Raised for 12 Years, Then Told He Was Stateless When Applying for a MyKad: Does Adoption Automatically Give a Child Malaysian Citizenship?

Imagine raising a child as your own for 12 years, only to discover when the child is preparing to apply for a MyKad that his citizenship status is uncertain and that he may even be treated as stateless. For a child who has grown up entirely in Malaysia, this can create serious difficulties affecting education, healthcare, employment, marriage and many other aspects of everyday life.

But if a child has been lawfully adopted through a court order and the adoptive parents are Malaysian citizens, does that automatically make the child a Malaysian citizen? This case demonstrates why the answer is not that straightforward.

The case concerned a Malaysian couple, Pang and his wife, who had been unable to have a child of their own. In March 2001, they were informed by a relative that a newborn baby at Taj Hospital in Kuala Lumpur was available for adoption. They decided to take the child into their care and raise him as their own.

However, when the child’s birth was registered, they made a serious mistake. Instead of declaring that they were the child’s adoptive parents, they registered themselves as the child’s biological parents.

For the next 12 years, the child grew up under their care. It was only in August 2013, when the mother brought the 12-year-old child to the National Registration Department to apply for a MyKad, that questions arose concerning the birth registration. During the questioning, the mother eventually admitted that the child was not their biological son.

The National Registration Department then required the birth registration to be corrected and informed the couple that they had to go through the proper legal adoption process.

The couple subsequently engaged lawyers and, after going through the necessary proceedings, obtained a lawful adoption order from the High Court of Kuala Lumpur in September 2014. From their perspective, the problem appeared to have been solved. The child had now been legally adopted, and they were both Malaysian citizens.

But the situation became even more complicated.

In February 2015, the National Registration Department issued a new birth certificate, which recorded the child as a “Non-Malaysian Citizen”. Since the Department had no information concerning the child’s biological parents, there was no established basis upon which the child’s citizenship at birth could be determined.

The couple therefore brought the matter before the courts, arguing that the adoption order had placed the child in a legal position equivalent to that of a child born to them. Relying on the relevant provisions of the Adoption Act 1952, they argued that because they were Malaysian citizens, the child should likewise be entitled to Malaysian citizenship.

The High Court initially found in their favour. However, the National Registration Department appealed, and the Court of Appeal ultimately overturned the decision.

The central issue was the constitutional basis of Malaysian citizenship. Citizenship is governed by the Federal Constitution, and not simply by the legal relationship created through adoption.

In considering citizenship by operation of law under Article 14(1)(b), the relevant constitutional framework focuses on circumstances existing at the time of the child’s birth, including the status of the child’s biological parents. The Court emphasised that the “parents” referred to for this purpose are the biological parents, rather than adoptive parents who only became legally connected to the child after birth.

This creates an unavoidable issue of timing.

The child was born in 2001, while the adoption proceedings took place years later. Regardless of how formal or legally valid the subsequent adoption order was, the adoptive parents could not become the child’s biological parents retrospectively. They could not have been the child’s parents in the relevant constitutional sense at the exact moment the child was born.

The adoption order therefore could not travel back in time and alter the child’s nationality position at birth.

This is one of the most important distinctions arising from the case: adoption and citizenship are two separate legal questions.

An adoption order can establish a legal parent-child relationship and provide the adoptive parents with rights and responsibilities concerning the child. However, it does not automatically create Malaysian citizenship merely because the adoptive parents are Malaysian citizens. Citizenship remains governed by the Federal Constitution.

In other words, the Adoption Act 1952 cannot override the Federal Constitution. Where the Constitution establishes specific requirements for citizenship by operation of law based on circumstances existing at birth, an ordinary statute governing adoption cannot expand those constitutional requirements simply because an adoption has subsequently taken place.

This is why an adoption order should not be regarded as the final step in resolving a child’s nationality. Adoptive parents may understandably assume that once an adoption has been legally completed, the child has automatically acquired every legal status associated with a biological child. Citizenship, however, operates under a separate constitutional framework.

The case also highlights an important practical lesson: the citizenship crisis could potentially have been avoided much earlier if the child’s birth had been registered accurately from the beginning.

Had the adoptive parents truthfully stated that the child was not their biological child and proceeded through the proper adoption process from the outset, the child’s legal identity could have been addressed differently. Instead, the inaccurate birth registration eventually became a major issue when the child reached the age of 12 and applied for a MyKad.

For families considering adoption, one of the most important lessons is therefore clear: never falsely identify yourself as the biological parent simply because doing so appears easier or faster.

Birth registration, biological parentage, nationality and adoption are separate legal matters. An inaccurate birth registration does not automatically give a child Malaysian citizenship. Instead, it may create serious complications when the child later applies for a MyKad, passport or other official documents.

Does this mean that an adopted child who faces statelessness has no possible route forward?

Not necessarily.

The Court of Appeal indicated that the applicants should not focus solely on obtaining citizenship by “operation of law”. Where the relevant requirements are met, a child may instead consider the route provided under Article 15A of the Federal Constitution, under which an application for citizenship by registration may be made to the Minister of Home Affairs.

This means that adoption and citizenship should be treated as two separate legal processes. Lawful adoption establishes the legal relationship between the child and the adoptive parents. Citizenship, on the other hand, must be addressed through the appropriate constitutional mechanism.

The real lesson from Pang Wee See is therefore not simply that “adoption does not make a child a citizen”. The deeper point is that an adoption order does not retrospectively change the constitutional facts surrounding a child’s nationality at birth.

For families planning to adopt, the proper approach is to ensure that the child’s birth registration is accurate from the beginning and to address adoption, nationality and identity issues through the correct legal procedures. If a child’s identity problem is left unresolved until the age of 12, when a MyKad application triggers official scrutiny, what could have been dealt with earlier may develop into a much more complicated citizenship dispute.

For a child, having a loving and lawful family is important. But having a clear, lawful and secure legal identity is equally important.