Introduction
The proposed constitutional amendments to Malaysia’s citizenship laws initially emerged as a noble effort to address long-standing gender inequality, aiming to grant Malaysian women the right to confer citizenship on their overseas-born children—something already afforded to Malaysian fathers.
However, when the proposed amendments were finally revealed late last year, they included several controversial and regressive changes, sparking widespread concern. In my March article, I highlighted how some of the proposed changes championed by Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail restricted certain constitutional protections related to citizenship rights, particularly for foundlings, children of permanent residents, and stateless communities. Civil society organisations and legal experts have voiced concerns that these changes could exacerbate the statelessness crisis, especially for marginalised groups like the Orang Asli.
Despite these concerns, on October 17, 2024, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2024 was passed in the Dewan Rakyat with little to no significant alterations from the original proposal. The passing of this bill, with no changes that actually reflect the crisis we are facing, leaves many questioning the government’s commitment to protecting the vulnerable.
1. The Amendment: A Welcome Change?
The Citizenship Amendment Bill, passed on October 17, 2024, is two steps forward and five steps back. Among some of the positive changes, this Amendment Bill grants automatic citizenship to children born abroad to Malaysian mothers, finally correcting a long-standing inequality between the parents. It also lowers the age limit for citizenship applications from 21 to 18, aligning with the legal age for voting and other civil rights. On the surface, these seem like positive changes—after all, Malaysian mothers have long fought for equal treatment regarding citizenship, and this bill seems to address that.
However, the bill contains perplexing provisions, such as a new requirement for children born abroad to Malaysian parents to take an oath of allegiance at 18. Politicians may argue this is a reasonable safeguard to secure loyalty, but it introduces unnecessary bureaucratic red tape that complicates the process. Does this truly serve the people’s best interests?
I ask the decision-makers:
a. What about children of permanent residents? Under this amendment, the deletion of the term “permanent resident” in Section 1(a) means these children no longer have an automatic path to citizenship. While the legal reasoning might be understood—permanent residents, after all, are not fully integrated into Malaysian society—this is a missed opportunity to promote inclusivity. Not all permanent residents are the same: some families have long contributed to Malaysia’s growth and have lived here for generations but are still trapped in bureaucratic limbo. It seems unjust to exclude all their children from gaining the rights of citizenship, particularly when this bill is being framed as progressive. Once again, we risk exposing more children to statelessness.
b. What about children born before the amendment? The bill allows Malaysian mothers’ overseas-born children to obtain citizenship, but it does not apply retroactively. This leaves children born before the amendment without the same rights, creating a new gap in equality.
c. What about those nearing 18? Lowering the application age from 21 to 18 may appear as progress, but it shortens the window for stateless children to apply for Malaysian citizenship, inadvertently restricting their opportunities.
d. What about foreign spouses? Another provision allows the government to revoke the citizenship of foreign wives if their marriage dissolves within two years of obtaining Malaysian citizenship. This disproportionately affects foreign spouses, leaving them vulnerable to abuse or control by their Malaysian husbands and creating uncertainty over their citizenship status for reasons beyond their control.
2. The Unintended Consequences: Bureaucratic Chaos Ahead?
One major issue is the potential for bureaucratic chaos. The bill, instead of simplifying the process, introduces more complexity. Elements like the oath of allegiance at 18 and the exclusion of children born to permanent residents could result in a legal quagmire, leaving some citizens’ rights in limbo. The lack of clarity on how these provisions will be implemented raises serious concerns.
If these provisions are unclear now, how can we expect smooth and efficient implementation later? The Ministry of Home Affairs will face a flood of applications, potentially leading to delays, misapplications, and legal challenges.
3. Why Aren’t Liberal MPs Pushing Back?
As a member of the ruling coalition, I do not take this lightly. Yet, it is hard to ignore the lack of criticism from liberal and progressive MPs regarding this bill. Where is the robust opposition and serious dialogue within our ranks? While political unity may be necessary, it seems this bill passed with too little debate and too few questions.
Shouldn’t progressive voices be raising concerns about the exclusionary effects of this bill? Why aren’t they speaking out more forcefully against the bureaucratic hurdles that prevent an easy path to citizenship for those who deserve it?
As someone who cares about legal and political reform, this silence is troubling. It suggests that political expediency is trumping the need for a rigorous examination of the bill’s long-term consequences. For all the good intentions behind the bill, we must ask: is this really the best we can do?
4. Stakeholder Engagement: A Missed Opportunity for Meaningful Revisions
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the bill’s journey through Parliament is that despite extensive stakeholder engagement—including consultations with legal experts, civil society, and political leaders—none of the major concerns raised were addressed. Issues like bureaucratic hurdles, the exclusion of children of permanent residents, and vague timelines were repeatedly flagged. Yet the bill passed unchanged. Was all that engagement just for show?
As a lawyer involved in these discussions, this is particularly disheartening. Good legislation should be the result of rigorous debate and meaningful stakeholder input. The fact that such an extensive process produced no substantive changes raises serious concerns. Was it all merely a façade of consultation?
5. The Road Ahead
As I noted in my previous article, change should have been approached with more thought. While I support reforms addressing gender inequality in citizenship laws, the Citizenship Amendment Bill 2024 risks causing more harm than good. A balance between equality and practical, fair application of our laws should have been struck. Sadly, it’s too late for that now. Instead of a bill that would have eased the burden of obtaining citizenship for mothers and laid a stronger foundation for equality, we have one that imposes even more obstacles.
In the coming weeks, I hope MPs—especially those from the liberal wing—will realise the gravity of their actions. It is not enough to make symbolic changes for gender equality; the real-world impact must be considered. We must now address the gaps in this new citizenship regime and ensure that no child is left behind. Navigating these legal minefields is the challenge we now face.
To call this a missed opportunity is an understatement. We had the chance to address these issues head-on and craft an actual inclusive and forward-thinking legislation. Instead, the bill as passed has the potential to deepen inequality and create further exclusion.
While my remarks have been put forward, these opinions are my own, grounded in my professional experience and personal conviction. As someone deeply committed to legal and political reform, I believe it is essential to critically examine policies that affect the most vulnerable groups and communities within our society. While I respect the efforts made to address gender inequality in our citizenship laws, I feel it is equally important to highlight where this bill may fall short and inadvertently harm those it intended to help. My hope is that by sharing my perspective, it will encourage further dialogue and, ultimately, lead to more inclusive and thoughtful legislative reforms.
