This document provides an introduction and outline for a research paper on stateless children in Malaysia. It begins with background on the problem of stateless children in Malaysia, estimated at 300,000. The objectives are to address this issue, compare Malaysia's approach to other countries, and identify solutions. Research questions are posed. The methodology will involve literature review and interviews. A literature review identifies sources that discuss the lack of rights stateless children face. The paper will conduct a comparative study to examine good practices of other countries to inform recommendations for Malaysia.

1. COMPARATIVE LAW
(LAW 6816)
ASSIGNMENT 2
STATELESS CHILDREN IN MALAYSIA:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY
Prepared By:
Student‟s Name : SITI NUR JANNAH BINTI HASANUDDIN
Matric Number : G1813858
Course : MASTER OF COMPARATIVE LAW
Prepared For:
PROF. DR. FARID SUFIAN BIN SHUAIB
SEMESTER I: 2018/2019

2. 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1.5 LITERATURE REVIEW
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH
CHAPTER TWO: STATELESS CHILDREN IN MALAYSIA
2.1 BACKGROUND OF MALAYSIAN STATELESS CHILDREN
2.1.1 DEFINITION OF STATELESS CHILDREN
2.1.2 EMERGENCE OF STATELESS CHILDREN
2.1.3 PERCENTAGE OF STATELESS CHILDREN IN MALAYSIA
2.1.4 EFFECTS OF STATELESSNESS TO CHILDREN
2.2 MALAYSIA LEGAL FRAMEWORK
CHAPTER THREE: COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SELECTED COUNTRIES ON
STATELESS CHILDREN ISSUE
3.1 SOUTH ASIA
3.1.1 SRI LANKA
3.2 EUROPE
3.2.1 FINLAND
3.2.2 UKRAINE
3.2.3 BRAZIL
3.3 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

3. 3
CHAPTER FOUR: WAYS FORWARD; REDUCING STATELESS CHILDREN IN
MALAYSIA
4.1 GOVERNMENT‟S EFFORTS
4.1.1 REVIEWING CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE IN FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
4.1.2 DIMINISHING BUREAUCRACY PROCESS
4.1.3 ACCEDING TO INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
4.2 PEOPLE‟S AWARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT IN CHILDREN
DOCUMENTATION
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY

4. 4
STATELESS CHILDREN IN MALAYSIA:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY
SITI NUR JANNAH BT HASANUDDIN
G1813858
ABSTRACT
Stateless in a simple term means person who are not recognized as being citizen of any
country. In Malaysia, there are about 300 000 estimate number of stateless children
according to Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi in 2016. True numbers affected are unknown. It is a
long standing issue. There are several circumstances on how a child can be stateless in
Malaysia; abandoned at birth undocumented, adopted children by Malaysians and mostly
illegitimate children where the foreigner mother (with Malaysian father) did not register
their marriage. Currently there is no actual solution for this issue. It is admitted that the
issue does not sound immediately life threatening however there are various problems that
the children will faced as they progressing through life such as unable to receive any
education, healthcare or jobs. It is totally against the children’s right. There have been
notable examples where through political will or effective laws on nationality and universal
birth registration it has been possible to resolve the children stateless issue. In Malaysia it
seems the root of the issue is inexcusably bureaucracy especially the impossible demand from
National Registration Department (NRD) and insufficient existing laws to resolve the issue. It
is recommended that Malaysia should follow other countries ways in reducing stateless
children issue so that the children in Malaysia are protected and indirectly becoming an
example to other countries.
Keywords: UNHCR, stateless children, 1961 convention, nationality, birth registration,

5. 5
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
„Stateless children‟ or labeled as „Invisible Children‟ can be considered as one of the global
issue. It is estimated by UNHCR that half of the world‟s statelessness is children where in
calculation every 10 minutes a baby is born stateless1
.
Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion categorized Malaysia as one of the countries that has
large population of stateless persons which is over 10 0002
. Associate professor in Law
Faculty University of Ottawa confirmed the fact that Malaysia does have stateless problem
but not in the way that many expect. Based on his research he stated that stateless persons in
Malaysia are not foreigners, migrants or even “illegals”. They are born and bred in Malaysia.
He even discovered six categories of stateless person in Malaysia where one of them is
foundlings, adopted children, children from mixed marriage and illegal children3
.
This issue is unsettled due to inadequacy of existing laws in Malaysia. It should be noted that
Malaysia is not a state party to some international conventions on stateless issue such as 1961
convention. Some of the countries which provide laws to handle this issue for instance are
Republic of Rusia, Greece, Finland and others. These countries allowed automatic nationality
at birth. As a result the stateless children issue did not arise.
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Recently UN expert Maud de Boer-Buquicchio4
had visited Malaysia and stressed out the
issue of stateless children in Sabah, Malaysia had to be presented as a part of report in
Geneva next year. Concluding her eight-day tour of the country, she specified that there was
1
UNHCR/Plan International, under the radar and under protected. The urgent need to address stateless
children’s rights, 2012
2
Rodziana Mohamed Razali, “Addressing Statelessness in Malaysia: New Hope and Remaining Challenges”
(Working paper No. No. 2017/9). Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, 2017.
3
Jamie Chai Liew Yun, (n.d.). “Stateless persons who are born and bred in Malaysia”. The Malaysian Insight.
Retrieved March 28, 2018, from https://www.themalaysianinsight.com/s/45450
4
Maud de Boer-Buquicchio (the Netherlands) was appointed Special Rapporteur in UN Human Right Council
on the sale and sexual exploitation of children, on 8 May 2014, and her mandate was renewed in March 2017
for an additional three-year term.

6. 6
a need for the authorities to address issues faced by stateless children, as failure to do so
would create more problems in future5
.
In 2016 according to Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi in a written reply to Parliament, there are
about 300, 000 estimate number of stateless children. This figure illustrate that Malaysia have
to solve this issue immediately for the sake of the children‟s future and rights.
Those who are affected mainly are the four main groups; Malaysians of Indian descent;
Rohingya refugees from Myanmar; the nomadic boat-dwellers known as Bajau Laut or Sama
Dilaut; and children of refugees and migrants and those born out of wedlock or illegitimate
children where the foreigner mother (with Malaysian father) did not register their marriage as
well as non-Malaysian adopted children.
It is pertinent to note that Malaysia is not a state party to 1954 and 1961 conventions relating
to stateless, thus the protection against stateless children is in slow paced efforts. Even though
Malaysia has adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) which gives all
children the right to legal identity, regrettably Malaysia‟s constitution does not provide
significant safeguards against statelessness6
. This can be seen in Sabah state where stateless
children still lives in fear and faced hard time in accessing affordable education and
healthcare among other basic rights7
. Also in the case of foundlings who do not require
automatically nationality and decisions on citizenship that rest with one official the home
minister.
Concern with this long standing issue, numerous non-governmental bodies like SUHAKAM8
,
SUARAM9
called out for immediate solution so that this vulnerable group fundamental rights
5
(2018, October 1). UN expert urges Malaysia to do more on stateless children, underage marriage. FMT.
Retrieved October 2, 2018, from https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/10/01/un-
expert-urges-malaysia-to-do-more-on-stateless-children-underage-marriage/
6
Kate Mayberry, (2014, July 16). Malaysia's stateless children in legal limbo. Al Jazeera. Retrieved from
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/07/malaysia-stateless-children-legal-limbo-
20147149248312626.html
7
Augustin, R. (2018, April 17). How to reduce stateless numbers in Sabah. FMT.Retrieved from
https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/04/17/how-to-reduce-stateless-numbers-in-
sabah/
8
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) was established by Parliament under the Human
Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, Act 597.

