Senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin, representing the education minister and the government, submitted that those schools must also conform with a common syllabus.
He said the use of other languages as the medium of instruction in vernacular schools is historically recognised and is expressly provided for in Article 152 of the Federal Constitution.
In defending the decisions of the High Court, the senior federal counsel contended that a detailed examination of the relevant historical documents and events was crucial for a proper understanding of Article 152.
“We are made by history” and “history is who we are and why we are the way we are”, Liew said.
Liew said the intent of Article 152 in the Federal Constitution was to place Bahasa Malaysia as the national language, while at the same time preserving and sustaining the use of other languages in the education system.
He said the relief sought by the Islamic Education Development Council (Mappim) and the Confederation of Malaysian Writers Associations (Gapena), Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) and Ikatan Guru-Guru Muslim Malaysia (I-Guru) was against the drafters’ intention, based on constitutional history and it destroys the fundamental pillar of constitutional balance in the country.
The appeals brought by Mappim, Gapena, Isma and I-Guru are being heard by a three-member panel of judges, comprising Justices Supang Lian, M Gunalan and Azizul Azmi Adnan.
On Dec 29, 2021, High Court (now Court of Appeal) judge Nazlan Ghazali dismissed the lawsuits brought by the Federation of Peninsular Malay Students (GPMS), Mappim, Gapena and Isma. GPMS did not file an appeal.
He ruled that the existence and establishment of vernacular schools, and the use of Mandarin and Tamil in these schools are constitutional.
On May 29, last year, the Kota Bharu High Court judicial commissioner (now High Court judge) Abazafree Abbas also ruled that the existence of vernacular schools is constitutional and he dismissed the suit filed by I-Guru.
In the suit filed in Dec 2019, GPMS, Mappim and Gapena and Isma sued several parties, including the government. Among them were Chinese education groups Dong Zong and Jiao Zong, Persatuan Thamizhar Malaysia and Persatuan Tamilar Thurunal (Perak).
I-Guru sued the education minister and the government, seeking a declaration that Sections 28 and 17 of the Education Act 1996 are inconsistent with Article 152 of the Federal Constitution, and is void and of no effect.
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) were allowed to become interveners in this suit.
The court also heard submissions today from other parties, including counsel Shaharudin Ali, representing I-Guru, and lawyer Bastian Vendargon on behalf the Malaysia Chinese Language Council, the Tamil Neri Kalagam Association and the Confederation of Former Tamil School Pupils.
Shaharudin submitted that, based on the government’s latest education blueprint, almost 100% of Chinese students go to Chinese schools and six out of 10 Indian students go to Tamil schools.
He questioned whether this divisive situation can contribute to the development of a strong, united and harmonious country.
Vendargon argued that Nazlan was correct when he decided that the relevant provisions of the Education Act 1996 did not infringe on Article 152 of the Federal Constitution.
The court fixed Aug 29 for case management to set a date to continue the hearing.