UMNO MP for Jerlun and candidate for Umno Youth chief, Mukhriz Mahathir has committed the offence of sedition in questioning one of the four “sensitive” issues entrenched in the Constitution which has no parliamentary immunity and on conviction, he can be stripped of his parliamentary membership, disqualified from taking part in parliamentary and state assembly elections as well as barred from holding office in any society for five years.
However Mukhriz twist and turn, there can be no doubt that in his press conference at the Parliament lobby yesterday which he repeated in his speech in the House last night, he was in fact calling for the closure of Chinese and Tamil primary schools, hence the following headlines:
• “Sekolah satu sistem – cadangan ke arah menggantikan pendidikan berbeza aliran” – Utusan Malaysia • “Mukhriz: Scrap vernacular schools, one system for all” (Star online). • “”Abolish dual system” (Star in print). • “Mukhriz: Close down vernacular schools” (Malaysiakini English) • “Mukhriz saran tutup sekolah vernacular” (Malaysiakini Bahasa Malaysia) • “Mukhriz says vernacular schools should be abolished” (Malaysianinside) • “Change all school medium to Bahasa Malaysia” – Nanyang • “Abolish Chinese and Tamil primary schools to check polarisation – Mukhriz” – (China Press) • “Standardise all primary schools with Bahasa Malaysia as medium of instruction” – (Oriental Daily)
My purpose now is not to discuss the merit or demerit of Mukhriz proposal for a single education system, the validity of his contention blaming the vernacular school system for the polarised society which allegedly caused the poor understanding of the “ketuanan Melayu” or Malay supremacy concept among the non-Malays and his view that the disunity in Malaysia arose from the different education system.
The Constitution Amendment 1971 entrenching four sensitive issues and imposing an absolute prohibition from any questioning, even removing the parliamentary immunity in parliamentary debates, by classifying them as sedition offences under Section 3(f) of the Sedition Act, does not allow anyone to propose the closure of Chinese and Tamil primary schools so long as Article 10(4) on the entrenchment of the sensitive issues is not repealed.
If Mukhriz wants to be able to publicly pursue his proposal of a single education system resulting in the closure of Chinese and Tamil primary schools, he must get the Constitutional provision on the four entrenched sensitive issues amended and repealed.
Similarly, no one can question the special provision for Malays and natives in Sabah and Sarawak in Article 153 such as asking for its repeal on the ground that the Reid Commission had originally proposed a 15-year sunset clause unless the 1971 entrenched sensitive provision in the Constitution is amended or repealed.
The same applies to the other sensitive issues – the sovereignty of Malay Rulers and citizenship rights of non-Malay Malaysians.
The law is very clear as there had been decided cases – Melan Abdullah v Public Prosecutor (1971) where Utusan Malaysia was found guilty of the sedition offence for its editorial subheading, “Hapuskan Sekolah Beraliran Tamil atau China di-Negeri ini” and Mark Koding v. Public Prosecutor where the Sabah Member of Parliament was found guilty of sedition when he spoke in Parliament in October 1978 calling for the closure of Chinese and Tamil primary schools.
As it is, anybody can lodge a police report against Mukhriz, and if there is a rule of law with independent and impartial administration of justice, Mukhriz would be charged and found guilty of sedition, stripped of his parliamentary membership as well as disqualified from taking part in parliamentary elections or holding office in any ociety for five years if fined RM2,000 or jailed for a year.