Court sets Nov 23 to rule on vernacular schools’ status
Published on: Tuesday, October 10, 2023
By:
FMT, V Anbalagan
The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision on a challenge brought by four Malay-interest groups to the constitutionality of vernacular schools and the use of Mandarin and Tamil as its medium of instruction.
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has set Nov 23 to rule on the status of vernacular schools, following an appeal by four Malay-Muslim interest groups seeking to declare them illegal under the Federal Constitution.
A three-member bench chaired by Justice Supang Lian said they need to consider the written and oral submissions presented by counsel over three sessions held on July 5, Aug 24 and today.
ADVERTISEMENT
“This subject is also of public interest,” said Supang who sat with Justices M Gunalan and Azizul Azmi Adnan.
Earlier, lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla, who appeared for the Islamic Education Development Council (Mappim) and the Confederation of Malaysian Writers Association (Gapena), contended that the constitution does not permit vernacular schools to use either Tamil or Mandarin as their medium of instruction.
“The subject matter of the appeal is the use of Malay in our education system,” said Haniff.
He said Article 152(1), which provides for Bahasa Melayu to be the national language of Malaysia, made it illegal for vernacular schools within the national education system to use any other language as a medium of instruction.
ADVERTISEMENT
He said that if the constitution wanted to protect the use of Mandarin and Tamil in these schools, it would have said so explicitly.
Haniff called for the court to interpret Article 152 strictly.
ADVERTISEMENT
He said the High Court had erred in law by taking historical perspectives into account and was attempting to “rewrite the constitution” by legitimising the existence of vernacular schools.
Haniff was submitting in an appeal brought by Mappim, Gapena, Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma), and Ikatan Guru-Guru Muslim Malaysia (I-Guru) from the judgments of two separate High Courts.
Meanwhile, lawyer Shahrudin Ali, appearing for I-Guru, submitted that the National Language Act 1963/67, a consolidating legislation that came into force after Article 152 was enacted, is clear and precise.
“It states that only Malay and English should be used for official purposes. There is no mention of the Mandarin or Tamil languages,” said Shahrudin, who was assisted by Ramesh NP Chandran.
Shahrudin said the Federal Court had in the Merdeka University v the Malaysian government case in 1982 ruled that study and learning in public education institutions must be in the national language.
“We take the position that the minister and the government who are the respondents in the appeal were wrong to support schools that use Tamil and Mandarin as the medium of instruction,” he said.
The appellants are seeking a declaration that Sections 2, 17 and 28 of the Education Act 1996, which allow for the setting up of vernacular schools that use Mandarin and Tamil as the main languages, were inconsistent with Article 152(1) of the constitution.
They want the vernacular schools to be converted into national schools within six years. They also want pupils in these schools to learn Tamil in Year One and Two, Mandarin in Year Three and Four, and Arabic in Year Five and Six.
In their decisions, Justices Nazlan Ghazali and Abazafree Abbas had upheld the constitutionality of vernacular schools and their use of languages other than Bahasa Melayu as a medium of instruction.
In his judgment delivered on Dec 30, 2021, Nazlan, now a Court of Appeal judge, said vernacular schools have long been recognised within the legislative framework of the education system since before Merdeka. He said their continued existence was preserved by the constitution.
“Applying a prismatic approach to the construction of constitutional provisions, I would construe the use of such languages referred to in Article 152(1)(b), in so far as it concerns vernacular schools, to encompass the use of (Mandarin) or Tamil as a medium of instruction to teach other subjects,” said Nazlan.
In an earlier decision delivered on May 30 last year, Abazafree dismissed a similar suit filed by I-Guru in Kota Bharu.
Several interest groups, including the Chinese Language Council, the Tamil Language Association, the Confederation of Former Tamil School Pupils, MCA and the United Chinese School Committees Association of Malaysia, were named interveners in the suits.
Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express’s Telegram channel.
Daily Express Malaysia