7. 7
is being protected. One of the recommendations is granting nationality to every stateless child
in Sabah who has Malaysian parent, even if the other parent is foreigner and if the child is
born out of wedlock and effective laws on nationality.
The recommendation is supported internationally and evidently the solution to this issue is
giving nationality at birth. However, some countries including Malaysia reluctant to grant
nationality at birth on the ground of law and policies of the countries.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH
Based on the facts given above, it is clear that stateless children are an unsettled issue. Thus,
the primary objective of this research is to address stateless children issue in Malaysia as the
issue is arising silently to the extent that the United Nation has taken notice.
A further objective is to come out with solutions to handle the issue as well as comparing
this issue in other countries‟ circumstances. The solutions will be examine to accommodate
Malaysia surrounding.
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In addressing stateless children issue, it is proposed that research will be conducted based on
the following research questions:
 Who are the stateless children?
 How the children become stateless?
 What are the effects the stateless children had to endure?
 Whether currently there are solutions in handling this issue?
 Whether the existing laws in Malaysia are adequate to curb the issue?
 How the others developing countries fixed this issue?
 What is the best solution for Malaysia to conform based on Malaysia circumstances to
reduce stateless children issue?
9
SUARAM is an independent and a human rights organization which is not linked to any other agencies. Their
mandate is enshrined in the Malaysian Human Rights Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
SUARAM’s main objective is the protection and realization of human rights in Malaysia.

8. 8
1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research methodology for this research is comparative and social legal research.
Comparative means there is element of comparison in the research. This methodology is
important in order to identify the good practice among selected compared countries relating
to the issue of statelessness. For instance one of the criteria to be compared is the legal
framework of those countries.
Whereas social legal research can be refer as research that encompasses social elements. The
issue of children statelessness involved in social research. Thus legal research must be
combined with social science to produce effective solutions for this issue.
The research methods will be based on a mixture of desktop study and field work. The
desktop study will involve literature review from the following sources; library research,
official government reports and other related documents, inter alia international conventions,
case studies and the like. Reference will also be made to relevant internet sources and dates
when the information was accessed will be indicated.
The field work is to interview Malaysia‟s authorities such as National Registration
Department (NRD) and prominent children advocate together with citizen particularly
stateless person in this issue.
1.5 LITERATURE REVIEW
There are many literatures written on this particular matter be it upon newspaper articles,
working papers and so on. These literatures discuss primarily on the issues pertaining
stateless person, ways to reduce statelessness and others related issues.
However, the existing literatures may have not discussed comprehensively on statelessness of
children in Malaysia. Hence, this research proposal will research, examine and conduct
comparative study in this humanitarian issue.

9. 9
According to Tracey Gurd and Sebastian Kohn in their article for Open Society Foundation,
stateless children are exposed to multiple deprivations of rights caused by a lack of
nationality. Their stateless status means they have no legal personality and have no voice to
influence the society they live in. The basic rights such as nationality, education and
healthcare are being denied. The authors provides several examples and surprisingly one of
them are Malaysia stateless children particularly stateless children of Indian, Filipino or
Indonesian descent in Selangor and Sabah whom been denied to basic education in state
schools. The situation occurs when in a child birth certificate has foreigner written on it or
absence of child birth certificate, the child is unable to enroll in any Malaysia state schools.10
.
Similarly Malaysia is given as example in article written by Nancy Jane, Children and Their
Search for Home; what it means to be stateless in the 21st
century in regards to Rohingya
stateless children11
.
The facts laid down in the report by Child Right Coalition Malaysia confirmed the article
above where many children from the group of refugee, irregular migrant, stateless and
asylum seeking communities do not have access to formal education. These groups are often
at risk in entering into informal workforce at a young age. Once there, their lack of
documentation and legal status means that they are without any recourse in the event of
unfair treatment, abuse, violence or injury in the workplace. The non-governmental bodies
also provide that there are no accurate or reliable figures on the number of stateless persons,
much less the number of stateless children. The report criticized that the protections offered
by Article 14(1)(b) Part II (1)(e) Second Schedule of Federal Constitution have not been
extended to many children who are stateless or at risk of statelessness in Malaysia despite the
article has been cited as model legislation to prevent statelessness issue. Those stateless
children are namely children born out of wedlock, abandoned children placed at government
welfare homes, children of Indian descent, Filipino and Indonesian descent in Sabah, Bajau
Laut children as well as Rohingya and Palestine refugees children.12
Each of the stateless children group listed above caught the attention of several authors. For
example, in regards to Filipino and Indonesia descent children in Sabah, an Associate
10
Tracey Gurd and Sebastian Kohn, “Children’s Right to Nationality”, Open Society Justice Initiative, (n.d)
http://www.justiceinitiative.org
11
Nancy Jane, “Children and Their Search for Home; what it means to be stateless in the 21
st
century”, (Thesis,
Harvard University, July 2012)
12
Child Right Coalition Malaysia, “Status Report on Children’s Right in Malaysia”, report paper, December 2012

10. 10
Professor, Department of Anthropology, and London School of Economics, Catherine
Allerton address the issue in her article entitled Statelessness and the Lives of the Children of
Migrants in Sabah, East Malaysia. She conducted her ethnographic fieldwork research in
Sabah, Malaysia in August 2012 until August 2013. She found that the lives of these
stateless children are different from what had been portrayed worldwide which is an image of
forlorn hopelessness.
The author stressed out that her article aims to highlight the difference between legal and
effective statelessness as well as the children hopes for the nationality of their choice. She
found that in Sabah, children thought to be at risk of statelessness have factual links with
Malaysia (as their country of residence and - in the vast majority of cases - of birth) and with
at least one other country (usually Indonesia or the Philippines, from where their parents or
grandparents originated). Therefore, in the case of children born in Sabah but considered
„foreign‟ by the Malaysian authorities, the key question is whether or not they would be
considered nationals by Indonesia or the Philippines13
.
On the other hand, an article journal written by Dina Imam Supaat specifically focuses the
discussion towards refugee‟s children under Malaysian legal framework. The author claimed
that in Malaysia the children stateless issue is insufficiently address14
. The issues also have
been illustrated in the article Migration and Statelessness: Turning the Spotlight in Malaysia
by Rodziana Razali and several authors15
. The authors highlighted the challenges in
overcoming Malaysian statelessness issue such as the jus sanguinis principle in Malaysian
constitution and suggested sufficient level of political will combined with inclusive strategies
and support from all particularly the Government.
Further, Michael Foster in his international article refugee law, Statelessness as a Human
Rights Issue: A Concept Whose Time Has Come; categorized the key challenges to
statelessness issue into three concepts which are factual, institutional and
jurisprudential/doctrinal. According to him, the first two concepts which is acquisition of
13
Catherine Allerton, “Statelessness and the Lives of the Children of Migrants in Sabah, East Malaysia.”,
Tilburg Law Review 19 (2014) 26-34
14
Dina Imam Supaat, “ Refugees Children under Malaysian Legal Framework”, UUM Journal of Legal Studies,
ISSN: 2229-984 X, vol. 4, 2014, pp. 118-148.
15
Rodziana Mohamed Razali and et al, “Migration and Statelessness: Turning the Spotlight in Malaysia”,
Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities , August 2015

11. 11
nationality and right against deprivation of nationality have been developed. Nonetheless on-
going challenges had been noted16
.
An example of intuitional and jurisprudential challenges can be seen in Malaysia situation
where according to lawyer Raymond Mah and Chloe Lim Yen Hwa in their article Malayan
Law Journal, Citizenship for Adopted Children –Malaysian Perspective; the nationality of
adopted children in Malaysia has been determined arbitrarily by the National Registration
Department ('NRD') in the exercise of its administrative function of registering orders granted
by the Malaysian courts. Refusal of NRD to grant citizenship to the adopted children resulted
in increased number of stateless children in Malaysia17
.
In order to resolve stateless children issue, UNHCR recommends Government of Malaysia
accede to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Both instruments are created by
UNHCR to tackle stateless issue. For instance, wherever a person would be left stateless,
States can prevent new cases of statelessness from arising by applying the safeguards
elaborated in the 1961 Convention.
It should be noted that the 1961 Convention‟s provisions are, however, similarly relevant to
the task of reducing statelessness. It does this in two ways. First, prevention of statelessness
leads to a reduction of statelessness over time. Second, when bringing their domestic
legislation into line with the safeguards detailed in the 1961 Convention in order to prevent
future statelessness, States are encouraged to also use this opportunity to reduce statelessness.
For example, States may apply newly introduced safeguards retroactively and accordingly
allow for acquisition of nationality by stateless people18
.
Ileen Verbeek in his working paper for European Network on Statelessness, had analyzed
European countries nationality law and classified them into good practice to countries falling
short in comparison to international standards. There are about sixteen countries grant
automatic nationalities at birth such as Greece. This optimal method ensures nationality for
16
Michael Foster,” Statelessness as a Human Rights Issue: A Concept Whose Time Has Come”, Int J Refugee
Law (2016) 28 (4): 564
17
Raymond Mah and Chloe Lim Yen Hwa, “, Citizenship for Adopted Children –Malaysian Perspective”, *2013+
1 MLJ xiii
18
UNHCR, “UNHCR Malaysia Report”, (n.d)

12. 12
all the children born in the country without even the shortest period of being without
citizenship19
.
In addition, Daniela Heerdt in his master thesis made a comparative analysis of selected
countries according to four categories which is one, the legal system, second the level
population of stateless children, third European membership and fourth ratification of
legislation in regards to statelessness. It was found that Spain a common law country had the
lowest number of stateless children. Spain also did not ratify the two most relevant
Conventions, namely the UN 1961 Convention and the Council of Europe 1997 Convention.
It is even more surprising that the Spanish laws on acquisition of nationality perform very
well with regard to the created standard on the prevention of childhood statelessness20
.
To conclude, the existing literature reviews does not examine particularly Malaysian stateless
children at a whole. Some of the literature reviews had conducted a comparison confined to
European countries only. This research on the otherhand will comparatively analyze Malaysia
circumstances together with legal framework and aim to provide solution in order to reduce
Malaysian invisible children issue. Having in mind that Malaysia should be an example
country as Malaysia has a long standing humanitarian commitment and there is significant
need to adhere UNHCR suggestion which Malaysia have to strengthen its national legal
framework. This is to reduce and prevent statelessness in the future, through closing gaps that
exist in nationality law that can cause statelessness and becoming a party to the instruments
provided by UNHCR in regards to the issue.
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH
1.6.1 Contribution to knowledge
This study shall increase research area on children rights particularly children
nationality in Malaysia. There are several circumstances that render the children to be
stateless in Malaysia. The percentage of stateless children in Malaysia or known as
19
Ileen Verbeek, “A comparative study of safeguards to ensure the right to a nationality for children born in
Europe”, European Network on Statelessness,(working paper 01/16)
20
Danieal Heert,” A Child Rights-Based Approach to the Prevention of Childhood Statelessness in Europe”,
(Thesis, LLM International and European Public Law, Tilburg University)

13. 13
invisible children is “quite striking according to UNHCR given that Malaysian
population just 29 million21
. Thus, this study may enhance the accessibility of
information in Malaysia in regards to stateless children issue.
1.6.2 Society
Stateless children in Malaysia are a prolonged issue. Children in Malaysia becoming
stateless on the ground that those born out of wedlock or illegitimate children,
foundlings, refugees or migrants children, children across the sea in Borneo. Others
from remote communities in the Peninsula‟s rural are and still more from Indians
ethnics whose are battling to prove they are Malaysian. This study will create
awareness among society regarding the unsettled and need attention and support from
society by giving help and push the authority in order to accelerate the move to reduce
this humanitarian issue.
1.6.3 Malaysian population growth and economy
In the event of granting nationality to invisible children, children population growth
will be rapidly increased. Nevertheless, Malaysian will be known as country that
protect and guarantee children rights. Economy will also be affected positively and
negatively. Positively where a growing population will result to a higher workforce in
the future whereas negatively having a large population could lead to high
unemployment.
CHAPTER TWO: STATELESS CHILDREN IN MALAYSIA
2.1. BACKGROUND OF STATELESS CHILDREN
2.1.1 DEFINITION OF STATELESS CHILDREN
Generally the term stateless means a person who is not considered as a citizen by any
state under its laws according to Article 1 of the 1954 UN Convention relating to the
status of Stateless Person. The status of stateless is contradicting the children‟s
21
Supra, 9

