STATELESS  CHILDREN  IN  MALAYSIA  AND  THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  LEGITIMATE  EXPECTATION  

Dina Imam Supaat, PhD    Senior Lecturer,

Faculty of Syariah and Law, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia

KUALA  LUMPUR  INTERNATIONAL  BUSINESS,  ECONOMICS  AND  LAW  CONFERENCE  2015  

WHO?  

A  stateless  is  anyone  who  is  not  considered  a  naLonal  by  any  State  under  the  operaLon  of  its  law.  

De  jure  stateless  can  be  defined  as  those  who  are  not  regarded  as  naLonals  of  the  state  under  its  law.  

De   facto   stateless   people   are   those   who   are   unable   to   prove   their  ciLzenship   of   any   parLcular   state   despite   of   the   existence   of   valid  documentaLon  and  thus  being  denied  enjoyment  of  human  rights  and  protecLon  which  was  afforded  to  the  other  naLonals  of  the  state.    

HOW?  

Statelessness  can  happen:  

where  a  state  simply  cease  to  exist  while  the  people  fail  to  get  ciLzenship  in  their  successor  states;    

when  there  is  changes  in  ciLzenship  laws;    

when    individuals  renounce  one  naLonality  without  having  acquired  another;    

or  from  failure  to  register  a  child  at  birth  

FIGURES  

40,000  stateless  people  throughout  Malaysia    

More  than  40%  are  children  

Rohingyan  refugee  children  and  undocumented  children  of  Philippines  and  Indonesian  migrants.  

Small  number  of  children  of  the  Malaysian  plantaLon  labours    

IMPACT  OF  STATELESSNESS  

The  absence  of  the  legal  idenLty    

Denial  of  health  care     Illiteracy    

Poverty    Vulnerable  to  violence,  abuse  and  exploitaLon  

Subject  to  detenLon  and  deportaLon    

NegaLves  impacts  on  the  children  psychology  

LEGAL  PROTECTION  UNDER  INTERNATIONAL  LAWS  

Birth  RegistraLon     Healthcare     EducaLon    

Right  to  Life     Right  to  Social  Security    

Freedom  of  Thought,  

Conscience  and  Religion  

Freedom  of  Expression  and  Freedom  of  

Peaceful  Assembly    

MAIN  ISSUE  

The  domes)c  law  does  not  contain  any  protec)on  for  stateless  children  

Malaysia  ra)fied  the  UNCRC  that  provide  protec)on  to  all  children  without  discrimina)on.  

The  UNCRC  has  not  been  given  effect-­‐  no  enabling  act.  

Can  stateless  children  rely  on  the  principle  of  legi)mate  expecta)on  to  claim  their  rights  under  the  UNCRC?  

THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  LEGITIMATE  EXPECTATION    

Concerns  the  rela)onship  between  public  administra)on  and  the  individual.  

Expecta)ons  raised  as  a  result  of  administra)ve  conduct  may  have  legal  consequences.    

The  principle  therefore  concerns  the  degree  to  which  an  individual’s  expecta)ons  may  be  safeguarded  in  the  face  of  a  change  of  policy  which  tends  to  undermine  them  

ORIGINS  OF  THE  PHRASE    Lord  Denning  M.R.  in  Schmidt  v  Secretary  of  State  for  Home  Affairs  [1969]  2  Ch.  149.    Two  US  ci)zens  travelled  to  the  United  Kingdom  for  study  purposes.  The  )me  limit  on  their  permits  had  expired  and  an  extension  had  been  refused  by  the  Home  Secretary  without  affording  them  a  hearing.  The  Court  of  Appeal  held  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  allow  the  applicants  an  opportunity  to  make  representa)ons.  A  hearing  would  have  to  take  place  only  where  a  person  had  some  right  or  interest  or,  Lord  Denning  added,  “some  legi7mate  expecta7on,  of  which  it  would  not  be  fair  to  deprive  him  without  hearing  what  he  has  to  say”.    Such  a  legi)mate  expecta)on  would  arise,  Lord  Denning  con)nued,  if  the  applicants’  permits  had  been  revoked  before  the  )me  limit  had  expired.  In  such  a  case  the  applicant  “ought,  I  think,  to  be  given  an  opportunity  of  making  representa)on;  for  he  would  have  a  legi)mate  expecta)on  of  being  allowed  to  stay  for  the  permi[ed  )me”.  

JP  Berthelsen  v  Director  General  of  Immigra9on,  Malaysia  &  Ors.  [1987]  1  MLJ  134  

•  The   decision   to   cancel   the   permit   was   an   execu)ve  discre)on  which  as   far   as  merit   is   concerned   remains  outside  the  purview  of  the  courts.    

•  While   this   discre)on   is   one   for   the   execu)ve,   it  remains  discre)on  to  be  exercised  according  to  law.    

•  Fundamental   in   this   respect   is   the   opera)on   of   the  rules  of  natural   jus)ce,  and  they   include  the  common  law   procedural   safeguards:   the   doctrine   of   legi)mate  expecta)on  and  the  duty  to  act  fairly  

Minister  of  State  for  Immigra7on  and  Ethnic  Affairs  v.  Teoh  (1995)  128  A.  L.  R.  353.    

The   noteworthy   ground   of   Teoh’s   judgment   that  significant   to  be  discussed  of   in   this   research   is   that   the  Australia's   ra)fica)on,   in   1990,   of   the   United   Na)ons  Conven)on   on   the   Rights   of   the   Child   (1989)   had   given  rise   to   a   legi)mate   expecta)on   in   the   respondent’s  children   that  his   applica)on   for   resident   status  must  be  considered   in   a   manner   that   was   consistent   with   the  terms  of  the  Conven)on.    The  judge  in  delivering  his  judgment  point  out  that  in  the  absence  of  any   statutory  or  execu)ve   indica)ons   to   the  contrary,   the   mere   act   of   ra)fica)on   was   an   adequate  founda)on  for  a  legi)mate  expecta)on.    

