Citizenship Row May Cost Government Dearly

---

 


 In Malaysia, the supreme law of the land enumerates four methods in acquiring Malaysian citizenship, and they are by way of operation of law (Article 14) or by registration (Articles 15, 15A, 16, 16A, and 18), or by naturalisation (Article 19) and finally by incorporation of territory (Article 22).
It is fascinating to note here that, as far as the law on citizenship in Malaysia is concerned, both the substantive and procedural requirements are exclusively housed in the Federal Constitution itself.
In practice, however, the application also needs to go through a process as stipulated under the Citizenship Rules 1964. The Rules 1964 came into operation when its predecessors - the Citizenship Rules 1960 and the Citizenship Rules 1962 - were repealed.
Unlike its predecessors, the 1964 Rules are relatively more relaxed. For instance, on the legal requirement of “good character”, it merely provides a guideline of “good character” and not a concrete definition.
Whereas under the old laws, to satisfy a condition of “good character”, the applicant had to declare, for example, his previous criminal convictions. It seems now what constitutes “good character” will rest exclusively in the hands of the executive.
When the citizenship debacle surrounding the naturalisation of seven football players, which was doubted by the International Federation of Association Football (Fifa), arose in Parliament during Minister’s Question Time, the minister tried his best to justify the grant of Malaysian citizenship to the said seven football players.
The minister was absolutely right to say that for a foreigner to be considered for Malaysian citizenship via naturalisation, he or she has to fulfil Article 19 of the apex law.
And Article 19 lays down several conditions which need to be fulfilled by the relevant applicant before the issue of the federal government’s discretion is duly triggered.
The minister also contended that by virtue of Section 20(1)(e) of the third part of the Constitution’s Second Schedule, he was also clothed with a discretionary power when considering a citizenship application from a foreigner, and he decided to exercise such a discretion.
It is not clear whether such a discretion is willingly or unwillingly exercised. Does it matter, anyway?
Assuming the minister was right to assert his discretionary power, he should have been fully aware that any discretion under the law ought to be properly, reasonably, and judiciously exercised.
In fact, the late Perak ruler and lord president of the Federal Court, Sultan Azlan Shah, used to give this powerful advice, in that there is no such thing as absolute discretion, as such a term is a contradiction in terms. His lordship also remarked that every legal power must have legal limits; otherwise, there is dictatorship!
In my view, it is totally wrong to assume this issue merely entails a legal dispute between FAM and Fifa, and nothing could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, it goes beyond that, unfortunately.
The sad reality is that the nation has been plagued with the chronic issue of “thousands” of stateless persons across the country, including in Sabah, who rightly deserve citizenship and whose plight is constantly highlighted by NGOs.
Although no official data exists, various reports estimate that Sabah is home to some 300,000 stateless individuals, including children.
Bernama also reported last year that the number in Peninsular Malaysia ranges between 12,000 and 16,000.
If at all the minister believes that he has a wide and powerful discretion to grant Malaysian citizenship on certain occasions, logic and common sense dictate that such a discretion should have been properly applied to grant to “thousands” of stateless Malaysians, especially children whose parents have been domiciled in Malaysia even though they were not footballers.
A well-known Sabah activist, namely Johan Ariffin Samad, lamented that the mind-boggling naturalisation of the seven footballers is symptomatic of the country’s pursuit of “fake glory”, even at the expense of human rights. It is very hard not to agree with him. - Mkini
HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy minister of law.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---