14. 14
rights22
and had been detailed out in the convention as their rights to education,
healthcare; nationality and children‟s protection by the authorities had been denied.
2.1.2 EMERGENCE OF STATELESS CHILDREN
In Malaysia, the emergence of stateless children can be classified into a number of
groups based on the report produced by non-governmental bodies. Firstly, the group
of refugee, asylum-seekers, and immigrants. Historically in Malaysia, the first one
that seek refuge is the Indochinese and the Cambodians (1970s to 1990s) and the
Filipinos from the Southern Philippines (1975 until today). Also currently seeking
sanctuary in the country are children from Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka,
Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, Rohingya and Palestinian children. The reason these
groups migrated to Malaysia with their families is to escape from various forms of
violations of human right, wars, political conflict and others. As the country has a vast
experience in hosting large number of refugees in decades, the number are still
increasing23
.
Secondly, children born out of wedlock and the abandoned children living in welfare
homes. These two groups sometimes related for instance a child born out of wedlock
been dumped and this child will be brought to welfare homes. It is so unfortunate if
the baby been dumped without any identity documentation. This will render the child
stateless. Children born out of wedlock acquire the mother citizenship status. Given
an example, children from unmarried Malaysian father and non-Malaysian mother are
considered as non-citizen. Whereas the abandoned children living in welfare homes
that been issued with birth certificate written “bukan warganegara”(non-citizen) will
have to apply for green identity card for temporary residents and persons of
undetermined citizenship. There had been cases where these children are been
released without been determined their citizenship as they unable to renew their green
identity or obtain Malaysia citizenship due to complexity of National Registration
Department bureaucracy process.
22
United Nations’ Convention of the Rights of the Child’s (CRC)
23
Supra, 14

15. 15
Thirdly the Indian descent in rural area, Filipino and Indonesia as well as Bajau Laut
descent in Borneo state. Children of Indian descent are at high risk of statelessness
mostly due to absence of birth certificate. Reasons for not possessing such
documentation include a lack of knowledge of the importance of legal documents;
administrative or procedural problems in obtaining such documents; financial difficulties;
non-registration of the parents‟ marriage; the child being born out of wedlock; no proof of
birth; and the abandonment of the child without identification documents. Bajau Laut is a
sea-dwelling ethnic group who reside predominantly around the east coast of Sabah. To them
it is unimportant for documentation as their lifestyle is differed from the urban lifestyle. On
the other hand, Filipino and Indonesia descent emerged due to migration.
2.1.3 PERCENTAGE OF STATELESS CHILDREN IN MALAYSIA
The exact number of stateless children in Malaysia is unfortunately unknown
according to UNHCR. The Ministry of Home Affairs estimated around 300 000
stateless children in 2016. The increase in the number of stateless children every year
is worrisome to the extent that the issues raise concern numbered of non-
governmental bodies and even members of Parliament24
.
2.1.4 EFFECTS OF STATELESSNESS TO CHILDREN
Stateless children are exposed to deprivation of basic rights. Despite the fact that the
government acknowledges them by giving right to residency, these children are still in
vulnerable position before the legal authorities. They have to endure physical and
mentally impact throughout their existence.
One of the impacts to stateless children is healthcare. Research shown that are about
20 countries does not allowed the stateless children to be vaccinated25
. Even in
countries which allowed these children to be vaccinated, it is not under the
government but through non-governmental bodies. Obviously the poor group will not
24
Predeep Nambiar, “Stateless children outnumber population of Perlis, says DAP MP”, Free Malaysia Today, 6
July, 2017 https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/07/06/stateless-children-outnumber-
population-of-perlis-says-dap-mp/ (accessed 8 December, 2018).
25
Sarah Aird and et al,”Stateless Children Youth Who Are Without Citizenship”, Youth Advocate International
Program, 2002

16. 16
expand for this matter as for them the money is vital for food to survive instead of
healthcare.
Besides that, the children‟s right too education have also been denied. They are
prohibited to enroll in government school due to lack of documentation. This was
illustrated in the case of Saraswati s/o Murugesu an Indian descent family, living in
rural area whom are struggling in her child documentation for the purpose of
education26
. The case was highlighted by the non-governmental body Development of
Human Resources in Rural Areas (DHRRA) and through this NGO body help by
securing birth certificate for the children, the family misery has ended.
The NGO in their mission to enhance self-awareness and equip living skills among
vulnerable communities stated that the current situation faced are often stateless
children discontinue their studies due to expensive fee because of non-citizen rate.
The NGO express their concern and urge the government to come out solutions for
this issue.
Apart for that, stateless children right to residence and travel are restricted. They
constantly live in fear of being deported and evicted by authorities. They cannot
obtain passport without birth certificate. As a result, they never settled in any country
and live as alien in one country. They have no legal identity and their access to justice
as well as safety also limited. There are vulnerably exposed to gruesome crime like
trafficking, abduction, slavery and so forth.
To sum up, the impact of statelessness to children is appalling and distressful. The
government need to expedite the effort for this unsettled issue so that the children
living in Malaysia were protected fairly.
26
Malaysia in an article for the world stateless children compilation by Institute of Statelessness and Inclusion

17. 17
2.2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK
As statelessness is a global issue, there are numbers of international instruments in
handling this matter.
The well-known instruments are provided by United Nations which is Convention
Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons 1954 and the Convention on the Reduction
of Statelessness in 1961. Both instruments address statelessness issue around the
world.
According to Daniela Heerdt in his master thesis27
, the 1954 Convention includes no
provision that specifically relates to the prevention of childhood statelessness.
Nevertheless it is vital due to its general definition of statelessness in Article 1, which
can also be applies to statelessness among children even if it is not explicitly
mentioned:
“For the purpose of this Convention, the term „stateless person‟ means a
person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of
its law.
Besides this general definition, this Convention does not include any more provisions
that relate to the protection of children from becoming stateless. Conversely, the 1961
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness entails a number of detailed provisions
on the prevention of childhood statelessness. This is shown in Articles 1 to 3 mainly
apply to cases where a child is born within the territory of a state, Article 4 explicitly
deals with the situation where a child is born abroad.
Article 1 comprises five paragraphs dealing with how a child born on the territory of the
state can be granted nationality under certain conditions. Paragraph 1 obliges State parties
to “grant its nationality to a person in its territory who would otherwise be stateless”. This
is further specified in Article 1(1)(a)&(b), which states that nationality shall be granted at
27
Supra, 20

18. 18
birth, by operation of law or upon an application being lodged under certain conditions
that are expressed in paragraph 2.
There are four conditions in total stated at paragraph 2: lodging of the application during
a period “beginning not later than at the age of eighteen years and ending not later than at
the age of twenty-one years” (2)(a), habitual residence in the state‟s territory before the
application for not more than 5 years (2)(b), having no criminal records (2)(c), and the
permanent status of statelessness (2)(d). Even though this list of conditions is exhaustive
and states may not impose any conditions exceeding those mentioned, the existing
conditions can be criticized on different grounds.
Most of the signatories‟ parties are the European countries. It such a shame Malaysia
does not ratify both instruments ironically host a vast hosting place for refugees and
actively participate in humanitarian settings.
Even in UDHR, Article 15 spoke about every person has a right to nationality. In
addition, another interesting international instrument is Convention on Rights of the
Child (CRC). This instrument is the vital reference in regards to children matter. It
should be read together with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) where the instrument clearly stated in Article 24 that every child shall have right
to nationality.
“Every child shall have, without any discrimination […] the right to such
measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of
his family, society and State. Every child shall be registered immediately after
birth and shall have a name. Every child has the right to acquire a nationality.”
Regrettably again, this crucial instrument is not acceded by Malaysia on the ground
that the domestic law has to be changed in order to adopt this UN treaties.

19. 19
2.2 MALAYSIA LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Malaysia‟s Federal Constitution consists of a number of strong legal safeguard against
statelessness, reflecting the highest international standards for protection against
statelessness at birth. In Federal Constitution, Article 14 until Article 28 speaks about
citizenship.
Every person born in the country who is not born a citizen of any other country and
who does not acquire any other citizenship within a year of birth is a citizen of
Malaysia by operation of the law according to Article 14 of Federal Constitution. In
Second schedule, part II, section 1(a) explain children should be entitled to citizenship
when at the time of birth, the parents either a citizen or permanently resident in
Malaysia. On the other hand, Article 19 spells out acquisition of citizenship by
naturalization. In the case of citizenship for adopted children, the provision should be
read together with Section 9 and 25A of Adoption Act 192.
In reality, the ugly truth is that the mechanics of the safeguards spell out by the
constitution do not always prevent statelessness, as demonstrated in the majority of
litigated cases involving the stateless children28
. For instance, the children from non-
Malaysian mother or adopted children will have to face the risk of being statelessness
in Malaysia.
This is best exemplified in a 2010 unreported legal adoption case by a Malaysian
couple. The High Court considered the principle of the child‟s best interest and
granted a child born in Malaysia to unknown biological parents an automatic
acquisition of Malaysian citizenship. It rested on the interpretation that the child
concerned was a Malaysian citizen by virtue of having at least a parent who is a
Malaysian citizen under Article 14(1)(b), Section 1(a) of Part II of the Second
Schedule of the Federal Constitution, and that the child was proved to be born in the
country after Malaysia Day and not born a citizen of any other country under Section
1(e) of the same Part II of the Second Schedule. When read together with the relevant
provisions in the Adoption Act 1952 and the child‟s lawful adoption order, it held to
28
Bernama, “Federal Court grants final adjournment in hearing over stateless children”, New Straits Time, 30
August 2018

20. 20
carry the effect of granting citizenship by operation of law to the child. The fact of the
unknown biological parents was said to be an irrelevant consideration when the child
would be rendered stateless.
However, it was short term contentment as the other party, the government had
appealed. Most of the solicitors quite surprised with the act of the government in
appealing the court decision in regards to citizenship of the stateless children. Some
view that the constitutional provision of section 1(e) Second schedule, part II should
be read together with Section 2(3) of the same Schedule to makes it clear that
Malaysia-born children who do not obtain citizenship from any other country within a
year of their birth is a Malaysian citizen.
CHAPTER THREE: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED COUNTRIES ON
STATELESS CHILDREN ISSUE
3.1 SOUTH ASIA
3.1.1 Sri Lanka
According to UNHCR29
, Sri Lanka is one of the leading countries in reducing
stateless which include children through law or policy reform. Statelessness children
originated in Sri Lanka due to an agreement made by India and Sri Lanka. India
Tamils who acquired Indian citizenship were forcefully repatriated to India. This
agreement effected almost 500 000 Tamils Indian and was regarded as harsh to the
group particularly children30
. This group lives in the hill as they work in tea
plantation. After Ceylon (previously Sri Lanka) gained its independent, the 1948
Ceylon Citizenship Act and the 1949 Indian and Pakistani Residents Act were passed
yet both laws discriminated against the Hill Tamils.
In 1964 a censuses conducted estimated there were 168,000 Hill Tamils without
citizenship. Two agreements were made with India (in 1964 and 1974) to address
statelessness among the Hill Tamils. Under the agreements, Sri Lanka would grant
29
UNHCR Action Plan 1, Resolving Existing Major Situations of Statelessness
30
Rebecca Wolozin, “Citizenship Issues and Issuing Citizenship: A Case Study of Sri Lanka’s Citizenship Laws in a
Global Context,” (thesis, Harvard Law School, 2015)

21. 21
citizenship to 375,000 Hill Tamils, while India would grant citizenship to 600,000
members of the community and repatriate them. A total of 506,000 people applied for
Indian citizenship and 470,000 applied to become Sri Lankan citizens. However,
implementation of these agreements was slow and incomplete.
In 2003, a new law had been passed to resolve the statelessness issue of the Hill
Tamils. The act paved ways for those who qualified as Sri Lankan citizens to obtain
proof of this fact.
Thus Hill Tamils group who never possessed any citizenship documents could make a
“general declaration,” countersigned by a justice of the peace, as proof of their
citizenship, rather than go through the lengthy process of obtaining citizenship
certificates as prescribed by the 1988 Act. Hill Tamils who held Indian passports were
required to sign a “special declaration” affirming their will to voluntarily acquire Sri
Lankan citizenship, thereby renouncing any possible outstanding right to Indian
citizenship.
This was required because India prohibited dual nationality. These special
declarations were to be countersigned by the Commissioner for the Registration of
Persons of Indian Origin in Colombo and an acknowledgement of this approval
returned to the individual concerned.
The key of Sri Lanka success in reducing statelessness is the readiness of the Sri
Lankan Government to work with UNHCR and adopted the guidelines provided by
UNHCR. This can be seen in Sri Lanka efforts in collaborating with UNHCR as well
as Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC) in creating awareness, media outreach and even
open up mobile clinic to provide legal advice and collect application forms for the
government to process. The 10 days nationality campaign was successful in
processing, registering and providing documentation confirming the Sri Lankan
citizenship of 190,000 Hill Tamils.

