Back
2022 MarsdenLR 1773
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD ALIF ANAS MD NOOR & ORS – Appellant
Versus
MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Law No: WA-21NCVC-84-12/2019]
The determination of whether provisions of the Education Act 1996 conflict with the Federal Constitution can be made under O 14A without a full trial if the facts are undisputed.
Headnote:(A) Education Act 1996 - Sections 2, 17, 28 - Federal Constitution - Articles 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 152(1) - Plaintiffs seek declarations regarding vernacular schools' legality, alleging inconsistency with constitutional provisions - Defendants argue plaintiffs lack locus standi, issues are justiciable - Courts found the matter suitable for determination under O 14A of RC 2012 without a full trial - Key legal questions remain on statutory and constitutional interpretations. (Paras 4-60)
(B) Legal Questions - Suitability for O 14A determination - A question of law must be clear, and not interwoven with facts needing witness testimony; if all necessary facts are undisputed, it can be resolved under O 14A. (Paras 9-32)
(C) The court concludes that the proposed questions regarding the Education Act and Federal Constitution are legal in nature and can be resolved based on documents and submissions without needing oral evidence. (Paras 58-60)
Facts of the case: The plaintiffs, representing various educational associations, argue that sections of the Education Act 1996 are unconstitutional regarding vernacular schools, seeking declarations on their invalidity. (Paras 3-4)
Findings of Court: The court found that the prevailing questions concerning constitutionality and interpretation of laws can be determined without a full trial. (Paras 58-60)
Issues: Whether the Education Act provisions infringe constitutional rights and if the matter is justiciable. (Paras 5-6, 15-17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that if the necessary facts are undisputed and the questions are purely legal, the O 14A mechanism is appropriate for resolution. (Paras 9, 41)
Result: Defendants’ applications to dispose of the suit under O 14A are allowed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] These are the applications filed by the first and second defendants (enclosure 182), the sixth and seventh defendants (enclosure 185) and the thirteenth defendant (enclosure 187), supported by all the other defendants (apart from the twelfth defendant which had withdrawn and only held a watching brief) for the suit filed by the plaintiffs to be disposed by way of the determination of questions of law pursuant to O 14A r 1 or O 33 r 2 of the Rules of 2012 ("the RC 2012").
[2] At the end of the hearing of the applications which was conducted via Zoom video technology, I allowed the applications and highlighted the main grounds for my decision. This judgment contains the full reasons for the same.
Key Background Facts
[3] The first plaintiff is the President of Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GPMS) and is suing on its behalf, whilst the second plaintiff is the Secretary of Majlis Pembangunan Pendidikan Islam Malaysia (MAPPIM) and is suing on its behalf. The third plaintiff is a representative of Gabungan Persatuan Penulis Nasional Malaysia (GAPENA).
[4] The plaintiffs filed a writ action primarily against the Minister of Education and the Government which essentially sought the following reliefs in their statements of claim:
(i) A declaration that ss 2, 17 and 28 of the Education Act 1996, to the extent these provisions permit the establishment of national type schools - Chinese and Tamil national schools which conduct teaching and learning in the Chinese and Tamil language in their respective medium of instructions, is contrary to art 152(1) of the Federal Constitution and is therefore invalid and void to the extent of the said contradiction;
(ii) A declaration that the existence of national type Chinese and Tamil schools have further also resulted in a situation that is inconsistent with arts 5 (the right to life or personal liberty), 8 (right to equality), 10 (right to freedom of speech, assembly and association), 11, and 12 (rights in respect of education) of the Federal Constitution; and
(iii) A declaration that the first and second defendants shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the existence of national type Chinese and Tamil schools existing in Malaysia, shall be in accordance with art 152(1) of the Federal Constitution, within six (6) years from the date of this decision.
[5] By agreement, several other parties are made as other defendants in this action. The relevant defendants, as identified earlier, then filed the instant applications under O 14A r 1 of the RC 2012, or under O 33 r 2 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for the disposal of this action by the determination of the following issues of law: Page 5 of 26
(i) Whether ss 2, 17 and 26 of the Education Act 1996 are inconsistent with art 152(1) of the Federal Constitution; and
(ii) Whether the establishment and existence of Chinese and Tamil national type schools is inconsistent with arts 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution.
[6] The first and second defendants proposed two other questions which they say the answers to which would do away with the need to address the above two questions. The first is whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to initiate this writ and secondly whether the matters in contention are justiciable.
[7] The plaintiffs opposed these applications. They argue that the case cannot suitably be determined under the O 14A process as they involve a mixed question of law and fact which would warrant the need for oral testimony by the calling of witnesses. In sharp contrast, albeit unsurprisingly, the defendants - many of whom chose to file written submissions in support - are quite unanimous in expressing the view that this case is eminently suited for determination and disposal under O 14A.
Analysis & Findings Of This Court
The Law & Principles
[8] The provisions of O 14A of the RC 2012 read as follows:
14A. Disposal of case on point of law
1. Determination of questions of law
