Did the plaintiffs prove vernacular schools infringe personal liberty?

Question

Accepted Answer

High Court Ruled Vernacular Schools Do Not Infringe Personal Liberty

The High Court has ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how vernacular education infringes upon personal liberty under the Federal Constitution. Justice Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali stated that the use of Chinese and Tamil as mediums of instruction in vernacular schools is constitutionally protected. The court found no basis to contend that the establishment and existence of these schools violate fundamental liberties guaranteed by the constitution.
No Violation of Fundamental Liberties Demonstrated

The plaintiffs, comprising Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GPMS), the Islam Education Development Council (Mappim), and the Confederation of Malaysian Writers Association (Gapena), sought to have vernacular schools declared unconstitutional. They specifically claimed that the existence of these schools violated Article 152(1) of the Federal Constitution, which designates Malay as the national language. However, the court found that the plaintiffs did not provide evidence showing how the establishment and operation of vernacular schools infringed upon the fundamental liberties of any individual as guaranteed by various articles of the constitution.
Constitutional Protection for Mother Tongue Education

Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali clarified that the Federal Constitution expressly protects the teaching of mother tongues other than Bahasa Malaysia. The court determined that the use of Chinese and Tamil as mediums of instruction in vernacular schools is constitutional, being safeguarded under exceptions provided in Articles 152(1)(a) and (b) of the Federal Constitution. Consequently, the court found no grounds to assert that the existence of vernacular schools is inconsistent with or infringes upon Articles 5, 8, 10, 11, and 12 of the Federal Constitution.
Choice and Nature of Vernacular Schools

The court also highlighted that enrolment in a vernacular school is a matter of choice for individuals. Furthermore, it was noted that vernacular schools are classified as educational institutions under the Education Act 1996 and do not constitute public or statutory authorities. This distinction is significant as it clarifies that the use of languages other than Malay as a medium of instruction in these institutions is not considered an offence, a position that is constitutionally protected under Article 152(1)(a).

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Did the plaintiffs prove vernacular schools infringe personal liberty?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends