Malaysia finally in about September 2001 amended the Federal Constitution to ensure that Article 8(2) is amended to specifically provide that no more discrimination based GENDER
(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
However, this provision seems to clearly place anti-gender discrimination on government/s, but it is still not very clear whether this anti-discriminatory obligations also applies to every one in Malaysia, including businesses and the private sector. Maybe an amendment to make this most clear.
However, as of late, we discovered that there still exists DISCRIMINATION on the basis of GENDER. A Malaysian FATHER has better rights than a Malaysian MOTHER - i.e. who is married to a foreigner and have children overseas. There is no justification why a Malaysian MOTHER is not accorded the same rights as a Malaysian Father, with regards to citizenship rights of a child. This is GENDER DISCRIMINATION.
If there is NO GENDER DISCRIMINATION, then both parent, MOTHER or FATHER who are Malaysians must be treated equally...
One problematic area, as an example, was the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution, Part II. The wordings are ODD - for 1(a) and 1(d) is gender discriminatory as it considers "parents', with a requirement that at least one(father or mother) was a citizen or permanent citizen.
However, 1(b) and 1(c) is where Gender Discrimination exist - it accords the FATHER not the MOTHER the right to enable the child citizenship...WHY? Are we in Malaysia still practicing discrimination by reason of Gender? Shameful.
When the issue or the problem was HIGHLIGHTED, the government and Parliament failed to deal with it immediately - they could have just amended the Federal Constitution. So, the PN-BN Plus government advocates discrimination based on Gender. But some of their MPs took a different stand from the Cabinet.
What about the Opposition MPs in Parliament - did they at the very least table a MOTION(Usul) calling for amendment that will treat the Mother and Father equally - remember Hadi Awang tabled a USUL to increase the punitive capacity of Syariah offences. If the Opposition did not at the very least table a MOTION and campaign for reform, then the Opposition MPs and their political party is also GUILTY for not taking steps to end GENDER DISCRIMINATION> What about the other political parties, not then in Parliament - did they speak out on this very fundamental issue of Gender Equality? YES, there were MOTIONS tabled but the Speaker did not allow it > and the PN-BN Plus could have allowed the said motions to be debated in Parliament, but it seems that they did not do it.
A lot of Malaysians go overseas for studies and work, and we cannot control LOVE, and rightly marriages happen and children come into being. The children of these Malaysian mother or father, married to a foreigner must still be entitled to Malaysian citizenship.
After all, Malaysia has been giving out citizenship to foreigners, not just those married to Malaysians. Malaysia have been handing out Permanent Residency to foreigners, and all their children thereafter are Malaysian citizens.
So, why this DISCRIMINATION against a Malaysian women who marries a foreigner...note Najib's daughter also married a foreigner from Khazakstan.
The government, and maybe even the Opposition, strategy was simply to leave it to the Courts > hoping the blame then will be shifted to the Courts. BUT, courts have to base their decisions on the existing written laws(including Constitution) - and here was a bad Gender Discriminatory provision in the Federal Constitution, and the ONLY SOLUTION is an amendment of the Federal Constitution to remove the word 'father' to be replaced with the word 'parent' - hence removing the still existing gender discrimination.
SECOND SCHEDULE
PART II
[Article 39]
CITIZENSHIP BY OPERATION OF LAW OF PERSONS BORN BEFORE MALAYSIA DAY[Article 14 (1) (b)]
CITIZENSHIP BY OPERATION OF LAW OF PERSONS BORN ON OR AFTER MALAYSIA DAY
1. Subject to the provisions of Part III of this Constitution, the following persons born on or after Malaysia Day are citizens by operation of law, that is to say:
(a) every person born within the Federation of whose parents one at least is at time of the birth either a citizen or permanently resident in the Federation; and
(b) every person born outside the Federation whose father is at the time of the birth a citizen and either was born in the Federation or is at the time of the birth in the service of the Federation or of a State; and
(c) every person born outside the Federation whose father is at the time of the birth a citizen and whose birth is, within one year of its occurrence or within such longer period as the Federal Government may in any particular case allow, registered at a consulate of the Federation or, if it occurs in Brunei or in a territory prescribed for this purpose by order of the Yang di- Pertuan Agong, registered with the Federal Government; and
(d) every person born in Singapore of whose parents one at least is at the time of the birth a citizen and who is not born a citizen otherwise than by virtue of this paragraph; and
(e) every person born within the Federation who is not born a citizen of any country otherwise than by virtue of this paragraph.
