Court denies leave for lawyer to challenge existence of vernacular schools
The Federal Court in Putrajaya today denied the application of leave to lawyer Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz to challenge the constitutionality of the existence of vernacular schools.
Chief Justice of Malaya Azahar Mohamed ruled that the Parliament has the jurisdiction to formulate laws on education...
The Federal Court in Putrajaya today denied the application of leave to lawyer Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz to challenge the constitutionality of the existence of vernacular schools.
Chief Judge of Malaya Azahar Mohamed ruled that the Parliament has the jurisdiction to formulate laws on education.
He said the education minister has the jurisdiction to set up national type schools, as enacted under Section 28 of the Education Act.
Judge Azahar ruled that the minister also has the jurisdiction to decide not to use the national language as the medium of instruction in the national-type schools, according to Section 17 of the Education Act.
He said the Federal Court is not the platform for the applicant to challenge the constitutionality of vernacular schools.
The High Court can hear the constitutional issue related to the vernacular schools itself, the judge added.
"As such, the leave application under Article 4(4) of the Federal Constitution is not correct. It is misconceived," he ruled.
Justice Azahar also ordered no cost on Khairul (below), who is also Parti Bumiputera Pesaka Malaysia (Putra) vice-president.
Khairul's counsel Shaharudin Ali said his client will file the same application in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur.
"The Federal Court said this is the wrong place, you should go to the High Court.
"It is a technical failure. But it does not stop us from bringing the real issue to the High Court," said Shaharudin.
On Oct 23, Khairul had filed a motion to challenge the existence of vernacular schools, which was codified under the Education Act 1996, as a contravention of the Federal Constitution.
He sought a declaration from the Federal Court that it was unconstitutional for the Parliament to pass an amendment to Sections 17 and 28 of the Education Act 1996, providing for the continued existence of vernacular schools.
He named the government and education minister as respondents.
Also present in court were lawyers Gurdial Singh Nijar, acting for the United Chinese School Committees’ Association of Malaysia (Dong Zong) and the United Chinese School Teachers’ Association of Malaysia (Jiao Zong), and Bastian Pius Vendargon, who appeared for Majlis Bahasa Cina Malaysia and Persatuan Tamil Neri Malaysia.
Senior federal counsel Alice Loke and Shamsul Bolhassan acted for the education minister.
Lawyer Haniff Khatri represented Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GPMS) and Majlis Pembangunan Pendidikan Islam Malaysia (Mapim), while Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar represented Hashim Yaacob, former vice-chancellor of Universiti Malaya.
They are all parties who applied to hold watching briefs in this case.
When met outside the courtroom, Gurdial said: "The court said you can challenge the constitutional issue in a normal way, by going to the High Court. (After that), there is a chance to appeal twice.
"You cannot deprive people's chance to appeal by trying to short-cut this matter, by saying you must ban the national-type school and ban the use of Chinese and Tamil in the schools."
He said the petitioner cannot appeal the Federal Court's judgment today.
Shaharudin said the struggle of his client has not ended as the court did not rule on the principal matter today.
"Everyone must be very clear that the court did not decide whether they can use Chinese and Tamil as their day-to-day medium of instruction. As far as we are concerned, the matter is still very alive," he told media outside the courtroom.
"We see there is a positive way ahead. The spirits are high because the (Federal) Court only said we filed in the wrong court," Shaharudin added.
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.