Court to proceed with ‘discriminatory’ citizenship law case

KUALA LUMPUR – The high court here has rejected a stay of application by the Malaysian government to pause proceedings in a case challenging the constitutionality of citizenship laws.
 
A statement from the Association of Family Support & Welfare Selangor & KL (Family Frontiers) said that the court also scheduled a hearing on August 24.
 
“The application by the government to stay the proceedings on the originating summons filed by Family Frontiers and six Malaysian mothers was heard virtually at the Kuala Lumpur High Court today.
 
“High court judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir said that the proceedings at the Court of Appeal scheduled for August 20 can resume.
 
“He expressed his keenness to hear the merits of the case as scheduled if the appeal was dismissed or the decision is reserved,” the statement read.
 
Initially, Family Frontiers and the six mothers filed an originating summons in the high court on December 18, last year, naming the Malaysian government, home minister and National Registration Department as defendants.
 
They are challenging Article 15(1) and (2) of the federal constitution, which states that any person below 21 years of age with one Malaysian parent can apply for citizenship.
 
“For over 60 years, many Malaysian mothers and their children have suffered from the inequality in citizenship laws, forcing them to rely on an arduous citizenship application process via Article 15(2) that is discretionary, fraught with delays, repeated rejections without reasons, inconsistencies and no guarantee of securing citizenship.
 
“The inequality in the law negatively impacts both Malaysian women (compromising their autonomy in the private and public sphere and keeping them in hostile or toxic marriages overseas) and their non-citizen children in their access to fundamental rights such as healthcare and education, and the likelihood of being torn apart from their families once they turn 21,” the statement read.
 
The government attempted to strike out the case on January 22, but the high court rejected the application on May 6, prompting the government to appeal the decision at the Court of Appeal.
 
Despite the appeal and the government’s application to stay the proceedings, the high court ruled for the case to continue. – The Vibes, August 19, 2021