with the staff’s response:

• There is no record of confirming with the Immigration Bureau whether the documents were sufficient.
• Stated that they would “submit after the visa expires” and waited (this itself is an incorrect procedure).
• Told Hodaka that “there seemed to be some problem” with his documents, but did not explain the content.
• Hodaka repeatedly urged for a concrete explanation of the problem, but the school refused to answer or was unable to.
• When Hodaka went to the Immigration Bureau himself to confirm, the “problem” was merely a clerical error in the spelling of the company name in the translated document.
• The “template” provided by the school was just a PDF of another guardian’s income certificate with redaction applied. The redaction was incomplete, and the original personal information was visible. No formal templates were prepared at all.
• The unusual situation occurred where Hodaka prepared the format himself and confirmed it with the school.
• As a hidden condition that the person in charge had not disclosed, the Immigration Bureau required “3 months of continuous bank transfer records from the same company name.” This condition later became a major problem in conjunction with bank account restrictions.

Chapter 9: Sudden Policy Change and Emergency Departure

On October 14, 2025, with only 6 days remaining until the EP expiration, the school suddenly notified us that “there is not enough time to submit the documents.” This was a consequence of doing nothing for 6 months.

Two days later, on October 16th, the school instructed the entire family to leave Malaysia before the visa expired. This contradicted the school’s previous guidance (“wait for the expiration and then apply”).

At this time, Saori informed the school of another important issue. The youngest child, Yukari, was born in Malaysia on August 26, 2024, and had been staying in Malaysia without a visa for over a year. The school was not aware of this fact.

On October 22nd, all five family members departed for Thailand and re-entered. They stayed on a 90-day tourist visa. This emergency departure could have been avoided if the school had not been inactive for 6 months.

It should be noted that the children’s Student Passes (Hikari, Zen) were issued in just 5 days after receiving the documents (November 26th). Saori’s Guardian Pass and Yukari’s Dependent Pass were also issued in 13 days after receiving the documents (December 29th). This is proof that it could have been processed quickly if the school had acted appropriately.

Chapter 10: Freezing of Financial Assets — A Chain Reaction Where Visa Issues Destroy the Foundation of Life

10-1. Impact on Bank Accounts

The impact of the visa expiration was not limited to the loss of residency status. Malaysian bank compliance regulations were triggered, and the following events occurred in a chain reaction:

• The bank refused a transfer from Hodaka’s account to Saori’s account.
• Saori was unable to open a new account with a tourist visa.
• Even if securities or crypto assets were cashed out, there was no account to receive them.
• The “3 months of continuous bank transfer records from the same company name” required for the Guardian visa application were interrupted, and it was necessary to start accumulating them again from January 2026.
• Hodaka needed to make an emergency trip to Japan in February 2026 to reactivate his Japanese bank account (release it from dormancy).

This chain of events is an important lesson for wealthy families planning educational migration. Visa status and the liquidity of financial assets are directly linked, and if one collapses, the entire foundation of life can be significantly affected.

10-2. Circumstances Surrounding Tuition Payment

Despite the bank account restrictions, the family has paid the full tuition. Saori had explained the bank account restrictions and the difficulty of payment in detail to the person in charge and the principal via email. There was a period when they wanted to pay but were physically unable to do so.

The fact that the family eventually completed the payment makes the contrast with the school’s response clear. Since they had the intention to pay and actually paid, the necessity of payment reminders remains questionable.

10-3. The 2% Administrative Fee Issue

On January 19, 2026, the principal announced that a 2% monthly administrative fee would be charged for tuition installments. However, the family was able to reactivate their bank account and pay the tuition the next day (January 20th). As a result, the 2% fee was not actually charged.

Most importantly, the fact remains that the principal clearly indicated his intention to impose this fee. The delay in tuition payment was due to bank account restrictions caused by the school’s own visa processing deficiencies. The school created the cause and then tried to impose a penalty for the resulting payment delay, which is a record of the school’s attitude.

Chapter 11: School’s Response — Record of School’s Actions

11-1. Structure of Claims Regarding Responsibility

On December 8, 2025, the school claimed the cause of the problem was as follows:

“the wife choosing to wait for the visa to lapse”

However, the fact is this: Saori chose from two options (both inaccurate) presented by the school itself, and the school approved it in writing with “Yes you may.” Saori did not come up with this approach on her own; she simply chose from a menu created by the school. The expression “chose” itself is a claim that contradicts the factual course of events.

