Nik Nazmi admits collective responsibility for Cabinet decision on foundlings citizenship amendments
During a recent “Abang Adik” film screening - a tale of two brothers' hardship without the blue IC, questions were raised as to how such “regressive” move was agreed and approved by the Unity Government’s Cabinet line-up.
PETALING JAYA - Ahead of the much anticipated tabling of the citizenship law amendments that for decades, are seen as unfair and discriminatory against women, many are now questioning whether the elected Members of Parliament (MPs) should vote for or against it.
This follows the government’s decision to not only introduce the progressive change of automatic Malaysian citizenship to children born overseas to Malaysian women with foreign husbands but also its intention to introduce several "regressive" amendments.
There are five to be exact — which those opposing have argued would "remove protections against becoming stateless".
One of the amendment would be from citizenship by "operation of law" to citizenship by "registration", which would effect foundlings and abandoned children. They will no longer be entitled to automatic citizenship.
During a recent "Abang Adik" film screening - a tale of two brothers' hardship without the blue IC - organised by various civil society groups including Yayasan Chow Kit (YCK) and Lawyers of Liberty last month, questions were raised as to how such "regressive" move was agreed and approved by the unity government’s Cabinet line-up.
Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability Minister Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad who was present at the event, responded: "I am part of the Cabinet, and I take collective responsibility."
He went on to say that his colleagues were well aware of the issues raised but he could not comment any further as he could not speak on behalf of the other Cabinet ministers.
However, he assured that after a year since the amendments for the rights of mothers were announced, everyone has been trying their best to give the most progressive amendments possible.
Nik Nazmi added that it was the government’s desire to give the best for the people and that the Cabinet had discussed long and hard on the amendments.
The Setiawangsa MP joined nearly 400 people at the Golden Screen Cinema BIG hall at The Starling Mall including the film’s scriptwriter and director Lay Jin Ong.
The crowd stayed on for question and answer session with Lay, and later participated in a panel discussion with YCK co-founder Dr Hartini Zainudin, Laywers of Liberty executive Zaid Malek, Buku Jalanan Chow Kit co-founder Siti Rahayu Baharudin and Voice of the Children chairperson Sharmila Sekaran.
During the engagment session, Zaid urged the minister as well as other Cabinet members and MPs to demand a decoupling of the amendments before the amendments are tabled.
The law for mother’s rights should be passed, he said but hold back and do further research and discussion when it comes to the children.
On Dec 14, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said the Attorney-General’s Chambers was drafting the proposed amendments to the Federal Constitution regarding the citizenship rights of children born abroad as a result of the marriage of a Malaysian woman to a foreign spouse.
He had added that following the advice of the Conference of Rulers, the application of the law is forward-looking and not retrospective.
However, in November Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had already stated that Putrajaya had to incorporate the Conference of Rulers’ views on planned constitutional amendments that will affect citizenship.
He was quoted saying that his administration would explain the matter to MPs, some of whom have expressed disapproval over the bill.
He said that the proposed amendments had been presented to the Conference of Rulers: "There is a limit to what we can do. After the discussions, any constitutional amendment in the issue of citizenship must be cleared with the Conference of Rulers."
Click here to better understand five regressive amendments, according to the advocates, which they argue would “remove protections against becoming stateless” and eliminate the rights of the children.