So, now when you go out to VOTE in GE15, vote candidates who are against GENDER DISCRIMINATION - who will do the necessary amendment to amend the Federal Constitution provisions, and provisions in other Malaysian laws that is still gender discriminatory.
If NOT, you will end up voting someone who believe that MEN should enjoy better rights than women.
Position on fundamental issues like this are what matters - Hope that this issue is CLEARLY addressed in the party/candidates manifesto or promises before you vote for him.
Many parents send their daughters overseas to study/work, and they may end up marrying a foreigner, and have children. If the marriage ends, most likely, the daughter/mother will end up with the children...
Of course, a law barring DOUBLE CITIZENSHIP may be OK - but at least for children of Malaysian mothers, they should also have the right to Malaysian citizenship.
A small issue, affecting not a large number, but it is an issue of PRINCIPLE and VALUES, so a clear stance against GENDER DISCRIMINATION is needed - the constitution must be amended forthwith. Even if such a Constitutional Amendment is tabled, I believe that NO reasonable MP will vote against it..
FOREIGN SPOUSES of Malaysians - Reasonably on the registration of marriages in Malaysia, foreign spouses should be immediately accorded 'permanent residency status', which may be revoked if the marriage is terminated and there are NO children of the marriage who are Malaysian citizen, and the foreign spouse has no desire to remain in Malaysia...Currently, foreign spouses are given yearly spouse visa, which can continue for decades. To insist that the foreign spouse remain in Malaysia is out-dated, and many partners in marriage do work in different towns/countries.
FOREIGN SPOUSES of Malaysians should also be accorded the right to work legally, without the requirement to apply and get any work permits from the Immigration.
There are other issues concerning women and children that must be DEALT with, and the issue of FOREIGN SPOUSES is one such important issue.
SPOUSES Malaysian or foreign in Malaysia reasonably have to earn income to support their families, and so there should not be any impediment to them legally staying and/or working in Malaysia.
Court of Appeal rules no citizenship for overseas born children of Malaysian mothers married to foreigners
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal (COA) has allowed the government's bid to overturn a landmark ruling which said that children born overseas to Malaysian mothers with foreign spouses were entitled to Malaysian citizenship.
The highly anticipated decision was delivered by a three-men bench chaired by Datuk Kamaludin Md Said, much to the dismay of Malaysian women impacted by the issue of their children's citizenship status just because of their foreign spouses.
The other judges on the bench were justices Datuk S Nantha Balan and Datuk Azizah Nawawi.
Kamaluddin and Azizah were in the majority, while Nantha dissented.
The two judges ruled that the word "father" in the Second Schedule of
Part 11 of the Federal Constitution meant the biological father and
cannot be extended to include the mother or parents.- NST, 5/8/2022
Dewan Rakyat speaker Azhar Azizan Harun has rejected 17 MPs in each of their bids to file a private member’s bill to Parliament for a constitutional amendment allowing citizenship to children born overseas to Malaysian mothers.
In a media statement today, Pengerang MP Azalina Othman Said, who is also chair of the Parliamentary Special Select Committee for Women and Children Affairs and Social Development, said the committee was willing to bring this matter to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
She explained that she was among the 17 MPs who were rejected.
Azalina explained that her proposal was to include the word “mother” in Section 1(b) of Part 2 Schedule 2 of the Federal Constitution but was rejected on grounds that amendments to provisions under Part III of the Federal Constitution cannot be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.
“It is my sincere hope that the government of the day prioritises measures that can be taken to allow citizenship for children born overseas to Malaysian mothers as is their birthright,” she stated.
‘Morally untenable’
Azalina said she and each of the 16 MPs received a response from Azhar notifying rejection of their proposals and they include Permatang Pauh MP Nurul Izzah Anwar, Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng, Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman, Hulu Langat MP Hasanuddin Yunus and Bandar Kuching MP Dr Kelvin Yii.
“It was morally untenable to leave thousands of children born to Malaysian mothers stateless.
“It is outright discriminatory to women and we must act in the best interest of our children and the rights of Malaysian mothers, and we must act now.
Other MPs whose bids were rejected are Lanang MP
Alice Lau, Pandan MP Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Segambut MP Hannah Yeoh,
Kuantan MP Fuziah Salleh, Lembah Pantai MP Fahmi Fadzil, Petaling Jaya
MP Maria Chin Abdullah, Lumut MP Mohd Hatta Ramli, Ipoh Barat MP M
Kulasegaran, Cheras MP Tan Kok Wai, Bukit Mertajam MP Sim Chee Keong and
Wangsa Maju MP Tan Yee Kew. - Malaysiakini, 5/10/2022
Amend constitution to allow citizenship through mothers, say MCA, DAP
86
20
PETALING JAYA: Two parties have called for a constitutional amendment to provide citizenship to overseas-born children through their Malaysian mothers.
