PUTRAJAYA: A lawyer has filed a motion to seek a declaration from the Federal Court that it is unconstitutional for Parliament to pass an amendment to the Education Act 1966 for the continued existence of vernacular schools.Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz claimed that the federal legislature had no power to enact Section 28 and Section 17 of the Education Act 1996.
Khairul, who filed an application through Messrs Azam Aziz Shaharudinali & Co at the Federal Court Registry here this afternoon, has named the education ministry and Putrajaya as respondents.
However, for the apex court to hear his case, Khairul has to first obtain leave before a single judge of the Federal Court, as provided under Article 4 (4) of the Federal Constitution.
“We will extract the sealed copy from the court as soon as possible and serve it on the respondents,” he told FMT.
The Education Act 1996 was passed that year to replace the Education Ordinance of 1956 and the Education Act of 1961.
Section 17 of the Education Act states the national language as the main medium of instruction.
17 (1) The national language shall be the main medium of instruction in all educational institutions in the national education system except a national-type school established under section 28 or any other educational institution exempted by the minister from this subsection.
(2) Where the main medium of instruction in an educational institution is other than the national language, the national language shall be taught as a compulsory subject in the educational institution.
Meanwhile, Section 28 of the Education Act covers the establishment and maintenance of national and national-type schools.
It states that subject to the provisions of this Act, the minister may establish national schools and national-type schools and shall maintain such schools.
Khairul’s lawyer Shahrudin Ali explained Parliament did not have the authority to empower the education minister with the discretion to establish Chinese and Tamil primary schools
He said this is because Articles 152 of the constitution declares Malay as the national language.
Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz, the secretariat head for Barisan Bertindak Melayu Islam (Bertindak)…
Review citizenship granted to 1.75 million non-Malays from 1957 to 1970, Malay group says
KUALA LUMPUR, April 26 — A newly formed Malay-Muslim movement today said that it would be challenging the citizenship of 1.75 million Malaysians granted between 1957 and 1970.
This is following uproar over the government’s move to grant permanent residency to controversial Salafist preacher Dr Zakir Naik, as revealed by deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi this month.
Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz, the secretariat head for Barisan Bertindak Melayu Islam (Bertindak) alleged that the granting of the said status had violated the stipulated terms under the Federal Constitution, warranting a review.
“The secretariat in the meeting had agreed to consider few legal actions which we have been weighing and refining to be executed.
“For example, to review, with regards to the non-Malays citizenships which was given by the Malaya government in 1957 last time, whether or not it followed the laws of citizenship as stipulated under the Constitution.
“Truthfully, legal violations were found, based on research done. Therefore, we have been given the mandate to initiate legal action to question the granting of citizenship to non-Malays,” Mohd Khairul said.
He said that Schedule 1 of the Federal Constitution stipulates the taking of an oath of loyalty before citizenship if granted to a person here.
He alleged that this procedure however, was bypassed between 1957 and 1970, making 1.75 million people eligible for Malaysian citizenship.
“This was not done, so we will check whether this process is in violation of the Federal Constitution, and we want to review the granting of citizenship to the non-Malays, which were given at that time.
“This is a legal issue which needs to be brought to court and we want the court to decide,” he added.
Mohd Khairul Azam, where did you study law?
YOURSAY ‘While the law may be open to interpretation, facts are not. Either you did or you did not.’
Anonymous_4031: Satire is a comedy; and leaders all over the world get lampooned left and right. If you cannot stand jokes, then stay away from the jester’s court.
The cost of living has gone up; and the poor people especially are getting “slapped” left and right. To divert their attention from their woes, rabble-rousers, bigots and racists have been making irrational noises.
As the saying goes, “Empty vessels make the most noise.” So here are the empty vessels, beating milk tins and making noise to deafen the cries of suffering people.
If the authorities are deaf and dumb, then they are acting irresponsibly and not fit to be leaders.
Corgito Ergo Sum: Dear lawyer Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz, while the law may be open to interpretation, facts are not. Either you did or you did not.
If the Yakuza or the Mafia put out a contract on someone, your take would be that it is not an offence until the contract is fulfilled.
I wonder where you studied law. Your professors ,too, must be given a slap.
Tan Kim Keong: Mohd Khairul Azam, give yourself some credibility by citing relevant sections of the Penal Code to support your assertion (that the ‘cash for slap’ offer is not an offence if Seputeh Teresa Kok not slapped).
If you cannot, then refrain from making such an assertion.
Hplooi: Download the Penal Code here .
Act 574 (Penal Code), Section 153 (Wantonly giving provocation, with intent to cause riot). Even if a riot did not occur, the inciter will still be liable for the offence of incitement.
Section 503 (criminal intimidation) – a threat itself is sufficient for prosecution.
Section 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace). Again, the intentional act of insult is sufficient for prosecution.
Section 505c (Statements conducing to public mischief). “Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report – (c) with intent to incite or which is likely to incite any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community of persons.”
So, enough to nail those miscreants or not?
My Opinion: Every first-year law student knows it is an offence to suggest, invite, offer, encourage someone to commit an offence (whether the offence is actually committed).
The offence here is not whether the offer of X is done but the ‘offer’ itself constituted both actus reus and mens rea , i.e. the act of offering and the mental state of affair of the offeror’s malice intent.
If one encourages the rakyat to go against the Agong but no one makes a move, he nevertheless shall either be guilty of treason or the attempt to commit treason. Unless he has a good defence (which I will not teach him here), he is guilty.
Malaysia and United Kingdom have many judicial precedents on this. The only problem is whether the police are willing to enforce the law.
Vision2020: Threat constitutes criminal mind and malicious intent and by this verbal action and motive to harm another person, the victim can sue the aggressor and seek justice through judicial action, like libel lawsuits.
Speechless: I don’t understand Mohd Khairul Azam’s logic, or perhaps there is none.
Why make an offer in the first place when he knows fully well that if the offer was taken up and Teresa Kok gets slapped, the person slapping her would have committed an offence? Is this not encouraging people to commit the offence by enticing them with a cash reward?
This is also a very dangerous precedent because irresponsible people may take it a step further by offering cash rewards for killing other people.
By Mohd Khairul Azam’s logic, this is not an offence because no one has been killed yet. Isn’t this is miles worse than Teresa Kok’s video which merely poked fun at issues which we all talk about anyway?
Versey: This lawyer is making a fool of himself in the eyes of the world. It appears the home minister’s argument that offering a bounty to slap somebody is not a threat and does not warrant police investigation has further encouraged this lawyer and the group of NGOs.
Where has the PM gone? Please come forth and say something sensible to show to the rakyat and the world that you are still in control of the country.
Nobrain: What kind of lawyer is this? So if someone point a gun at you, it is not a threat. And if he does fire a shot and kill you, it becomes a threat. Stupid.
Continue-The-March: Can the Bar Council verify where Mohd Khairul Azam got his law degree from and if he is a qualify lawyer to practise in this country?
Anti-Dumno: What happens to someone who says he will bomb a mosque or church? Is that not a threat unless the act has been done?
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .