KUALA LUMPUR: A group of three non-governmental organisations failed in their bid to throw a spanner into the vernacular education system as their case has been rejected by the High Court here.

       The Federation of Peninsular Malay Students (GPMS), the Islamic Education Development Council (Mappim) and the Confederation of Malaysian Writers Association (Gapena) had named 13 parties in a suit in a collective attempt to make the government shut down Chinese and Tamil schools.

       In yesterday’s ruling, the Kuala Lumpur High Court held that the establishment of vernacular schools in the country was in tandem with the provisions enshrined in the Federal Constitution that protect the use of mother tongue languages in teaching.

       Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali also said the plaintiffs had not succeeded in proving that their rights were constitutionally infringed by vernacular education.

       “The usage of Chinese and Tamil in vernacular schools as a medium of instruction is constitutional and protected under Articles 152 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution and there is no basis to challenge that the establishment and existence of vernacular schools are inconsistent with or infringe Articles 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution,’’ he said.

       The plaintiffs had demanded in their suit for the courts to declare that Chinese and Tamil schools breached the Federal Constitution – Article 5 (right to a dignified life), Article 8 (equality), Article 10 (freedom of speech, assembly and association), Article 11 (freedom in religion), and Article 12 (rights in respect of education).

       The three organisations also alleged in their suit that the Education Act’s Sections 2, 17 and 28 were also unconstitutional for allowing lessons to be conducted in Mandarin and Tamil.

       In their suit, GPMS, Mappim and Gapena had also alleged that vernacular schools were unconstitutional and violated Article 152 (1) of the Federal Constitution which states that Bahasa Malaysia is the national language.

       Justice Mohd Nazlan held that there was no indication whatsoever that the existence of vernacular schools had violated the plaintiffs’ or anyone else’s fundamental rights and liberties.

       In delivering his judgment, he said the main questions in the suit on whether the mentioned articles contravened Article 152 as well as Articles 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12, were “both in the negative”.

       According to Justice Mohd Nazlan, it was not unconstitutional to teach in any other language other than Bahasa Malaysia as stipulated in Article 152 (1) (a).

       He added that vernacular schools come under the jurisdiction of the Education Act 1996 and not under any public authority, and the use of Mandarin and Tamil in these schools were meant for teaching, not official use.

       “Vernacular schools provide primary-level education,” Justice Mohd Nazlan said, adding that these schools were under the authority of the Education Ministry.

       He said the plaintiffs had failed to prove that vernacular schools transgressed upon the principles of the Federal Constitution.

       The three plaintiffs had named 13 defendants in their suit, including the Education Ministry and its minister, as well as MCA, MIC, Gerakan and Parti Bumiputera Perkasa Malaysia.

       The others were various associations related to vernacular education in the country.