The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) in a hearing at the Kuala Lumpur High Court this morning argued that their claim was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of court.
Senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly said Article 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution only grants Malaysian fathers the right to confer citizenship to children born overseas to foreign spouses.
He said international conventions such as the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the government is party to, are irrelevant because Parliament has yet to enact specific laws to incorporate the provisions.
Family Frontiers, Hanir added, does not have the right to bring this action to court.
Judge Akhtar Tahir set May 6 for his decision on the government’s bid.
Lawyer Gurdial Singh Nijar, who represented the group, told the judge the government had ignored Article 8(2) of the Constitution, which provides that citizens will not be discriminated against on the grounds of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law or appointment to any public office.
He said the court must therefore read Article 14(1)(b) on citizenship together with Article 8(2).
He contended that Article 8(2) must be given primacy because the provision outlined fundamental rights of the Constitution.
“This means the government recognises this is a very important, critical right.”
He also said there was nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says Malaysian women cannot confer citizenship to their children by operation of law.
The applicants also argued that NGOs had in the past brought court action, citing the case of human rights NGOs Asylum Access and Amnesty International bringing up the deportation of Myanmar refugees at the High Court.
Gurdial added that the authorities must take into account international treaties when making a decision.
Speaking to reporters after, lead applicant Suriani Kempe from Family Frontiers said the government’s claim in their bid to quash their suit lacked compassion.
“The government has claimed that our actions ‘troubled’ the government, when it is these discriminatory and outdated provisions in the law, which have, and continue to, cause so many problems and ‘troubles’ to Malaysian mothers.
“Their experiences are hardly frivolous or ‘trivial’. It tears at the social fabric of Malaysian families.”