22. 22
3.2 EUROPE
3.2.1 Finland
Finland stands out because of good practice as well. It explicitly offers safeguard to
children of parents who have refugee status or another form of protection against the
authorities of their State of nationality. The most important national legal instruments
concerning the prevention and reduction of statelessness are the Constitution and the
Nationality Act. The acquisition of Finnish nationality is regulated in the Nationality
Act. It is to a large extent based on the principle of jus sanguinis, complemented by a
few provisions reflecting the principle of jus soli31
.
For the protection of children, foundlings in Finland is considered a Finnish national
until it has been established that she or he is a national of another State. In order to
avoid a conditional nationality situation to continue indefinitely, the child will keep
the Finnish nationality after turning five years of age, regardless of what information
on nationality follows from that moment. This is in line with the provisions of 1961
Convention (Article 2) and the European Convention on Nationality (Article 6) and
the limitation of the possible loss of Finnish nationality only up to five years of age
can be regarded as exceeding the requirements of the Conventions.
This is shown in a 2012 judgment, Judgment KHO:2012:28104, the Supreme
Administrative Court considered the case of a child born in Finland of two foreign
parents of different nationalities and the right of Migri to determine the citizenship
status of the child in this case. The Court concluded that, even though it is not
explicitly mentioned in the Nationality Act or Decree, one of the aims of citizenship
status determination is prevention of statelessness, and the role of Migri in
determining citizenship status was critical to the prevention of statelessness in
situations where the nationality of a child born in Finland may be unclear.
The case of Finland shows that in addition to safeguards in nationality law, protection
against statelessness at birth requires effective implementation mechanisms. This
31
Anne Laakko, “ Mapping Statelessness in Finland”, UNHCR, https://www.statelessness.eu/blog/finland-
%E2%80%93-champion-making-addressing-statelessness

23. 23
includes a comprehensive system of population registration and nationality status
determination, so that doubtful cases may be referred for adjudication or judicial
review32
.
Another interesting part is Section 27 of the act which concerning adopted children.
While an adopted child who is under the age of 12 at the time of the adoption acquires
Finnish nationality automatically from her or his Finnish parent, an adopted child who
is above the age of 12 at the time of the adoption acquires Finnish nationality by
declaration if at least one parent is a Finnish national and the adoption is valid in
Finland.
Section 28 on the other hand, contains specific provisions for young persons for
acquisition of nationality by declaration. A person who has reached the age of 18 but
not 23 years may acquire Finnish nationality by declaration if she or he is and has
been permanently resident and domiciled in Finland for a minimum of 10 years in all,
with a minimum of two years without interruption before making the declaration, and
if she or he has not been sentenced to imprisonment.
Nevertheless, if the applicant was born in Finland, the required period of residence is
six years only. If the applicant has been permanently resident and domiciled in the
other Nordic countries before making the declaration, this residence is considered as
equivalent to residence in Finland, but only for the five years before the declaration
was made and only to the extent that the period of residence occurred before the age
of 16 years33
.
3.2.1 Ukraine
In Ukraine, a child of stateless parents who are resident in the country can acquire
citizenship even if the child is not born on Ukrainian territory. This is because
Ukraine ratified CRC, thus it is binding upon Ukraine gave the child right to
nationality, to be registered, and right to be known and care by the parents.
32
Supra, 29
33
Supra, 31

24. 24
Moreover, Ukrainian citizenship law 2001 in some situations allows for the automatic
acquisition of nationality, coexisting with the safeguard that already encompasses all
otherwise stateless children. This all-encompassing safeguard however is not
automatic, but follows from a request by the child‟s legal representatives and based on
territories, Article 8. The automatic acquisition of nationality relates, for example, to
children born to stateless parents, as long as the parents have lawful grounds to reside
on Ukrainian territory.
It is newsworthy fact that children born on the territory to at least one parent with
refugee status or asylum in Ukraine also benefit from the automatic safeguard if they
have not acquired another citizenship at birth via the parents.
Article 7 of the 2001 Law on Ukraine on Citizenship provides acquisition of
citizenship by birth which a combination of jus sanguinis and jus soli. The application
of jus soli is manifested in the event of stateless children; a person who was born in
Ukraine to foreigners, stateless person or foreigner and stateless person lawfully
residing in Ukraine who has not acquire by birth the citizenship of his parents or
citizenship of the parent who is a foreigner shall be deemed a citizen of Ukraine.
Jus sanguinis application can be seen in Ukrainian citizenship is granted at birth to a
child whose one parent or both parents at the time of the child‟s birth were citizens of
Ukraine regardless the place of the child birth.
It should be noted that, there is a slightly difference between Article 7 and Article 8
where Article 7 gives automatic acquisition of citizenship by birth following the need
of the parent‟s status and residence in Ukraine. Conversely in Article 8 the right to
acquire citizenship is through territorial origin and neither absence of ground for child
acquisition neither the status of parents nor the legality of their residence in Ukraine34
.
34
Krystena Kolesen, “ Tackling Childhood Statelessness in Ukraine”, June 2015

25. 25
3.2.3 Brazil
Citizenship matters in Brazil are regulated by the country‟s Constitution instead of
ordinary legislation. The chronological journey of Brazilian in fighting for
statelessness is diverting.
In Brazilian Constitution, the jus soli principle was enshrined by conferring Brazilian
nationality to all children born in Brazil. However, the rules regarding conferral of
Brazilian nationality through descent, pursuant to the jus sanguinis principle, Article
12 of the Brazilian Constitution 1994, which stipulated Brazilian nationality, could
only be conferred on a child born abroad to a Brazilian father or mother if the child
returned to reside in Brazil and applied for Brazilian nationality, have been amended.
As a result the 1994 Constitutional amendment, nearly 200,000 children of Brazilians
abroad were rendered stateless between 1994 and 2007. The negative effects of the
1994 Constitutional amendment were immediately felt in the Brazilian diaspora. The
children of some in this group were being born stateless, in some cases without any
possibility of acquiring travel documentation to enable them to go to Brazil to meet
the residency requirement for citizenship.
Members of the diaspora began to lobby politicians in Brasilia to urge reform. One
supporting Senator drafted a bill in 1999 to correct the shortcomings of the 1994
Constitutional Amendment. This bill was successfully passed in the Senate in 2000
and deposited before the Chamber of Deputies. Brazilians abroad began to rally
around the reform bill to advocate for its passage. Slowly, a strong diaspora
movement emerged.
Further, Brazilians living in Switzerland created a civil-society movement called
Brasileirinhos Apátridas,. Chapters of the movement were also established in Israel,
Japan, Germany, Portugal, France and Hungary as in all countries where children of
Brazilians born abroad were being rendered stateless as a result of the 1994
Constitutional amendment.