MCA spokesman Chan Quin Er said the Dewan Rakyat should consider amending the constitution so that overseas-born children could obtain citizenship from “either parent” or “either mother or father” or “both mother and father”.
She called for bipartisan support for such constitutional amendments so that Malaysian women would have equal rights with men in passing on citizenship to their children.
DAP secretary-general Loke Siew Fook urged Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob to table an amendment bill at the next parliamentary session.
“Forty-two DAP MPs will back this amendment and I am also confident that our friends in Pakatan Harapan will, too,” he said.
The statements from the MCA and DAP leaders came in the wake of an appeal court ruling today upholding the current law that children derive citizenship from their Malaysian fathers.
The court overturned a High Court ruling in September in which judge Akhtar Tahir had held that mothers were entitled to confer citizenship by operation of law in all processes, just like fathers. He said the word “father” in the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution must mean and include mothers.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled by a 2-1 majority today that the word “father” is “clear and unambiguous” and could not be construed to include “mother”. It held that children born overseas to Malaysian mothers can be denied citizenship.
Chan and Loke both described the decision as an injustice to Malaysian women, violating the principle of gender equality enshrined in the constitution.
The constitution should be amended to remove all doubt and end any further discriminatory practices against Malaysian mothers, Chan said in a statement.
Today’s court decision came in an appeal by the government, the home
minister and the director-general of the national registration
department against the High Court ruling in September. - 5/8/2022, FMT
Explainer: How the High Court decided Malaysian mothers’ overseas-born children can be citizens too
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 20 — The High Court had on September 9 made a historic decision to recognise that Malaysian women should have the same right as Malaysian men, under the Federal Constitution, to pass on citizenship automatically to their children born overseas.
So why did the judge make this decision? And what does it mean for children born abroad to Malaysian women who are married to non-Malaysian men?
Here’s a summary by Malay Mail, based on the High Court’s written judgment and other court documents:
What led to the court case: Automatic right vs application
For decades now, Malaysian women married to foreigners have found that their children born overseas are not automatically allowed to become Malaysian citizens, due to provisions in the Federal Constitution.
By comparison, Malaysian men who are married to foreigners whose children are born abroad automatically become Malaysian citizens, once the child’s birth is registered with a Malaysian consulate or the Malaysian government within the required period.
Malaysian women who would like their overseas-born children to have the same nationality as them, have to apply under Article 15(2) of the Federal Constitution.
Under Article 15(2), the Malaysian government “may” register anyone aged below 21 as a Malaysian citizen, if this person has at least one parent who is Malaysian and if this person’s parent or guardian had applied for the citizenship registration.
While it sounds simple, the pathway for these Malaysian mothers’ overseas-born children to be recognised as Malaysians actually tends to be a difficult one that could take years and years of waiting and trying, and with no guarantee of success.
Family Frontiers president Suriani Kempe had in court documents said that the Article 15(2) application process — which is the only option such Malaysian mothers can resort to — is “discretionary, tedious, takes an inordinately prolonged period for processing and the application is often rejected.”
This led to six affected Malaysian mothers together with Family Frontiers filing a lawsuit through an originating summons on December 18, 2020 in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur against the Malaysian government.
.JPG)
The six mothers are Myra Eliza Mohd
Danil, Adlyn Adam Teoh, a mother who wishes to be identified only as
Devi, Choong Wai Li, Ng Mei Mei and Rekha Sen Mei-Mei.
All six had first tried to apply for their children to be registered as citizens under Article 15(2), but these applications were rejected — with no reasons given.
By the time they finally filed this court case, some of them had been waiting for more than four years without any reply from the government (and still none to this day) on their latest attempts.
The earliest time these mothers had made the first citizenship application for their children was in 2011 or even 2013, which means the journey for some of them had started 10 years ago.
Meanwhile, the clock keeps ticking, as the Article 15(2) pathway has an age limit of 21 years. In the process of waiting, some of the six mothers’ children are already in their early teens or having reached half of the age limit. Some may also have siblings who are Malaysian, just because they were born in Malaysia.
