Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

CHILDREN OF MALAYSIAN MOTHERS BORN OVERSEAS – MALAYSIAN CITIZENSHIP – FOREIGN BORN CHILDREN TO MALAYSIAN MOTHERS

In brief

  •  Malaysia is one of 25 countries that do not provide mothers and fathers equal rights under the country’s citizenship legislation,” according to news sources. The Malaysian constitution grants fathers the automatic right to confer citizenship on their children born outside the country, but it makes no mention of mothers.
  •  Six Malaysian women filed a lawsuit against the government in December 2020, with the help of the Association of Family Support and Welfare Selangor & KL (known as Family Frontiers). The mothers had requested for citizenship for their children born abroad, but the government had turned them down. They had asked the court for six specific orders, including “a declaration that Section 1(b) and Section 1(c) of the Second Schedule, Part II of the Federal Constitution be read harmoniously with Article 8 (2) to include Malaysian mothers as a condition for children born abroad to be given automatic Malaysian citizenship.”

What is the right to citizenship of children born overseas to Malaysian mothers?

  •  “Every individual born on or after Malaysia Day [i.e., independence], and having any of the criteria mentioned in Part II of the Second Schedule” is a citizen by operation of law, according to Article 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution. Part II of the Second Schedule, Section 1(b) and (c), reads as follows:
  1. The following persons, born on or after Malaysia Day, are citizens by operation of law, subject to the requirements of Part III of this Constitution:

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

c)  every person born outside the Federation whose father is at the time of the birth a citizen and whose birth are, 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 diPertuan Agong, registered with the Federal Government; …

Q. If I’m a Malaysian citizen but my child is born overseas. Does my child have the right to citizenship in Malaysia?

A. Yes, according to Family Frontiers, the High Court judge ruled that the word “father” in section 1 of the Second Schedule must be read to include mothers, and that the children born abroad are thus entitled to citizenship by operation of law.

  • As previously stated, the plaintiffs argued that these provisions should be read in accordance with article 8(2) of the Constitution, which states as follows: Except as expressly authorized 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.

Decision by the courts

  •  On September 9, 2021, the High Court Judge, YA Haji Akhtar bin Tahir, delivered his Lordship’s decision orally during a virtual hearing via Zoom. The learned High Court Judge acknowledged that the Federal Constitution’s provisions are discriminatory and that “discrimination is obvious.” Despite a previous hearing, the High Court noted that the Government had failed to justify the discrimination in Sections 1(b) and 1(c) Second Schedule FC in their affidavits.
  •  Furthermore, the High Court acknowledged that the right to citizenship is a fundamental liberty. To prevent any provisions from being insignificant, the provisions of the Federal Constitution must be interpreted harmoniously and purposefully. As a result, Sections 1(b) and 1(c) must be interpreted in accordance with Article 8 FC to reflect equality before the law. As a result, the High Court ruled that the words “father” in Sections 1(b) and 1(c) of the Second Schedule FC should be interpreted harmoniously to include “mother.” The High Court effectively ruled that children born abroad to Malaysian mothers are citizens by default under Sections 1(b) and 1(c) of the Second Schedule FC.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN