足球博彩平台(www.hg108.vip):A ray of hope in Malaysia\u2019s Constitution

足球博彩平台www.hg108.vip)是一个开放皇冠即时比分、代理最新登录线路、会员最新登录线路、皇冠代理APP下载、皇冠会员APP下载、皇冠线路APP下载、皇冠电脑版下载、皇冠手机版下载的皇冠新现金网平台。足球博彩平台上登录线路最新、新2皇冠网址更新最快,足球博彩平台开放皇冠会员注册、皇冠代理开户等业务。

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.

,

ETH单双博彩www.eth108.vip)采用以太坊区块链高度哈希值作为统计数据,ETH单双博彩数据开源、公平、无任何作弊可能性。

,

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。

添加回复:

◎欢迎参与讨论,请在这里发表您的看法、交流您的观点。