26. 26
Surprisingly the movement even created a website to serve as a clearinghouse for
information and advocacy strategies. A central element of the Brasileirinhos
Apátridas approach was to engage with the media, both in the countries of the
diaspora communities and in Brazil, to highlight the plight of the stateless children.
By 2006-2007, the movement had begun to organize demonstrations in front of
Brazilian consulates around the world to promote passage of the reform bill. The
demonstrations drew the attention members of Congress and media coverage.
Meanwhile, UNHCR lobbied for the Brazilian Congress‟s accession to the 1961
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
In 2007, the Brazilian Congress finally scheduled hearings and a vote on the bill,
which had been pending for seven years. These efforts paid off when the Brazilian
Congress passed the bill, which paved the way for the passage and promulgation of
Constitutional Amendment 54/07 on 20 September 2007 (the 2007 Constitutional
Amendment).
Latter within a month of the passage of the 2007 Constitutional Amendment Brazil
had acceded to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and at that
time Brazil already a party to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless
Persons.
A fact that should be highlighted that the led to the reformation and to Brazil‟s
accession to the 1961 Statelessness Convention was that it was in the country‟s own
interests. The reforms indirectly helped Brazilian living abroad and their offspring as
they have the opportunity to return and contribute their talents to their homeland‟s
globalizing society35
.
3.3 Comparative Summary
From the above countries stated above, few conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, it is not
impossible for state countries to reduce the number of stateless children by reforming
35
Supra 29

27. 27
the law. Brazil had made it possible through a number of reformations to their
constitution and indirectly efforts from the society. Secondly, automatic citizenship is
given to stateless children regardless the adherence to jus soli or jus sanguinis
principle. Ukraine law even combined both principles in order to cater stateless
children issue. Finally the similarities that can be identified between the fourth
countries is that the countries law are guided by the international instruments
particularly the 1954 and 1961 convention to reduce statelessness as well as CRC.
The countries have obligation to protect the children from being stateless. As a result
of the countries efforts, the numbers of stateless children in the countries are lesser
than any other countries that do not accede to the international instruments.
CHAPTER FOUR: WAYS FORWARD; REDUCING STATELESS CHILDREN IN
MALAYSIA
4.1 Governments Efforts
4.1.1 Reviewing Citizenship Clause in Federal Constitution
The provisions in Malaysian Federal Constitution in regards to citizenship are based on
jus sanguinis principle. The principle strictly confined to place of birth of the child proof
and of the legality of marriage on the part of the (biological) parents. To put it in a
simple way, the child must be born in Malaysia in a valid marriage in order to be eligible
for automatic citizenship at birth as stipulated in Article 14 of Federal Constitution.
The law on citizenship need to be modified to cater the stateless children issue
specifically for adopted children and foundlings as well as children born out of wedlock
by one of Malaysian parents. It is understandable that the law cannot simply grant
citizenship to a non-citizen. However this is because these vulnerable groups in Malaysia
should not be a contributor in the percentage of statelessness in Malaysia. It is suggested
that the law should be a combination of jus sanguinis and jus soli like Ukraine.
Albeit, some may claims that there is already one remedy is for the stateless children to
apply for citizenship under Article 15A Federal Constitution through applications for
citizenship by registration. This provision empowers the Home Minister to exercise his

28. 28
discretion in granting or rejecting applications for citizenship of persons below twenty-
one years of age, on the basis of „special circumstances‟.
But the procedure of acquiring Malaysian citizenship under this article appears to be
uncertain, as the phrase „special circumstances‟ is not defined anywhere in the law.
There is even no fixed timeframe for the application for citizenship to be resolved. The
consequence is that fate of the child concerned hangs in the balance pending the whole
application process and court proceedings that may ensue afterwards.
According to a well know family practitioner who expert in stateless children case, the
burden of proving statelessness is entirely placed on claimants applying for citizenship
for affected children, something that is extremely challenging in itself given the absence
of statelessness determination procedures or agreed procedures of discharging such
burden to the satisfaction of the law. Several decisions concur that all available legal
remedies must be explored before an application for citizenship on the basis of the
safeguard can be asserted36
.
Another criticism that should be highlighted, in adoption cases, is that the practise of the
authorities, NRD is to give permanent residence (PR) to the adopted children. This
practise is contrary to Section 9 of the Adoption Act 1952. The provision provided that
an adopted child is to be treated as though born to the adoptive parents in „lawful
wedlock‟ and Section 25A which provides that the birth certificate of the adopted child
should not contain the word „adopted‟ and by extension, the adopted child should have
the same citizenship status as his adoptive parents.
Further adopted children lawful “parents” would be the adoptive Malaysian parents,
owing to the Adoption Act 1952‟s Sections 25A(5) and (6) where the post-adoption birth
certificate which names the adoptive parents as the child‟s “parents” is to be used to
determine who the parents are. This problem resulted to statelessness of the children and
defeated the intent of Adoption Act 1952.
36
Supra, 17

29. 29
4.1.2 Diminishing Bureaucracy Process
One of the reasons Malaysian stateless children rate increase is because the reluctant of
National Registration Department (NRD) to grant citizenship to these children. The
demand of NRD is overly rigid and almost impossible to fulfil in the case of foundlings,
born out of wedlock as well as adoption children.
In adoption case, some practioners viewed that National Registration Department (NRD)
has wrongly applied the law with its current practice of only granting citizenship to
adopted children in two scenarios: if the biological parents are a married Malaysian
couple or if the biological mother is Malaysian but gave birth without being married.
This practice is without any legal basis and has unlawfully rendered stateless to many
adopted children whose biological mother is unknown or is non-Malaysian. The power
delegated to NRD should be reviewed and a detailed guideline should assist the
department in granting citizenship to stateless children.
Thus there is a need to come out with simple registration procedure and accessible to the
society in the case of rural area.
4.1.3 Acceding to International Instruments
Constitutionally the Federal Constitution does not require the Malaysian courts to take
judicial notice of the international human rights instruments. There have been cases
where Courts have adopted a liberal method of interpretation by making reference to the
position and significance of international law in many important cases.
Nonetheless, citizenship is sensitive area. It could be deemed ground-breaking for
treaties like CRC to be treated as a persuasive source of judicial interpretation of the
related constitutional provisions, for example, by having regard to the best interests of
the child principle in its Article 3(1) will uphold that every child has to have a nationality
and therefore shall not be rendered stateless.
In the event where ratification of the international instruments could attract more
problems, then other initiative should be taken. Evidently, Spain is one of the countries

