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.

Recent Post

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们