11-2. Principal’s Recognition of Systemic Issues

On December 1, 2025, the principal stated the following regarding Hodaka’s visa procedures:

“the operational framework may not be fully established”

This statement is significant. The principal himself admitted that the school lacked the knowledge and systems to provide the visa guidance it had been offering for over a year.

Nevertheless, the school continued to take the following contradictory actions:

• Continued to issue definitive instructions as if they possessed professional knowledge
• Demanded immediate submission of documents (for a process they admitted they did not understand)
• Prohibited parents from visiting the immigration office directly (while functioning as the sole point of contact)
• Issued invoices and received payment for visa services (for services where the system may not have been fully established)

This “discrepancy between words and actions” indicates systemic issues. All of the school’s visa-related operations—paperwork, guidance for parents, and handling of problems—were conducted without professional immigration law knowledge and without a systematic procedure, which is evidence of this.

11-3. Response Based on Exercising Legal Rights

On January 20, 2026, the principal stated explicitly in an email:

“Because you have suggested litigation, we cannot extend the same flexibility as other families.”

This may constitute discriminatory treatment based on the exercise of legal rights. It is generally difficult to justify unfavorable treatment based on the exercise of legal rights. In particular, it raises significant issues when an educational institution where a child is enrolled explicitly states discriminatory treatment based on a parent’s exercise of legal rights.

Furthermore, Murad & Foo, the school’s lawyers, admitted in §79 of their response letter that “the employee’s actions were in their capacity as an employer.” This confirms that the principal’s statement based on the exercise of legal rights was not the principal’s personal view, but the school’s official action and official view. This point is legally significant.

11-4. “The children are not related to this matter”

On January 28, 2026, the principal declared:

“the children are not related to this matter”

This is a statement denying the duty of care to enrolled students. It is clear that visa instability, emergency departure, and parental stress directly affect the lives of the children. This statement has been preserved as a record.

11-5. Prohibition of Direct Immigration Office Visits and Contradiction in Claims Regarding Responsibility

The school explicitly told parents that “it is not recommended to go directly to the immigration office.” In other words, the school functioned as the sole point of contact (bottleneck) for visa procedures.

Nevertheless, after the problem occurred, they claimed “parental responsibility.” This contradiction raises questions about the consistency of the school’s defense claims.

• The school prohibited parents from contacting the immigration office directly
• The school functioned as the sole gateway
• However, the school denied responsibility for the results
• In other words, the school created a structure that monopolized the process while shifting only the risks to the parents

Chapter 12: Response Letter from the School’s Lawyers (Murad & Foo) and its Contradictions

On March 5, 2026, a response letter was received from Murad & Foo, the lawyers representing UPLANDS. It took a stance of complete denial, but did not include specific rebuttals to the core issues.

Main Claims and Contradictions in the Response Letter

Chapter 13: Visa Support was a Paid Service — The Existence of Invoices

There is an important fact that should not be overlooked in this case: the school issued invoices for visa-related services and received payment.

This means that visa support was not a free favor or informal assistance, but a paid commercial service. This fact raises questions about the consistency of the school’s defense claims.

• “Visa support is merely informal assistance” → It is a paid service for which invoices were issued
• “Documents are the individual’s responsibility” → They are charging for its management
• “The staff’s guidance is a personal opinion” → The school is receiving payment for the service
• Providers of paid services have a higher duty of care than unpaid advisors
• Charging for services where the system may not have been fully established is also problematic from a consumer protection perspective

Chapter 14: The Correct Visa Switching Procedure — Comparison with Other Schools’ Cases

This chapter compares the proper visa switching procedure in Malaysia with the responses of other schools.

Official Guide from St. Christopher’s International Primary School

Another international school in Penang (St. Christopher’s) has prepared an official Immigration Guide for parents. The contents are as follows:

• Clearly defines the target of the Guardian Visa: “Parents/families who do not have an Employment Pass” are eligible.
• Specifies the application timing: “Apply at least one month before the current visa expires.”
• Lists Special Pass (RM100 + service fee RM250) in the checklist: Systematically established as a bridge pass during switching.
• Provides an official checklist of required documents.

The contrast with UPLANDS is clear. St. Christopher’s clearly states in its official guide the correct procedure of “applying while the visa is valid” and “bridging with a Special Pass.” UPLANDS was unaware of this basic procedure, and no official guide existed.

Chapter 15: Impact on Children

The most noteworthy aspect of this case is the impact on the children. The “Saori Daily Log,” recorded daily by Saori for more than four weeks, details the children’s condition as follows:

• Sleep disorders due to anxiety (including recurrence of bedwetting)
• Resistance/refusal to go to school
• Increased separation anxiety
• Changes in behavior (increased aggression, regressive behavior)
• Repeated expressions of anxiety such as “Are we moving again?” and “Are we changing schools?”
• Changes in appetite
• Decreased concentration

The principal stated, “the children are not related to this matter.”

Visa destabilization → Emergency departure → Bank account freeze → Increased parental stress → Unstable home environment → Psychological impact on children. This causal chain is clear and is a direct result of the school’s visa procedural deficiencies.

The Saori Daily Log is strong evidence that proves the concrete and continuous damage to the children due to this causal chain, with dates.

Chapter 16: Lessons for Families Considering Educational Immigration

Confirm the School’s Governance System

• Who is the operating entity of the school? Is there external supervision by a UK headquarters or a global education network?
• What is the composition and function of the Board of Governors? Is it a system where important decisions are made at the sole discretion of the principal?
• Has it received external certification/evaluation from FOBISIA, CIS, IBO, etc.?
• Does an escalation path exist in case of problems (a response system as an organization, not just the principal)?

Specifically Confirm the Track Record of Visa Support

• A response of “it is possible” is not sufficient. Confirm the track record of how many specific cases, such as EP → GV switching, have been processed.
• Is a formal Immigration Guide or checklist in place?
• Confirm the expertise of the visa support staff (basic knowledge of immigration law, relationship with the immigration bureau).
• Is there a system for prior consultation with the immigration bureau?
• If you receive conflicting answers from the person in charge, it is a warning sign.

Design Visa and Asset Management as One

• Do not leave visa applications to the school. Always seek official information from the immigration bureau and a second opinion from experts.
• Hold multiple bank accounts and confirm the impact of visa status changes with each bank in advance.
• Hold assets that can be accessed outside of Malaysia as emergency funds.
• Manage visa expiration dates yourself, and do not leave it to the school.
• Keep records of all important communications, such as emails.

Understand the School’s Attitude When Claiming in Advance

• How does the school respond when problems occur? Collect information in advance from the parent community and word-of-mouth.
• Avoid schools that respond based on claims regarding the location of responsibility or the exercise of legal rights.
• The fact that the response changes due to the exercise of legal rights itself suggests that the school recognized the existence of the problem.

Chapter 17: Current Situation and Future Policy

Visa Status

The children’s Student Passes and Saori’s Guardian Pass have been issued. Regarding Hodaka’s Guardian Pass application, income transfer records were interrupted due to bank account restrictions caused by the visa problem, so we were re-accumulating three months of transfer records from January 2026. However, it became difficult to maintain trust in the school through this series of responses, and we decided to return to Japan as a family. We are preparing to return to Japan in July 2026.

Tuition Status

Tuition has been paid in full. The fact that the payment was completed even under the difficult circumstances of bank account restrictions clearly contrasts with the school’s response. Regarding the 2% administrative fee, although the principal explicitly stated the intention to impose it, it was not actually imposed because the family revived the account the next day and completed the payment.

In addition, a proposal has been received through the school’s lawyer to refund the unspent tuition and allow mid-term withdrawal. This proposal is a complete reversal of the previous stance of strongly demanding tuition payments, and the changes in the school’s response remain as a record.

Legal Procedures

A demand letter was sent on February 19, 2026. The school’s lawyer’s response was a complete denial, but it did not include any specific rebuttals to the core issues. We will consult with our lawyer and proceed with a response that includes filing a lawsuit after returning to Japan.

Information Disclosure

This report will be updated as needed in response to additional facts and new developments. Multilingual versions (English, Chinese, etc.) are also being prepared. If you have experienced similar problems, please contact us via the inquiry page.

The school’s lawyer demanded the deletion of the article within 48 hours in response letter §76, but this report is a factual record, and this report is a record of facts based on evidence.

About this Report

This report is a compilation and record of facts experienced by the author, based on evidence such as emails, WhatsApp messages, written documents, receipts, and administrative confirmation records.

The content is a “record of facts based on currently available materials” and is not intended to defame or slander the school or related parties.

The factual descriptions in this report are distinguished from the author’s analysis and evaluation. Quotations (emails, etc.) are published as is and are distinct from the author’s interpretation.

Regarding personal names, they are generally indicated by title or position, except for descriptions related to actions in a public capacity.

If you have any objections to the content of this report, please contact us via the inquiry page of well-being.life. If factual errors are confirmed, we will promptly correct them.

This report aims to provide information to families who are experiencing or may experience similar problems in the future, and to raise awareness for families considering educational migration to Malaysia.