Sin Chew Daily

The High Court ruled on Wednesday that Chinese and Tamil can continue to be used as mediums of instruction in Malaysian schools as this has been assured in Articles 152(1)(a) and 152(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution.

While rejecting the case initiated by three Malay organizations, the High Court’s decision has ensured that Chinese and Tamil primary schools can continue to use their mother languages as teaching mediums under the protection of the Federal Constitution.

The three plaintiffs of the case were the Federation of Peninsular Malay Students (GPMS), the Islamic Education Development Council (Mappim) and the Confederation of Malaysian Writers Association (Gapena). They alleged in their suit that the Education Act Sections 2, 17 and 28 were unconstitutional for allowing lessons to be conducted in Chinese and Tamil and that they contravened Article 152(1) of the Federal Constitution.

High Court Judge Justice Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali made the decision on Wednesday after hearing the case on November 23 and 24. He was of the opinion that the use of Chinese and Tamil as teaching mediums did not make them the official languages and therefore did not contravene Article 152(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution.

Article 152(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution clearly states that “no person shall be prohibited or prevented from using (otherwise than for official purposes), or from teaching or learning, any other language”. And in Article 152(1)(b), “nothing in this Clause shall prejudice the right of the Federal Government or of any State Government to preserve and sustain the use and study of the language of any other community in the Federation.”

By right this should be sufficiently clear as to what can or cannot be done.

Based on the interpretation of Section 17(1) of the Education Act 1996 by Dong Zong, “the national language shall be the main medium of instruction in all educational institutions in the National Education System, except a national-type school established under Section 28 or any other educational institution exempted by the minister from this sub-section.” This means that the Education Minister has the power to exempt the provision of this sub-section, but then the relevant provision in Article 152 of the Federal Constitution must still be conformed to.

After failing the bid, the plaintiffs’ counsel Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said they would file an appeal within 30 days. As the case involved the Constitution, he said the case should be brought to the Federal Court to avoid controversies.

Meanwhile, human rights lawyer Siti Kasim had very high regards for the High Court’s decision in overturning the case accusing vernacular schools as unconstitutional. She wrote on her Facebook that “this challenge on vernacular schools is purely to further divide us as Malaysians. Waste of court’s time.”

MCA president Wee Ka Siong also expressed his joy on Facebook that the case had been overturned by the High Court. He said vernacular schools are absolutely constitutional and all Malaysians are entitled to the right of multi-stream education, adding that such constitutional assurance must not be challenged by any party.

We welcome the High Court’s decision which has further reaffirmed the constitutional protection of vernacular education system and that vernacular education is an integral part of the country’s education system.

Following the court decision, voices questioning the legitimacy of vernacular schools must be put to a complete stop, along with any actions by racist radicals attempting to challenge the status of vernacular education in this country.