Here's an perspective from one trained in the law --Constitution, from loyarburuk.com a good premise to start:)~~~~
Dual Nationality: The Queen’s Malaysians
Continuing his series on what we know or think we know about our Constitution, Andrew Yong looks at the question of dual nationality and the British connection.
Most of us Malaysians have some idea that the Malaysian Constitution prohibits dual nationality. After all, we are all taught in SPM History that the Reid Commission’s proposal that dual nationality be freely permitted was rejected by UMNO and its Alliance partners when the Merdeka Constitution was finalised.
But what few people know is that on this issue, the final result was actually a compromise between UMNO and the British Government.
Unlike the Malay States, which were nominally sovereign states under the “protection” of the British Crown, the Settlements of Penang and Malacca (like Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak) were British sovereign territory. Anyone born there was, in law, as British as someone born in London. In the run-up to Merdeka, the British Government was keen to reassure the “Queen’s Chinese” — English-educated Straits Chinese — and other groups in the Settlements that they had nothing to fear by joining an independent Malaya.
As late as 1956, there were even internal discussions about whether Penang and Malacca could remain at least nominally part of Her Majesty’s dominions, with governors appointed by the Agong in the name of the Queen.
So it was that after 31 August 1957, when the inhabitants of Penang and Malacca became citizens of independent Malaya, as part of the compromise they continued — uniquely among former British colonial subjects — to remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCs). By contrast, when Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak joined Malaysia, only those tied by blood or birth to the UK or remaining colonies were allowed to retain CUKC status.
The compromise reflected in Article 24 of the Constitution was that while Malayan CUKCs would not be required to renounce their UK citizenship in order to remain Federal citizens, they would stand to lose their Malayan citizenship if they applied for the citizenship of another country or claimed any rights exclusively available to citizens of that country and not to other Commonwealth citizens. This was specifically designed to preserve the rights of existing CUKCs, since UK law did not at the time distinguish in any way between CUKCs and the citizens of independent Commonwealth countries.
In 1962, after the UK first started to impose immigration controls on Commonwealth citizens, the Federal Constitution was amended to allow the Government to revoke the citizenship of any person who applied for a British passport (or the passport of any other country). But even without British passports, CUKCs and their offspring who became permanent residents by living in the UK for five years before 1 January 1983 were automatically exempt from UK immigration control. They, and any offspring born after 31 December 1982 are now classed as “British citizens,” and can obtain a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode in their Malaysian passports which entitles them to pass freely through UK immigration control. Right of abode, like permanent residency, is an immigration status enjoyed not just by British citizens but also by certain other Commonwealth citizens, and does not therefore fall under Article 24.
All other CUKCs who did not acquire the right of abode before that date are are now classified as “British Overseas citizens” (BOCs), and generally have no right to live and work in the UK. The Home Office estimates that there are still around 1.3 million Malaysians of all races, mainly of Penang/Malaccan origin, who hold British Overseas citizenship. Unfortunately, a recent phenomenon, encouraged perhaps by incompetent and unscrupulous English immigration lawyers, has been for some BOCs to make themselves effectively stateless by applying for BOC passports and renouncing their Malaysian citizenship, thereby gaining a British passport but losing the right to live anywhere.
The flowchart below should make the situation more clear for any Malaysian of Penang/Malaccan origin who is interested in this complex issue:
Click for full-sized image.
Andrew is a Penangite and a non-practising solicitor of the senior courts of England & Wales. There is no such thing as free legal advice, and any information you gain from this article is worth as much as you paid for it.
************************************
I sighted a foreign news report in NST yesterday which I wanted to reprise here for consideration, but after a few Googlings, I gave up, so here's next best:(~~~~ from tribune.com.pk:-UPDATEd extracting that NST report with just the header and first para by LONG HAND becos my sexcretary left the Midnight Voices show for The Voice -- off copurse the latter pays badder, and the other benefits you get to ogle at Christina Gorilla, Break Shelton, Adam divine & Shylo; if I got some sperrings wlong, xxcuse me, you hear my sec deserted me, right? Left or centre, you think I care?
You no rike it hear, GET THE HEAR OUT OF hell!
(((((((starts:)
Pakistan
cracks down
on MPs
with dual
nationality
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court is
demanding the nation's lawmakers
disclose whether they are also cit-
izens of other countries, a status that
could cost them their seats. Already,
around a dozen legislators on the
federa;and provincial levels have
been pushed out, and that might be
just the beginning.ends:)))))))
PS: Desi's lusty Q, canORknot?
