KUALA LUMPUR – Putrajaya has been accused of viewing women as second-class citizens and continuing to send out a message of discrimination and marginalisation, after it decided to continue its appeal against a high court decision on citizenship for children born abroad.
Representing Malaysian mothers, Family Frontiers in a statement said the explanation given by Home Minister Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin yesterday “is baffling”.
Hamzah told the press that the government will continue with its appeal to avoid being found in “contempt of court”, while complying with the provisions of the federal constitution.
However, Family Frontiers said the court ruling resolved the apparent discrimination in two articles in the constitution.
“In the public-interest case brought by Family Frontiers and six mothers, judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir’s decision resolved the apparent discrimination between two provisions – Article 8(2) and Article 14(1)(b), together with the Second Schedule, Part II, Section 1(b) of the constitution – by applying a harmonious and purposive approach of interpretation.
“The result of this interpretation is that the children of Malaysian women who are citizens, are entitled to be included in the Second Schedule provisions.”
The group highlighted the case of Mahisha Suhaila Abdul Majeed v the National Registration Department director and two others, saying it does not deal with reconciling the two provisions in the constitution.
“This must also be the reason why the Attorney-General’s Chambers did not refer to this case during their submissions before Akhtar.
“It is also important to note that judge Mariani Yahya, a member of the Court of Appeal panel who decided the Mahisha case, also sat in on the hearing of the appeal by the government against the high court’s decision disallowing Family Frontiers’ case to be struck out.
“The panel said there is merit in the argument by Family Frontiers to warrant a full hearing of the merits of the case by Akhtar.”
It questioned if Hamzah sought the commitment of MPs for the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution.
He has not provided any certainty or time frame for the amendment, and in the meantime, no remedy is offered to the women whom his ministry has rejected without reasons given.
“Statistics from the Parliament Hansard showed that 98% of the citizenship applications submitted by these mothers between 2013 and 2018 were rejected, depriving their children of their basic, fundamental rights.
“These are applications that Malaysian mothers are forced to make because they have been deprived of their right to automatically pass on citizenship to their overseas-born children.”
Family Frontiers said it seeks the consent of the Conference of Rulers to set right the injustice caused by the discrimination against Malaysian mothers.
“With Malaysia seeking a seat on the (United Nations) Human Rights Council, this is an entirely missed opportunity for the Malaysian government to set right and provide relief to suffering Malaysian women and their children.”
Just two days ago, Foreign Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah said Putrajaya takes the issue seriously, as it involves discrimination and human rights.
“Several ministers have presented their views, and the matter was brought up in the cabinet meeting last week by Women, Family and Community Development Minister (Datuk Seri) Rina Mohd Harun. It received a very positive response from cabinet members,” he said after receiving the #TarikBalikRayuan petition and an open letter from Family Frontiers.
On September 9, the high court ruled that Malaysian mothers have the right to confer citizenship on their children born overseas, on an equal basis as Malaysian men.
The court ruled that Article 14(1)(b) of the constitution, together with the Second Schedule, Part II, Section 1(b) pertaining to citizenship rights, must be read in harmony with Article 8(2), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender.
Akhtar said the word “father” must be read to include mothers, and that their children are entitled to citizenship by operation of law.
“The grievances of the plaintiffs are real… The discrimination is apparent.” – The Vibes, September 25, 2021
