PUTRAJAYA, Oct 10 — The Court of Appeal has fixed November 23 to decide on the appeal by four non-governmental organisations (NGOs), including the Islamic Education Development Council (Mappim), over the issue of vernacular schools and the use of Mandarin and Tamil in the schools involved.
Judge Datuk Supang Lian set the date after hearing a submission from lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla representing Mappim and the Confederation of Malaysian Writers Association (Gapena).
“We need time to consider the submission as this is a matter of public interest. We reserve the judgment for November 23,” said Supang, who sat with Justices Datuk M. Gunalan and Datuk Azizul Azmi Adnan.
Mappim, Gapena, Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma), and Ikatan Guru-Guru Muslim Malaysia (I-Guru) are appealing against the decision of the Kuala Lumpur and Kota Bharu High Courts which dismissed their suits in December 2021 and May 2022 respectively.
On December 29, 2021, then-High Court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, now serving on the Court of Appeal, dismissed the lawsuits brought by the Federation of Peninsular Malay Students (GPMS), Mappim, Gapena, and Isma. GPMS did not file an appeal.
He ruled the existence and establishment of vernacular schools, and the use of Mandarin and Tamil languages at those schools is constitutional.
In May 29 last year, then-Kota Bahru High Court judicial commissioner Abazafree Mohd Abbas, now a High Court judge, also ruled that vernacular schools were constitutional and dismissed the suit filed by I-Guru.
In the suit filed in December 2019, GPMS, Mappim, Gapena, and Isma sued several parties, including the government. They included Chinese educationist groups Dong Zong and Jiao Zong, Persatuan Thamizhar Malaysia, and Persatuan Tamilar Thurunal (Perak).
Meanwhile, I-Guru sued the Education Minister and the Malaysian government, seeking a declaration that Section 28 and Section 17 of the Education Act 1996 are inconsistent with Article 152 of the Federal Constitution and are therefore void and of no effect
The Malaysia Chinese Language Council, the Malaysia Tamil Neri Kalagam Association, the Confederation of Former Tamil School Pupils, MCA, and the United Chinese School Committees Association of Malaysia (Dong Zong) were allowed to become interveners in the suit filed by I-Guru.
Earlier, Mohamed Haniff Khatri’s counterargument said that since education is an official matter, the medium of instruction must be in Malay.
He said the respondent’s lawyer stated the issue of vernacular schools is subject to Article 12 of the Federal Constitution, which provides for the right to education and should be given a liberal definition.
“However, we argue that our friend (respondent’s lawyer) has erred because vernacular schools involve Article 152 and not Article 12 of the Federal Constitution,” he said.
According to the lawyer, Article 12 of the Federal Constitution is related to the absence of discrimination against any Malaysian, regardless of race or religion, in acquiring education and funds from the government or educational institutions.
“Article 12 does not touch on the use of the language as a medium of instruction Therefore, this court cannot be confused by the erroneous suggestion of the respondent’s lawyer who says that Article 12 applies in this case. There is no complaint or request by the appellant to discriminate against those of Indian and Chinese descent,” he said.
Earlier, Senior Federal Counsel Liew Horng Bin, representing the Minister of Education and the government, argued the use of other languages as the medium of instruction in vernacular primary schools is not in conflict with the Federal Constitution because the national language is taught as a compulsory subject in the schools involved.
— Bernama