Here’s a chart showing
how lengthy the process can be, based on the six mothers’ experience
listed in court documents sighted by Malay Mail:
What happened before the case could be heard
The Malaysian government in January 2021 applied to have the entire court case struck out without being heard, but the High Court on May 6, 2021 rejected the government’s striking out application.
The High Court judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir instead decided that the lawsuit should be heard on its merits and held that it was not a frivolous case. The judge also allowed the home minister and the National Registration Department’s director-general to be added as defendants.
The judge had said the Malaysian government must give reasons to justify the apparent discrimination or distinction in the Federal Constitution’s provisions, namely where it states a child born in Malaysia can automatically be a Malaysian if either parent is Malaysian, while mentioning that a child born outside of Malaysia can automatically be a Malaysia if the “father” is Malaysian.
The Malaysian government failed in its second attempt to have the case struck out when the Court of Appeal dismissed its appeal on August 20, and the High Court on August 24 then proceeded to hear the mothers’ lawsuit in full on its actual merits.
.JPG)
What the judge decided
On September 9, High Court judge Akhtar delivered his landmark judgment which held that Malaysia’s citizenship laws in the Federal Constitution should not be interpreted in a way that discriminates against Malaysian women.
But before looking at the judgment, let’s have a quick look at the laws that are the focus of this lawsuit:
Under the Federal Constitution’s Article 14(1)(b), every person who fulfills the conditions in the Federal Constitution’s Second Schedule’s Part II “are citizens by operation of law.” This means they are entitled or have the right to be Malaysian citizens because of the law, and do not have to apply for citizenship.
In this case, the Malaysian mothers are saying that two of the conditions in Part II of the Second Schedule — Section 1(b) and Section 1(c) — currently discriminate against women, as these provisions now only mention Malaysian fathers as being able to pass on their citizenship to their children who are born overseas.
Section 1(b) provides for every person born outside Malaysia to be a citizen automatically if their “father” is a Malaysian citizen at the time of the person’s birth.
Section 1(c) is similarly worded with specific mention of the requirement for the “father” to be a Malaysian citizen at the time of the person’s birth, but with the added condition that the person’s birth abroad is registered at a Malaysian consulate (or with the federal government if born in Brunei) within one year of birth or within any longer period that the Malaysian government may allow.
The six Malaysian mothers and Family Frontiers had asked for six court orders, including declarations that these two citizenship provisions were discriminatory and violates the Federal Constitution’s Article 8 (which protects Malaysians from gender discrimination), and a declaration that the two provisions should be read harmoniously with Article 8 for the word “father” to also include the “mother” of children born overseas.
One of the court orders that the Malaysian mothers had asked for was for the Malaysian government to issue citizenship documents to children born overseas to Malaysian mothers.
Judge recognises Malaysian mothers and their children’s hardships
Here’s a summary of the judge’s 24-page full written judgment dated September 27:
High Court judge Akhtar recognised how the same family could have both non-Malaysian and Malaysian children because of the government’s rejection of citizenship applications to the child born overseas, which caused the child born abroad to face mental suffering, being deprived of privileges for education, healthcare and travel and with further difficulties due to Covid-19 pandemic travel restrictions.
The judge noted for example that one of the six Malaysian mothers is separated from her foreigner husband and fears losing custody of her child to the husband, while another of these six mothers had been constantly detained and questioned by immigration authorities due to the different nationalities between herself as a Malaysian and her children whom Malaysia does not recognise as citizens.
The High Court narrowed down the case to three main issues, namely whether the Malaysian mothers had locus or legal standing to be able to bring the lawsuit to court, whether the High Court could decide on the issues in this lawsuit and whether these issues could be decided by the courts in the first place, and the proper application of the Constitutional provisions.
1. ‘Locus’ — the right to file the lawsuit
The judge noted that the government had argued that the Malaysian
mothers cannot make a claim to citizenship for their children as
Malaysian citizenship is a privilege rather than a right.
But
the judge said that the government’s argument does not address the issue
of discrimination, noting that citizenship “must be offered without
discrimination” even if the granting of citizenship is a privilege.
The government had also argued that the six Malaysian mothers did not have legal standing as they could allegedly only file the lawsuit on behalf of their children instead of for the mothers themselves, as those who are aggrieved were allegedly the children and not the mothers.
But the judge said the mothers themselves had in court affidavits spoken of their grievances such as having to spend more on education and healthcare for their children due to citizenship not being granted to them, and that the government had essentially accepted the mothers’ grievances to be “real and not mere conjecture” as it had not disputed or challenged what they said.
