Judge erred in vernacular school case, says lawyer

PUTRAJAYA: The High Court judge who ruled that teaching Tamil and Mandarin in vernacular schools was constitutional had erred when he said that the usage of the languages at the schools was protected under Article 152(1) of the Federal Constitution, the Court of Appeal heard.

Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said the judge, Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali (now a Court of Appeal judge), made an error in his reading and interpretation of policy papers on the education system and language to determine his interpretation of Article 152(1) of the Constitution.

Mohamed Haniff, who is representing two of the appellants – Islamic Educational Development Council (Mappim) and Gabungan Persatuan Penulis Malaysia (Gapena) – said this during submissions of an appeal relating to the constitutionality of vernacular schools at the Court of Appeal here yesterday.

The appeal was heard before a three-judge panel chaired by Justice Supang Lian. The other judges were Justices M. Gunalan and Azizul Azmi Adnan.

The lawyer contended that Justice Mohd Nazlan had also erred when he made the finding that Mandarin and Tamil vernacular schools were not public authorities, thus the schools were free to use other languages apart from Bahasa Malaysia as their medium of instruction.

Mohamed Haniff submitted that vernacular schools fall under the category of public authorities and therefore must use Bahasa Malaysia as per Article 152(1) of the Constitution.

He also said the judge had erred when he decided to dispose of the case directly through Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012, whereby a lawsuit is disposed of on point of law without calling witnesses to testify.

Mohamed Haniff claimed that Justice Mohd Nazlan had denied the appellants’ right to call witnesses to testify that the existence of vernacular schools had caused a contradiction to the Federal Constitution itself.

Justice Supang fixed today for case management to schedule a hearing date for submissions.

The appeal was brought forward by four appellants – Mappim, Gapena, Pertubuhan Ikatan Guru-Guru (iGuru) and Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) – in their bid to overturn the decisions by two different High Courts that ruled in favour of the vernacular schools.

On Dec 29, 2021, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed the lawsuit filed by Mappim, Gapena and the Federation of Peninsular Malay Students (GPMS), which sought the closure of vernacular schools.

In its ruling, Justice Mohd Nazlan held that vernacular schools in the country were in line with provisions enshrined in the Federal Constitution that protected the usage of mother-tongue languages in teaching.

GPMS dropped out of appealing the decision.

On May 29, 2022, Justice Abazafree Mohd Abbas of Kota Baru High Court ruled that the existence of vernacular schools was constitutional and the existence must be read in the historical context.

The 13 respondents named in the appeal include the government, the Education Ministry, as Chinese educationist groups Dong Zong and Jiao Zong, Persatuan Thamizhar Malaysia and MCA, MIC, Gerakan and Parti Bumiputera Perkasa Malaysia.