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

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN