KUALA LUMPUR: Semporna member of parliament Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal has questioned whether the governors of Sabah and Sarawak had given their consent for the proposed constitutional amendments regarding citizenship.
This, he said, was as consent is required under Article 161E(2) of the Federal Constitution when it comes to any amendments concerning citizenship.
"No amendment shall be made to the constitution without the concurrence of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of Sabah or Sarawak... that's in the constitution.
"In Malaysia, the supreme law is the constitution, not the cabinet or the executive. So, I would like to ask the (home) minister about the consent (from both governors)," the Parti Warisan president said when debating the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2024.
Shafie added that Warisan MPs had no issue supporting the amendment, but it needed to align with existing legislation.
"I don't want us to bypass the law."
Sahfie also expressed concern that a comparable situation might occur regarding the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
"I don't want, tomorrow, for the federal cabinet to decide to amend (MA63) without consultation with the state government or state assemblies," he said.
He said he raised the matter to improve parliamentary procedures and the drafting of laws.
Meanwhile, Cha Kee Chin (PH-Rasah) called on government to clearly define the required level of proficiency and understanding of Bahasa Melayu for an individual to be eligible for citizenship.
He said it was essential to guide those involved in the process, helping to ensure that no party is disadvantaged.
"I urge the government to specify the required proficiency level. In my view, even for admission to public universities, a credit in Malay is necessary.
"The expected level could involve basic communication within society. I request a clear explanation on this issue to ensure that no one is left at a disadvantage.
"We want to avoid having government officials apply different standards in various locations. It's important to establish guidelines for the proficiency level of our national language," he said.
Syahredzan Johan (PH-Bangi) sought assurances from the home minister that all current applications from children of Malaysian mothers married to foreign nationals will be resolved.
"I understand why this law is prospective and not retrospective. This means that if passed, it will only apply to those born after the amendment is made.
"However, with this amendment, I would like to get assurances from the home minister that all current applications from children of Malaysian mothers married to foreign nationals will be resolved.
"Secondly, the issue regarding the amendment to Article 26(2) has also been widely discussed. Yes, there is indeed a risk that if a wife obtains citizenship (by virtue of being married to a Malaysian) and then divorces, her citizenship may be revoked, leaving her stateless.
"I would like clarification on what steps the government is taking to ensure that non-citizen wives do not become stateless due to this amendment.
"And more importantly, I want the minister here, in this House, to be recorded in the Hansard that under Article 26B(2) of the Federal Constitution, no one shall be deprived of citizenship if it would render them stateless. This is important to state clearly."
Syerleena Abdul Rashid (PH-Bukit Bendera) said one of the concerning aspects is the proposal to eliminate automatic citizenship for children born to permanent residents in Malaysia.
"This step has the potential to worsen the issue of statelessness, a condition that has already stripped many children of their basic rights and identity.
"These children are among the most vulnerable in our society, facing a future filled with uncertainty and isolation. In this regard, I would like to respectfully pose an important question.
"What steps will be taken to ensure that these marginalised children who are stateless are not left without any protection? These are children born in Malaysia, who are fluent in Malay and only know the customs of the local culture.
"We also need to consider the issue of retrospective application. Although this bill is a positive step forward, children born after September 2001, for example, are still denied rights due to old laws that may be discriminatory.
"Applying this amendment retrospectively is not only aimed at correcting legal mistakes — it is about delivering justice that has been denied to these children."