首页 体育内容详情
A ray of hope in Malaysia\u2019s Constitution

A ray of hope in Malaysia\u2019s Constitution

分类:体育

网址:

SEO查询: 爱站网 站长工具

点击直达

新二皇冠最新手机登录www.99cx.vip)实时更新发布最新最快最有效的新二皇冠最新手机登录网址,包括新2手机网址,新2备用网址,皇冠最新网址,新2足球网址,新2网址大全。

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.

,

皇冠开户www.hg108.vip)是一个开放皇冠正网即时比分、皇冠开户的平台。皇冠开户平台(www.hg108.vip)提供最新皇冠登录,皇冠APP下载包含新皇冠体育代理、会员APP。

,

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.


转载说明:本文转载自Sunbet。

发布评论