“So it is illogical to argue that only the children are aggrieved, not the mothers,” the judge said.
The judge also dismissed the government’s third argument where it had claimed that the Malaysian mothers are abusing the process of law by coming to the courts only after their children’s citizenship applications had been rejected.
Brushing away this argument by the government, the judge pointed out that Malaysian mothers had to resort to court after their children were denied citizenship, saying: “There is no abuse and in fact filing this originating summons is the proper and legal procedure.”
Ultimately, the judge said the Malaysian mothers had the locus or the right to file this lawsuit in court, noting that these mothers’ undisputed grievances are “real and not imaginary” and that they have a direct interest in the decision of the issues in the lawsuit.
2. Does the court have the power to hear this citizenship lawsuit?
The Malaysian government had argued that the court has no jurisdiction or power to decide on citizenship matters, asserting that the granting of citizenship is a policy matter solely for the government to decide.
The government had also argued that certain provisions in the Federal Constitution — such as Section 2 of the Second Schedule which states the government’s decision of citizenship matters “shall not be subject to appeal or review in any court” — expressly ousts or removes the courts’ powers to decide on citizenship issues.
The judge, however, said that such an ouster clause only applies to situations where the home minister has the discretionary power to grant or reject citizenship applications such as under Article 15, and that in those situations the minister’s exercise of discretion would not be subject to the court’s review.
The judge indicated that the court would still have the power to decide on citizenship matters when it involves Article 14, where Malaysian citizenship is given as a right or by operation of law, and is not given at the home minister’s discretion.
The judge also said it was “ironical” that the government was seeking to remove the courts’ jurisdiction in deciding this lawsuit by using the concept of separation of powers, pointing out that the ousting of the courts’ jurisdiction in this case would achieve the opposite and concentrate the powers of making, executing and judging on laws in the hands of one single branch of the government — the executive.
The judge had highlighted that the courts are empowered to interpret and apply the law in a way that will uphold justice and uphold the spirit of the Federal Constitution, which is Malaysia’s supreme law.
“In summing up on this issue, the court reiterates that it is not seeking to change the federal government’s policy of granting citizenship,” the judge said, pointing out that Parliament’s Hansard records show that the Malaysian government had long decided — during the tenure of the country’s second prime minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein — to adopt the policy of granting citizenship to children born outside of Malaysia through the jus sanguinis principle (citizenship based on lineage or parents’ nationality).
“This court further reiterates that it is not seeking to change the policy or rewrite the law which has already been enacted by the federal government. What the court is endeavouring to do is applying the existing law and policy already in force in a manner which will find a remedy to the grievance of the Plaintiffs. The courts are surely empowered to do this,” the judge said.
Having already stated that there is apparent or obvious discrimination against the Malaysian mothers, the judge stressed that the mothers’ grievances are real and that the government “must not bury their head in the sand like an ostrich and state that there is no grievance or discrimination.”
3. Interpreting and applying the Constitutional provisions
The judge noted that the government had argued that the Constitutional provisions should be interpreted in a literal way, but said such an approach would downgrade the courts’ role to “rubber stamping” the provision without actually applying it in a “fair and just manner” and without considering the actual purpose of the provision’s enactment.
The judge said that all Federal Constitution provisions should instead be interpreted harmoniously and purposively to avoid any provisions from becoming pointless, adding that the citizenship provisions must reflect the Article 8(1) provision that provides for equality before the law.
As for the government’s arguments that the Constitutional provisions on citizenship are not discriminatory and do not violate Article 8, the judge disagreed.
The judge recognised that Article 8 does not give an absolute protection to Malaysians against discrimination on matters such as gender, as Article 8(2) — which starts with the phrase “Except as expressly authorised by the Constitution” —- allows for discrimination in certain situations.
However, the judge said that the law must expressly state a situation as being an exception where gender discrimination would be allowed, and that such exceptions cannot be implied.
For example, the judge said that just because the Constitutional provisions on citizenship for those born outside of Malaysia use the word “father”, it did not mean that there is an implied exception to allow gender discrimination.
In order to expressly state an exception that would allow discrimination, the judge said a law should start with a phrase like “Notwithstanding Article 8.”
The judge further highlighted that Parliament’s Hansard records do not show a conscious effort to discriminate between mothers and fathers in granting citizenship to their children, and that Parliament’s debates were instead focused on whether citizenship should be given to children born outside of Malaysia and that the sentiment in Parliament was “to give citizenship based on loyalty, allegiance and attachment to the country.”
