皇冠博彩公司（www.hg9988.vip）:A ray of hope in Malaysia\u2019s Constitution

皇冠博彩公司（www.hg9988.vip）是一家值得信赖的博彩公司，皇冠博彩公司官方投注网，开放皇冠信用网代理申请、信用网会员开户，线上博彩的官方平台。

IT was a devastating day for all the Malaysian mothers who sought citizenship for their children who were born outside Malaysia via the operation of law. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision with a majority of 2-1.

As reported, judge Kamaludin Md Said ruled that the High Court had erred in the decision by equating the word “father” to also mean “mother” under part II of the second schedule of the Federal Constitution, read with article 14(1)(b) of the Constitution.

The contention was that the word “father” here must be interpreted as it is. It must retain the original meaning of what was intended by the Federal Constitution.

However, the dissenting judgment by judge S. Nantha Balan said the interpretation in a harmonious manner was correct. In which, interpreting the citizenship clause in a rigid manner would only cause conflict as to the bloodline (jus sanguinis).

Malaysia follows constitutional supremacy, as stated in the case of Ah Tian v Government of Malaysia. As such, the court cannot with its own whims and fancies interpret something that is not in the Federal Constitution.

The Federal Constitution is not subjected to the same limitations that apply to ordinary law where the intention of the drafter takes precedence.

The hallmark of constitutionalism is only to administer what is being fair and just, and its limitations begin with the basic structure doctrine.

猎球者（www.99cx.vip）是一个开放皇冠体育网址代理APP下载、皇冠体育网址会员APP下载、皇冠体育网址线路APP下载、皇冠体育网址登录APP下载的官方平台。猎球者上足球分析专家数据更新最快。猎球者开放皇冠官方会员注册、皇冠官方代理开户等业务。

In interpreting the law, there are two ways – one is clear-cut provisions and a prismatic approach, which allows the court to lift the veil in the context of the provision with its proper meaning without changing or creating a new provision altogether.

The problem here again lies in the Constitution itself. Thus, the only way is to amend the Federal Constitution under part II of the second schedule, by replacing the word “father” with “parents”.

This gives rights to both mother and father in conferring their citizenship to their children.

To grant citizenship or not to grant citizenship has always been a conundrum.

However, as mentioned in the previous article, the CCH case has shown how a conundrum can be overcome, but this again is confined to a case-to-case basis.

So can this, too, be amended and passed, as how the anti-party hopping bill was approved with a more than two-thirds majority by parliament? – August 6, 2022.

* Matilda George reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.