You no rike it hear, GET THE HEAR OUT OF hell!
(((((((starts:)
Pakistan
cracks down
on MPs
with dual
nationality
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court is
demanding the nation's lawmakers
disclose whether they are also cit-
izens of other countries, a status that
could cost them their seats. Already,
around a dozen legislators on the
federa;and provincial levels have
been pushed out, and that might be
just the beginning.ends:)))))))
Dual nationality: ‘Country does not need half-Pakistanis as representatives’
LAHORE: Speaking on the issue of politicians holding dual nationalities Chief Election Commisisoner (CEC) Fakhruddin G Ebrahim said on Friday that the country needs “pure Pakistanis” as its representatives and that “half-Pakistanis” were not needed.
Ebrahim, speaking to the media in Lahore, said, “This is a defining moment for the country. If free and fair elections won’t be conducted then we won’t have the ‘new Pakistan’ that we want.”
He said that the only task that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has “from 5am to 12am” is to deliberate over how free and fair elections could be conducted. Ebrahim said that a lot of mistakes were made in the past and that it was time to improve.
“The ECP has summoned a meeting on October 9 to decide what to do on the issue of dual nationality. We were the first ones to disqualify parliamentarians, holding dual nationalities. Now that the Supreme Court is also looking into the matter, it has further strengthened this case. This matter if of high importance”
He said that the parliament “was upset” over how some politicians were disqualified for holding dual nationalities. “We sought information from some of them, but they refused to cooperate.”
Ebrahim expressed dissatisfaction over the media coverage done on the voters list and said that the media “misquoted figures”.
“The newspapers run stories saying that hundreds of thousands of voters’ name were not included in the voters’ list … I say, take at least one or two thousand names which you think are not there in the list to prove it.”
The CEC said that it was the responsibility of the election commission to compile voters’ list, however, the politicians, media, the civil society and voters were also responsible for it.
“If your name is not there in the list then you should get yourself registered, now that the process has become so simple and you can register yourself through your computerised national identity card.”
He also dispelled rumors about any intervention from the Presidency, saying that there never was and never will be any intervention from the Presidency.
Read more: dualnationality
DESIDERATA: I had once written about the case of MCA woman-leader now Tourism Minister Dr Ng Yen Yen appointed as Senator eon years ago -- has she become a dinosaur ah? -- WHEN SHE WAS STILL HOLDING AUSTRALIAN PERMANENT RESIDENCY. I held the view then, as I still do, that Yen2 SHOULD NOT be allowed to serve as a Parliamentarian through the backdoor into the Senate since her LOAYALTY TO MALYSIA was/is DIVIDED. Extrapoliting further, I also sold the view that an Aussie PR like Wong SuLong should NOT have been appointed by MCA's controlled organ, The STar, when after he lost his job at ABC in Australia, he came into The Star as Associate Editor, played his politics well, and a few years later, was gifted the highest editorial position at The Star, even jumping over olde newshounds, e.g PY CHIN who serrved the paper faithfully for more than two decades, BUT DIDN'T PLAY THE BODEKISM GAME well, IMHO-lah, can OR KNOT?!
Did I do something about it?
YES< like a dutiful citizen, I wrote to the then PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Pak Lah respectively noting them of my position. Hey, I said: Don't you think a post as Minister or Group Editor-in-Chief should NOT be holding another country's PR status; this would definitely give rise to CONFLICT OF INTERESTS SITUATIONS eg when Australia and Malaysia differ on international or regional security or trade issues!
I believe this same GEIC played his bodek card so well he even landed a Board membership on BUrsa Malaysia post-The STar. He got a handle called Latuk in front too -- does that add weight to thy soul ah, when the Warden at Heaven's/Hell's gates has to decide? What about a heavier weight like Tan Si- and Tooship? -- YL, Desi, knottyaSsusual
How many members of the 12th Malaysian Parliament -- Lower House and the Senate, Dewan Rakyat dan Dewan Negara -- are Malaysians who hold"dual nationality" PR in a foreign cuntry like Australia or United Kindom? Should Malaysia bar those Malaysians who hold such PR BE BARRED FROM HOLDING POSITIONS which can call into question their loyalty when causght in situations where there is CONFLICT OF INTERESTS?
No comments:
Post a Comment