The judge also said that the government’s failure to provide any justification for the gender discrimination in the Constitutional provisions on citizenship meant that it can safely be assumed that there is no justification.
The
government had argued that Malaysia’s accession or agreement to be
bound by the international treaties Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC) does not give the Malaysian mothers the
legitimate expectation that the Malaysian government would interpret
citizenship laws in line with such international obligations.
Among other things, the government had argued that this was because it had expressly made reservations or expressly stated that it would not follow CRC provisions on the right to acquire a nationality, and Cedaw provisions on equal rights of women with men when it comes to their children’s nationality.
However, the judge said legitimate expectation is not derived from international treaties, but said the Malaysian mothers’ legitimate expectation in this case is derived from their “natural instinct to give the best to the child.”
“It is only natural that a parent desires that everything of value be inherited by their children be it material or otherwise. In this case, the plaintiffs as mothers, value the Malaysian citizenship and are loyal to the country and this has motivated them to file this originating summons. Given a choice, these mothers would have avoided the courts at all cost.”
The judge pointed out that the Constitutional provisions that granted citizenship to those born outside of Malaysia were intended to “reward loyalty” as shown by the Malaysian mothers’ loyalty to Malaysia.
The judge also said the Federal Constitution should be interpreted to meet the needs of current time, suggesting that the way the citizenship provisions were worded could be due to historical reasons in the past.
“It could be the word father is used as at that point of time it was difficult to travel and usually it was the fathers who had to travel out of the Federation. Now anyone can travel easily,” the judge said.
Ultimately, the judge concluded that the word “father” in the Constitutional provisions —- on citizenship for children born outside of Malaysia — must be interpreted to include the “mother” of children born outside of Malaysia.
The judge’s three orders in favour of Malaysian mothers
The High Court ultimately gave three brief declarations or court orders, including a declaration that the word “father” in the related Constitutional provisions includes the mother, and that therefore the children — of the six mothers and all other Malaysian women facing the similar situation — “are entitled to citizenship by operation of law” if all the necessary procedures are followed. These procedures would be similar to those that Malaysian fathers follow for their overseas-born children to be entitled to Malaysian citizenship.
The second order that the judge gave was for the government to extend the time for the mothers to comply with the necessary procedures, while the remaining order was that “all the authorities are directed to issue the relevant documentation” to give effect to the court’s declaration.
.jpg)
What’s next in the courts
The Malaysian government, home minister and the NRD director-general had on September 13 filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal against the High Court decision.
These three had also on September 14 filed an application at the High Court to stay or temporarily suspend part of the High Court’s decision until the Court of Appeal decides on the appeal.
The part that they are seeking for a stay of is where the judge had ordered all the authorities to issue the relevant documentation such as identity cards and passports if citizenship is granted to the overseas-born children of Malaysian mothers.
The High Court will be hearing the stay application on November 15, while the actual appeal is scheduled for case management on November 10.
How long more to wait?
After the government filed its appeal, Family Frontiers launched an online petition on Change.org to urge the Malaysian government to drop the appeal, arguing that justice is essentially being delayed and denied to the Malaysian mothers and their children.
Home Minister Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin had on September 22 told the Dewan Rakyat that his ministry had filed the appeal and also applied for a stay of the High Court decision, in order to prevent contempt of court and to not breach the Federal Constitution while the government pursues a proposed amendment of the Federal Constitution.
The minister said that the Home Ministry plans to seek for a new government policy to amend the Federal Constitution to make things easier for Malaysian mothers married to foreigners and who give birth overseas, while saying that such Constitutional amendment on citizenship matters requires consent from the Conference of Rulers in line with the Federal Constitution’s Article 159(5).
Hamzah on September 23 reiterated on Facebook that the rulers’ consent is needed before the government makes any resolutions to amend Constitutional provisions on citizenship, and on September 24 said the Cabinet had discussed the citizenship matter and had directed the attorney-general to raise it to the deputy Yang di-Pertuan Agong in the nearest time.
The Malaysian mothers had on September 23 delivered their petition to the government, and said the government should show its commitment to addressing their plight by immediately dropping the appeal and start implementing the High Court decision without further delay. At the time of writing, the online petition has garnered 32,606 signatures.
Family Frontiers
on September 25 said the home minister’s reason for continuing to appeal
the court’s decision was baffling, asking if the minister had sought
commitment of MPs for a two-third majority support to amend the Federal
Constitution and also highlighting the lack of timeframe given for the
amendment with no remedy being given in the meantime. - Malay Mail, 21/10/2021
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment