Court of Appeal grants Malaysian citizenship to abandoned Klang teen, rejects Pahang woman’s appeal

KUALA LUMPUR, June 30 — The Court of Appeal in a 2-1 decision today ruled that a 17-year-old stateless girl, who was abandoned by her unknown biological mother a few days after being born in a clinic in Klang, Selangor, is a Malaysian and should be given a MyKad or Malaysian identity card.

But the Court of Appeal today unanimously decided that a 29-year-old stateless woman who was abandoned as a one-year-old baby at a bus stop in Pahang cannot automatically be a Malaysian, as she was not a “new born” child when she was abandoned.

Both the girl and the woman, identified by Malay Mail only as M and G for privacy purposes, were adopted by Malaysian couples, and have spent years without a Malaysian citizenship.

What the Klang girl (M) won in her citizenship case

Court of Appeal judges Datuk Faizah Jamaludin and Datuk Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz today decided that the girl M, who will turn 18 later this year, is automatically entitled to Malaysian citizenship under the Federal Constitution.

After reading out excerpts from their majority judgment in online court proceedings via Zoom, Faizah gave three court orders:

• A declaration that the child is a Malaysian citizen by operation of law (under the Federal Constitution’s three provisions: Article 14(1)(b), the Second Schedule’s Part II’s Section 1(a), the Second Schedule’s Part III’s Section 19B);
• For a new birth certificate to be issued, and for the girl to be registered as a Malaysian within 30 days of this court order;
• For a MyKad to be issued to the girl within 30 days after the new birth certificate is issued.

Klang girl won as facts showed she was abandoned as a new born child

Based on the facts, the adoptive Malaysian parents L and T had met a pregnant woman named B at a Klang clinic in 2008, and this woman had asked if they wanted to adopt her child after she gives birth as she could not afford to raise the child.  (They are identified by Malay Mail only as L, T, and B for privacy purposes.)

The Malaysian couple L and T was told in a phone call from B’s boyfriend months later that the woman was going into labour, and they drove B and her boyfriend to the clinic where the child was then born.

But a few days later when L and T returned to the clinic to visit B, the clinic’s nurse said B had ran away and abandoned the child, with the clinic unable to contact B as her phone number had been deactivated.

The adoptive father L declared that he and T were the child’s biological parents when registering her birth.

But the National Registration Department (NRD) found that this was false when M applied for a MyKad at age 12, as it noticed that she looked different from L.

L was later convicted of giving false information when registering M’s birth and when applying for her identity card.

On August 25, 2025, the High Court dismissed M’s citizenship bid, as it decided that M was not abandoned and that there was a “prior arrangement”, based on several facts.

The High Court judge had cited the adoptive parents’ previous contact and previous discussion with the biological mother B about adoption, and their role in taking B to the clinic, and the false registration.

But the Court of Appeal today disagreed with the High Court’s conclusion that the girl had not been abandoned, saying that the facts still show that the child was abandoned.

Faizah said that the false declaration was serious and cannot be condoned, but that it happened after the child had been left at the clinic and does not disprove abandonment: “It shows that [L and T] were not the biological parents. It does not show [B] did not leave the child behind after birth.”

Faizah also said the child can still be considered as abandoned even if there is prior contact: “A mother may have spoken to others about adoption and may still abandon the child by leaving the new born child at the place of birth without retaining parental responsibility and without leaving reliable particulars by which she may be identified or traced.”

In this case, the adoptive parents only knows the biological mother by the single name B, with her true name, identity, nationality, immigration and citizenship status not established.

The biological father’s identity, nationality and citizenship status are also unknown in this case.

Faizah said the fact that the adoptive parents brought B and her boyfriend to the clinic does not mean the child was not abandoned after birth, as it only explains how B came to the clinic.

Faizah noted that the adoptive parents said they had paid RM500 to the clinic for delivery costs and not as a payment for the child, adding that there was no evidence that any money was paid to B, the biological father or any intermediary for the child.

“On the evidence and surrounding circumstances, we, the majority, are satisfied that the child was abandoned,” she said, listing various facts such as B having left the child behind and being uncontactable and untraceable.

The Section 19B protection to prevent abandoned children from becoming stateless

Under Section 19B of the Federal Constitution’s Second Schedule’s Part III, a “new born child found exposed” or abandoned in Malaysia is presumed to have been born to a mother who is a permanent resident in Malaysia.

This would enable the Malaysia-born child to automatically be Malaysians, as they will then fulfil the Federal Constitution’s requirement under Article 14(1)(b) and Section 1(a) to have at least one parent who is either a Malaysian or a permanent resident.

Faizah concluded that Section 19B applies to the Klang-born girl’s case, and that the government had failed to rebut the Section 19B presumption that the girl’s biological mother is a permanent resident of Malaysia and also did not establish the biological mother’s true identity and nationality.

Ultimately, Faizah said this means the child has fulfilled the constitutional requirements to be a Malaysian citizen by operation of law under Article 14(1)(b) and Section 1(a). By operation of law means that M is a Malaysian because the law says so.

Faizah made it clear that adoption does not by itself result in a child being recognised as a Malaysian citizen under Article 14(1)(b) and that the court’s conclusion is based on Section 19B.

Court of Appeal judge Datuk Azhahari Kamal Ramli, who chaired the panel, disagreed with the two other judges and read out excerpts of his dissenting judgment.

M was represented by lawyer Eric Toh Kah Yung today, while senior federal counsel Syahriah Shapiee appeared for the government, the home minister and the NRD director-general.

Why did the Pahang woman (G) lose her citizenship case

G’s adoptive mother found her in 1997 as an abandoned child at around age one at a bus station in Pahang, and G’s citizenship application has been rejected thrice by the government (in 2012, 2014 and 2018).

When reading out the Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision to dismiss G’s citizenship bid, Faizah said the panel emphathised with her difficult circumstances but that the legal requirements for citizenship had not been fulfilled: 

“She was found abandoned as a young child. Her biological parents remain unknown. She has been cared for by Malaysian adoptive parents and has lived in Malaysia for substantially the whole of her life. Those circumstances explain the human context of the appeal. They cannot, however, displace the constitutional requirements for citizenship by operation of law.”

When explaining why the same Section 19B presumption for a “new born child found exposed” does not apply to G’s case, Faizah said the Court of Appeal does agree that she was “abandoned”, but the evidence showed she was not a “new born” child when she was found.

A medical doctor had examined G after she was found and estimated her to be about one year old, while a police report lodged two days later had stated G to be about one-and-a-half years old.

This means G did not fulfil the constitutional requirements under Article 14(1)(b) and Section 1(a) to be declared a Malaysian, the judge said.

As for alternative arguments by G’s lawyers, Faizah said the fact that the Malaysian adoptive parents had obtained an adoption order from court does not mean that G can be conferred Malaysian citizenship under Section 1(a), as it does not retrospectively make them her parents at the time she was born.

Faizah also said G cannot be declared a Malaysian citizen under Section 1(e) of the Federal Constitution’s Second Schedule’s Part II, as she has to show that she was not born a citizen of any country.

Faizah said the absence of evidence that G currently holds another citizenship is not proof that she was not born a citizen of any country, as past Court of Appeal decisions have also required proving whether a Malaysia-born person has acquired another country’s citizenship through their biological parents.

With G’s biological parents’ identity and citizenship status when she was born being unknown, the Court of Appeal said it is not possible to determine that she did not acquire another country’s citizenship when she was born.

G’s lawyers had previously argued that it would be unreasonable to expect G to be able to identify her unknown and untraceable biological parents’ nationality in order to determine if she even had a possibility of obtaining foreign citizenship due to her possibly having foreign parents.

When contacted by Malay Mail, G’s lawyer Mohd Haijan Omar confirmed that he has an instruction from his client to file an application for leave to appeal at the Federal Court.

Lawyer Asyraaf Abu Bakar Hamzah also represented G today, while federal counsel Safiyyah Omar represented the government and the others named in the court case.

These two cases today are part of a batch of six citizenship cases which the same Court of Appeal panel had heard together in one go on January 20.

Of the six cases, one of it was withdrawn as the citizenship applicant was found to have died earlier on, while M’s case today is the only successful one at the Court of Appeal.

Recommended reading:

• Lawyer tells court one-year-olds should be considered ‘new born’ to prevent statelessness  
• Abandoned as a child, Kedah man aged 52 back in court for Malaysian citizenship appeal; five adoptees also await their fates  
• ‘Impossible’ for Kedah man abandoned as child to find his birth parents, court hears in citizenship appeal  
• Kedah man dies before court can decide his Malaysian citizenship appeal, daughter shares struggles