Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us