Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- CITIZENSHIP- CITIZENSHIP BY OPERATION OF LAW

I adopted a child that was found outside of a hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia when the child was 8 years old. I brought Kelvin (the child) to the National Registration Department (NRD) when he turned 12 years old for his MyKad registration. The officer issued a second birth certificate, leaving the parents’ name column blank, stating that such information was not available and that Kelvin’s nationality was “yet to be determined.” When the third birth certificate was issued, Kelvin was labelled as a “non-citizen” and the parents’ information was unobtainable.

Q: What can I do so that Kelvin will officially be a citizen of Malaysia?

A: You can rely on the concept of “jus soli” and “jus sanguinis” when it comes to determining the citizenship of a person (Section 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution).

Q: What is “jus soli” and “jus sanguinis”?

A: “Jus soli” is citizenship that is based on the place of birth, while “jus sanguinis” is citizenship based on blood relations.

“Jus sanguinis” has two presumptions:

  1. Any child “found exposed” in any location is a citizen of the country,
  2. Unless this can be proven otherwise. (Section 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution)

Q: What does “found exposed” mean?

A: It means that the child is abandoned and discovered by people at any location without the presence of their biological parents.

Q: Who needs to prove Kelvin’s citizenship?

A: The defendant who claims that the child is not abandoned (in this scenario, the NRD) will need to prove Kelvin’s mother’s identity.

Q: In the case whereby Kelvin can be proven that he is abandoned, does that mean that he is a citizen of Malaysia?

A: In that case, Kelvin will be presumed to be born to a mother that is a resident of Malaysia unless the contrary can be shown (Section 19B of Part III of Second Schedule of Federal Constitution). There is no evidence to say that Kelvin is a citizen of another country. This means that Kelvin will be a citizen of Malaysia.

Sorotan Terkini

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

Read More »

ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM

When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.

Read More »

CHARTERPARTY – LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHTS: CLARIFYING OWNERS’ RIGHTS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS

In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

Read More »

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.

Read More »

CRIMINAL – KIDNAPPING – NO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE: COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE KIDNAPPING CASE

A 10-year-old child was abducted outside a tuition center, held captive, and released only after a RM1.75 million ransom was paid. The appellants were arrested following investigations, with their statements leading to the recovery of a portion of the ransom money. Despite denying involvement, they were convicted under the Kidnapping Act 1961 and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten strokes of the whip. Their appeal challenged the identification process, the validity of the charge, and the admissibility of evidence, but the court found the prosecution’s case to be strong, ruling that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and were equally liable for the crime.

Read More »
ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami