Critics of the Court of Appeal's ruling argue that the decision places an unfair burden on innocent children, effectively punishing them for the marital status of their parents. By denying citizenship to children born out of wedlock, the state is creating a class of individuals who are denied their fundamental rights to education, healthcare, and legal protection. This approach is seen by many as outdated and inconsistent with international human rights standards that prioritize the best interests of the child.
Human rights advocates point out that the ruling ignores the reality of modern family life, where children are often born into stable, loving households that may not meet the strict legal definition of a marriage. By tying a child's nationality to the parents' legal status, the government is failing to protect its own citizens' children. This creates a cycle of inequality where these children are treated as foreigners in their own country, despite having a Malaysian parent.
There is also a strong argument that this interpretation is discriminatory, particularly against women and children. Critics suggest that the law should focus on the biological link between the father and the child rather than the legal status of the parents' relationship. By maintaining this barrier, the state is contributing to the problem of statelessness, which leaves individuals in a precarious legal position with no clear path to belonging or security.
Ultimately, those who oppose the ruling believe that the law must evolve to protect all children equally. They argue that the government has a moral obligation to ensure that no child is left stateless simply because of a technicality. The reliance on the legislature to fix this issue is seen as a stalling tactic that leaves vulnerable families in limbo while the political process remains slow and unresponsive to their urgent needs.