Back
2019 MarsdenLR 2147
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
CHOW JIEEN & ORS – Appellant
Versus
CHAIRMAN OF UNITED CHINESE SCHOOL COMMITTEES ASSOCIATION OF MALAYSIA & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(A)-959-05-2018]
The necessity of written approval under section 69(1) of the Education Act 1996 is contingent upon prior permissions granted, affirming that the existing legal framework allowed the UEC examination to proceed.
Headnote:In this case concerning the legality of the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) conducted by Dong Zong in relation to students from Chong Hwa Kuantan, the court analyzed sections 69(1) and 69(4) of the Education Act 1996, determining that written approval was not necessary due to existing permissions. The court framed the key issues around the appellants’ standing and the applicability of statutory provisions. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the claims raised by the appellants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on the establishment of the school and examination eligibility. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal challenges against the government and educational institutions regarding examination conduct. (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. approval process for conducting examinations. (Para 5) |
| 4. arguments made by the appellants regarding the requirements for approval. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. responses from the respondents explaining compliance with educational regulations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. interpretation of statutory requirements. (Para 17 , 20) |
The Appeal: Background Facts
[1] In 2010, SM Persendirian Chong Hwa Kuala Lumpur (Chong Hwa Kuala Lumpur) applied to the Minister of Education to establish a branch in Kuantan to be known as Sekolah Menengah Chong Hwa Kuantan (Chong Hwa Kuantan). Its application stated that apart from teaching the national curriculum, it would also be teaching the 'Kurikulum Sekolah Menengah Persendirian Cina yang ditetapkan oleh Dong Zong' (United Chinese School Committees' Association of Malaysia) and for its students in Kuantan to sit for the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) examination conducted by Dong Zong.
[2] In July 2012, the Director-General of Education approved the registration of the school as such under ss 17, 18 and 19 of the Education Act 1996 (the Act). Chong Hwa Kuantan conducted the first UEC examination for its students in October 2016. Since then, it had conducted and continues to conduct the UEC examination every year.
[3] It is not in dispute that students of 60 Chinese Private Secondary Schools (CPSS) in the country were eligible and allowed to sit the UEC annual examination conducted by Dong Zong. This status quo was confirmed in a statement made in Parliament (see Hansard: Bil 63, Isnin, 18 Disember 1995). Chong Hwa Kuala Lumpur is one of the 60 CPSS.
[4] In October 2016 the four plaintiffs filed an Originating Summons (OS), as amended, against the Government of Malaysia (Malaysian Ministry of Education) (1st defendant), the Chairman of the United Chinese School Committees' Association of Malaysia (2nd defendant/1st respondent) and Chong Hwa Kuantan (3rd defendant/2nd respondent) contending that Chong Hwa Kuantan, being not one of the 60 CPSS, and Dong Zong in not obtaining any prior written approval from the Director of Examination under s 69(1) of the Act, could not conduct the UEC examination in the school for its students. The OS posed the following questions and for a declaratory order:
1(a) Whether it is legal for Dong Zong to allow the 113 students from Chong Hwa Secondary Kuantan (or any of its students) to participate in an examination known as the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC)?
1(b) Whether the 113 students from Chong Hwa Secondary School Kuantan (or any of its students) are eligible and legal to participate in an examination known as the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC)?
2. In the event that the answer and determination on the above para (1)(a) and/or (b) is negative, whether the results of the UEC examination for the 113 students from Chong Hwa Secondary School Kuantan (or any of its students) are null and void?
3. In the event that the answer and determination on the above para (1)(a) and (b) is negative, a declaration be given to the legality of the UEC examination for all the students from 60 Chinese Private Secondary Schools and that the legality for Dong Zong to conduct UEC examination is not affected.
[5] The 1st defendant applied to strike out the OS application which was dismissed in the High Court. On appeal, the appeal was allowed and the OS against the 1st defendant was struck out.
[6] The main issue before the High Court was, whether the 1st respondent (Dong Zong) was required to obtain the written approval of the Director of Examinations pursuant to s 69(1) of the Act to conduct the UEC and allowed the students of Chong Hwa Kuantan, not being one of the CPSS, to sit for the same?
[7] After hearing submissions of the parti