WHAT  ARE  THE  ELEMENTS  RENDERING  EXPECTATIONS  TO  BE  LEGITIMATE  OR  REASONABLE?    

A  regular  course  of  conduct  which  has  not  been  altered  by  the  adop)on  of  a  new  policy;  

Express  or  implied  assurances  made  clearly  on  behalf  of  the  decision-­‐making  authority  within  the  limits  of  the  power  exercised;  

The  possible  consequences  or  effects  of  the  expecta)on  being  defeated,  especially  where  those  consequences  include  economic  loss  and  damage  to  reputa)on,  providing  that  the  severity  of  the  consequences  are  a  func)on  of  jus)fied  reliance  generated  from  substan)al  con)nuity  in  the  possession  of  the  benefit  or  a  failure  to  be  told  that  renewal  cannot  be  expected;  and    

The  sa)sfac)on  of  statutory  criteria.  

The  expecta)on  by   the   stateless   children   in  Malaysia  of  their   en)tlement   to   the   similar   rights   and   protec)ons  afforded   children   who   are   ci)zens   is   reasonable   and  legi)mate   as   it   falls   within   the   second   limb   of   the   four  principal  elements:    Express  or   implied  assurances  made  clearly  on  behalf  of  the  decision-­‐making  authority  within  the  limits  of  the  power  exercised.    

Therefore   by   ra)fying   the   CRC,   the   Malaysian  government  has  made  a  posi)ve  statement  to  the  world  at   large   that   the  execu)ve  government  and   its  agencies  will   act   in   accordance   with   the   Conven)on   and   thus  render   the   appropriate   protec)on   to   those   stateless  children.    

SCOPE  OF  PROTECTION  UNDER  THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  LEGITIMATE  EXPECTATION  

Where  there  is  no  legal  right  being  taken  away  but  a  legiLmate  expectaLon  that  a  certain  state  of  affairs  will  conLnue  (or  perhaps  will  occur  for  the  first  Lme)  and  it  does  not,  there  may  sLll  be  a  right  to  be  heard  before  that  decision  is  taken.  

Where  there  would  not  normally  be  a  free-­‐standing  right  to  be  heard  under  (a)  above  because  no  legiLmate  expectaLon  is  taken  away,  but  a  legiLmate  expectaLon  of  being  heard  is  created  by  a  promise  or  pracLce  of  being  heard.  

A  legiLmate  expectaLon  which  does  not  give  rise  to  a  right  to  be  heard.  It  generates  a  right  to  substanLve  fairness,  not  procedural  fairness.    

The  third  species  of  legiLmate  expectaLon  needs  to  be  used  with  most  care.   Several   guidelines   need   to   be   adhered   to   as   the   principle  generates  a  right  to  substanLve  fairness.    

There  should  be  such  unfairness  as  to  amount  to  an  abuse  of  power.  If  a   statement   has   created   a   legiLmate   expectaLon   that   a   certain  decision  will  be  taken  or  that  it  will  be  taken  on  the  assumpLon  that  a  certain   fact   is   true,   it   will   oken   be   unfair   and   an   abuse   of   power   to  resile  from  it.  The  court  will  impose  the  requirement  of  fairness  on  the  public  body  concerned.    

The  elements  giving   rise   to  a   legiLmate  expectaLon  must  be  present.  The  main  elements  are  that  the  body  concerned  made  a  representaLon  which   was   clear,   unambiguous   and   devoid   of   relevant   qualificaLon;  that  the  applicant  was  within  the  class  of  people  to  whom  it  was  made  or  that  it  was  otherwise  reasonable  for  him  or  her  to  rely  on  it  and  that  the  representee  relied  on  it  to  his  or  her  detriment.  

The   representaLon   must   be   made   only   those   people   who   have   authority  (either   actual   or   ostensible)   in   accordance   with   the   law   of   agency   to  make  such  representaLons.  However,  the  courts  may  take  the  simpler  and  perhaps  more   just   view   that   if   the   applicant   acted   reasonably   in   relying   on   a  representaLon  because  the  person  was  senior  enough  and  came  into  contact  with  the  public  and  so  might  be  expected  to  make  such  representaLon  that  is  sufficient  to  trigger  the  legiLmate  expectaLon.    

The   legiLmate  expectaLon  has   to  be   saLsfied  by   the  public  body   concerned  unless  an  overriding   interest   jusLfies  departure   from   it.   It   is   for   the  court   to  decide   whether   there   is   an   overriding   reason   for   frustraLng   the   legiLmate  expectaLon.   This   is   because   the   key   principle   here   is   that   of   fairness.   The  raLonal   pursuit   of   a   public   interest   may   nevertheless   be   so   unfair   to   an  individual  as  to  amount  to  an  abuse  of  power.  At  that  point  the  courts  should  step  in  to  prevent  such  abuse.  

A   legiLmate  expectaLon  cannot  operate  to  prevent  a   lawful  change  of  policy.  The  only  legiLmate  expectaLon  is  that  the  applicant  will  be  treated  in  the  light  of  the  policy  as  it  happens  to  be  from  Lme  to  Lme.    

Birth  RegistraLon  

Healthcare  Services  

Equal  Access  To  Quality  EducaLon  

No  DetenLon