30. 30
that does not ratify both conventions relating to statelessness but the rate of stateless
children in Spain is smaller compared to other state parties to the conventions37
.
In addition, the Committee on the Rights of the Child had recommended to the
Government of Malaysia to consider acceding to the 1954 Convention relating to the
Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness as
well as ICCPR. Accession by Malaysia to these international instruments would
supplement the existing framework to prevent and reduce statelessness and avoid the
detrimental effects of statelessness on these unprotected children.
Besides that children NGOs and activists played their role by pushing the government to
place the “best interests of the child” as the “primary consideration” in tackling the
statelessness children issue.
4.2 People‟s Awareness & Involvement in Children Documentation
Birth registration is a ticket to citizenship according to Unity Dow a Judge, or previously
human right activist from Botswana38
.
This illustrated that documentation is a vital process in determining the status of the
children. To reduce the number of stateless children, the people should also be partly
responsible in this endless struggle.
Thus it is suggested that a large-scale birth registration campaigns should be done such
what Sri Lanka had done, where the state even provide mobile clinic to accommodate the
rural area society, the Tamil Hills. Evidently, the practice of campaigning awareness of
registration improved greatly the situation for many stateless children.
In addition, Malaysia should also be a party to international endeavour which is the
Unregistered Children Project (UCP). It was founded by UNICEF, NGO Committee.
37
Supra, 20
38
Unity Dow, “Birth Registration: The First Right”, Civil Commentary, The Progress of Nations 1998

31. 31
Ellen Mouravieef claimed that Malaysia had not responded to the project. It‟s too bad
Malaysia stay silent and not becoming a part of the project39
.
The project began in 1998, where the NGO Committee partnered with PLAN
International, an international child-focused development organization with programs in
developing countries. The UCP works to strengthen birth registration practices in Asia.
Launching the program in Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia, the UCP assessed
registration practices in each country and held national workshops bringing together
government authorities, civil registrars, community-based organizations, and local and
international nongovernmental organizations.
Apart from that, public awareness can be created through variety platform. Obviously as
today the generation is tech-savvy, thus the medium masses played main role such as
announcement of mobilisation of birth registration. Other initiative that can be done or
instance in Philippines, the government improve public awareness by declaring each
February Civil Registration Month40
. This is a good practise that can be followed so that
the society is well adverse in the importance of documentation to children.
39
Ellen Mouravieef, “The Significance of Birth Certificate in Today’s World”, Main IFSW Representative at UN
40
Supra, 38

32. 32
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
From the study above, it can be concluded that there are number of possible ways in
handling the issue of stateless children in Malaysia. It is a fact that registering
children at birth is the most simple and direct action necessary to determine the
citizenship. Yet, birth registration, while fundamentally important to ensuring
children‟s rights to nationality, still does not protect few groups of children that at a
later point in life for myriad becoming stateless such as adopted children in Malaysia.
Therefore, through sufficient level of political will or strengthening legal framework
and combined with comprehensive plans as well as constantly support from the
communities are needed in order to achieve the goal of reducing stateless issue in
Malaysia. By comparing with other countries efforts, Malaysia should follow the
good practice that had been done by other countries to overcome this humanitarian
issue. The thing is, there is already good example set around the world, Malaysia just
need to be alert and come out with a solutions. Some may view that statelessness in
Malaysia is not a severe issue to be review. But then, one should know that, minor
issue that is overlook will become a major issue later, an ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure.

33. 33
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Anne Laakko, “ Mapping Statelessness in Finland”, UNHCR,
https://www.statelessness.eu/blog/finland-%E2%80%93-champion-making-
addressing-statelessness
 Catherine Allerton, “Statelessness and the Lives of the Children of Migrants in Sabah,
East Malaysia.”, Tilburg Law Review 19 (2014) 26-34
 Child Right Coalition Malaysia, “Status Report on Children‟s Right in Malaysia”,
report paper, December 2012
 Dina Imam Supaat, “Refugees Children under Malaysian Legal Framework”, UUM
Journal of Legal Studies, ISSN: 2229-984 X, vol. 4, 2014, pp. 118-148.
 Ellen Mouravieef, “The Significance of Birth Certificate in Today‟s World”, Main
IFSW Representative at UN
 Ileen Verbeek, “A Comparative Study of Safeguards To Ensure The Right To A
Nationality For Children Born In Europe”, European Network on
Statelessness,(working paper 01/16)
 Krystena Kolesen, “ Tackling Childhood Statelessness in Ukraine”, June 2015
 Michael Foster,” Statelessness as a Human Rights Issue: A Concept Whose Time Has
Come”, Int J Refugee Law (2016) 28 (4): 564
 Mr Roland Schärer, Promoting Acquisition Of Citizenship : As A Means To Reduce
Statelessness, 18 October 2016
 Nancy Jane, “Children and Their Search for Home; what it means to be stateless in
the 21st
century”, (Thesis, Harvard University, July 2012)
 Olivier Willem Vonk and et al, “Protection Against Statelessness: Trends And
Regulations In Europe”, European University Institute, May 2013
 Raymond Mah and Chloe Lim Yen Hwa, “, Citizenship for Adopted Children –
Malaysian Perspective”, [2013] 1 MLJ xiii
 Rebecca Wolozin, “Citizenship Issues and Issuing Citizenship: A Case Study of Sri
Lanka‟s Citizenship Laws in a Global Context,” (thesis, Harvard Law School, 2015)
 Rodziana Mohamed Razali, “Addressing Statelessness in Malaysia: New Hope and
Remaining Challenges” (Working paper No. No. 2017/9). Institute on Statelessness
and Inclusion, 2017

34. 34
 Rodziana Mohamed Razali and et al, “Migration and Statelessness: Turning the
Spotlight in Malaysia”, Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities , August
2015
 Sarah Aird and et al,”Stateless Children Youth Who Are Without Citizenship”, Youth
Advocate International Program, 2002
 Tendayi Bloom,” Problematizing the Conventions on Statelessness”. Policy Report
No. 02/01. Barcelona: United Nations University Institute on Globalization, Culture
and Mobility (UNU-GCM), 2013.
 Tracey Gurd and Sebastian Kohn, “Children‟s Right to Nationality”, Open Society
Justice Initiative, (n.d) http://www.justiceinitiative.org
 Unity Dow, “Birth Registration: The First Right”, Civil Commentary, The Progress of
Nations 1998
Copy protected with Online-PDF-No-Copy.com