The Court of Appeal heard on Thursday (Aug 24) that the use of languages other than the national language as the medium of instruction in vernacular primary schools does not violate the Federal Constitution. Senior Federal Counsel Liew Horng Bin, representing the Education Minister and the Government of Malaysia, argued that these schools also teach the national language as a compulsory subject and adhere to common syllabuses. Article 152 of the Federal Constitution expressly provides for the use of other languages in vernacular schools, which is historically recognized.
Liew emphasized that a detailed examination of historical documents and events is crucial to understanding Article 152 properly. He stated that the intention of this constitutional provision is to establish Malay as the national language while simultaneously preserving and sustaining the use of other languages in the education system. He argued that the relief sought by the Islamic Education Development Council (Mappim), the Confederation of Malaysian Writers Association (Gapena), Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma), and Ikatan Guru-Guru Muslim Malaysia (I-Guru) goes against the intention of the drafters and undermines the constitutional balance in the country.
A three-member panel of justices, consisting of Datuk Supang Lian, Datuk M. Gunalan, and Datuk Azizul Azmi Adnan, is hearing the appeals brought by Mappim, Gapena, Isma, and I-Guru. The High Courts had previously dismissed the lawsuits filed by the Federation of Peninsular Malay Students (GPMS), Mappim, Gapena, and Isma. GPMS did not appeal this decision to the Court of Appeal.
In their rulings, High Court judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali (now a Court of Appeal judge) and Kota Bharu High Court judicial commissioner Abazafree Mohd Abbas (now a High Court judge) both declared the existence and establishment of vernacular schools, as well as the use of Mandarin and Tamil languages in these schools, to be constitutional. The lawsuits, filed in December 2019, involved various parties such as Dong Zong, Jiao Zong, Persatuan Thamizhar Malaysia, Persatuan Tamilar Thurunal, the Education Minister, and the government of Malaysia.
I-Guru, a Muslim teachers’ association, specifically sued the Education Minister and the government, seeking a declaration that certain sections of the Education Act 1996 are inconsistent with Article 152 of the Federal Constitution and are therefore void. I-Guru was supported by interveners such as 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).
During the court proceedings, counsel Datuk Shaharudin Ali, representing I-Guru, raised concerns about the government’s latest education blueprint, which showed a significant number of Chinese and Indian students attending vernacular schools. He questioned whether this segregation contributes to the development of a strong, united, and harmonious country. Lawyer Datuk Bastian Vendargon, appearing for the Malaysia Chinese Language Council, the Tamil Neri Kalagam Association, and the Confederation of Former Tamil School Pupils, supported Justice Nazlan’s previous ruling that the relevant provisions of the Education Act 1996 do not infringe Article 152 of the Federal Constitution.
Justice Supang Lian scheduled case management for August 29 to determine a date for continuing the appeals hearing.
Credit: The Star : News Feed
