Abdul Malik Ishak J:

[1] Initially the plaintiff cited the Ministry of Home Affairs, Malaysia as the defendant in this originating summons but by an ex-parte application (encl 6) which was supported by an affidavit (encl 5), the Government of Malaysia was substituted as the defendant and an order to that effect was made on 20 September 1995.

[2] This was an application by the plaintiff as per the amended originating summons in encl 11 (the previous encl 3) supported by an amended affidavit as per encl 12 (the previous encl 2) for the following prayers:

(a) a declaration that the plaintiff is a citizen of Malaysia;

(b) a declaration that as a loyal citizen of Malaysia any act which is inconsistent with such loyalty the Ministry of Home Affairs could take appropriate action against such act of disloyalty leading to the deprivation of the Malaysian citizenship;

(c) a declaration that the plaintiff is not obliged to register for the national service of the Republic of Singapore when he is and remains a citizen of Malaysia and any such act will be inconsistent with his Malaysian citizenship status.

[3] The facts as gathered from the affidavit in encls 12 and 2 (the contents thereof were identical to one another) were as follows:

[4] The plaintiff was born in Singapore on 17 December 1974. The plaintiffs natural father is Tan Boon Kiat who is a Malaysian citizen while his natural mother is Hing Ah Lek (f) who is a Singapore citizen.

[5] The plaintiff deposed in both the affidavits that his father, at all material times, had his business in Johor Bahru and, consequently, the plaintiff deposed that his fathers matrimonial house was and still is at Johor Bahru. The plaintiff too deposed, and this must be an attempt at bolstering the facts in favour of the plaintiff, to the effect that his brother, sister and himself had lived in Johor Bahru although they attended schools in Singapore. I shall revert to this piece of evidence later in the course of the judgment. It was said that when the plaintiff was about 15 years of age, his mother had approached the citizenship department of Singapore and conveyed the message that he is a Malaysian citizen by virtue of the fact that his father is a Malaysian citizen and that he wishes to renounce his Singapores citizenship which he had acquired through his mother. The mother was advised that the plaintiff could only renounce his Singapore citizenship upon attaining the age of 18 as the law of Singapore stood at that point of time. It was said that the Singapore Government had since amended the law to the effect that a citizen of Singapore could, inter alia, renounce his Singapore citizenship only upon attaining the age of 21. It was said that the plaintiff is now a Malaysian citizen and has been issued with a Malaysia identity card No A 3905688 and a Malaysian Passport No A 5838497. However, when the plaintiff was young his mother had secured for him a Singapore Restricted Passport No S 7441659 D and a Singapore identity card. The plaintiff has since stopped schooling in Singapore and currently pursuing further studies in the United Kingdom. It was deposed that on or about 26 April 1992, the plaintiffs father wrote to the Singapores Registrar of Citizens to the effect that since the plaintiff is a Malaysian citizen he would like to renounce his Singapores citizenship. The Singapores Registrar of Citizens replied that the plaintiff could only do so when he attains the age of 21. It was said that on or about 11 August 1992, the plaintiffs father had instructed his solicitors Messrs K. Sila Dass & Partners, to convey certain messages by letter to the Singapores Registrar of Citizens to the effect that:

(i) the plaintiff is a Malaysian citizen by operation of law;

(ii) on attaining the age of 18 years old, the plaintiff has to take the oath of allegiance to the Yang di Pertuan Agong and Malaysia;

(iii) the plaintiff has decided to remain as a Malaysian citizen;

(iv) the plaintiff has no intention to remain