The court held that alterations to a child's name in a birth certificate must comply with statutory provisions which were not met in this case.

Introduction

[1] "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet." This may indeed be true when references are made to things or objects. Nevertheless, in the context of people or persons, do names merely serve the purpose of distinguishing a person from another? After all, to an individual, the sweetest sound a person hears is the person's name.

[2] A legal issue relating to the significance of a name, or more accurately, the right to pick and subsequently change one's surname and given name was raised before this court.

The Parties And The Nature Of The Applications

[3] The plaintiff is one Chiew Foong Shuang.

[4] The defendant is the Ketua Pengarah, Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (Director General, National Registration Department).

[5] The plaintiff had commenced an Originating Summons action against the defendant to alter her child's surname and given name.

[6] The name Moo Heng-Yu was registered in the child's birth certificate. Moo Heng-Yu was born on 21 June 2017. He is thus just short of six years old.

[7] The plaintiff had sought an Order from this court vide this Originating Summons to alter Moo Heng-Yu's surname and given name in the birth certificate to either Benjamin Chiew or Ben Chiew Zi-Shen.

[8] It should be noted that the primary objective of the present action was an application to alter the child's surname. The alteration of the child's given name was a consequential application. The reasons for these applications will become clear in the ensuing paragraphs.

[9] The defendant opposed the above applications primarily on the ground that the law only permits the alteration of a surname and/or given name in a birth certificate under two distinct circumstances and neither of these two circumstances applied to the present case.

The Pertinent Facts

[10] It is apt that the brief, but nevertheless pertinent facts are set out. This is to enable a better understanding of the circumstances leading to the present applications.

[11] The plaintiff was married to one Moo Chee Ching on 6 June 2017. The marriage ended in divorce on 13 January 2022.

[12] The plaintiff gave birth to the child some 15 days after her marriage to Moo Chee Ching.

[13] The plaintiff, in acting as an informant pursuant to s 7(2)(b) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 , had registered the surname and name of the child on 17 July 2017.

[14] The child's surname and given name, as noted earlier, was registered in the birth certificate as Moo Heng-Yu. It is apparent that the child had adopted the surname of the plaintiff's ex-husband at the time of registration. The ex-husband is not the biological father of the child.

[15] It is also apposite to point out that the child was an illegitimate child at the time of the issuance of the birth certificate.

[16] In the birth certificate, the plaintiff's name, together with her other particulars, were inserted under the column/heading "Ibu/Mother". However, under the column/heading "Bapa/Father", the following remarks, namely, "Maklumat Tidak Diperolehi" has been inserted into each of the information pertaining to the "Bapa/Father" of the child.

Issue Before The court

[17] The overriding issue for consideration was whether the plaintiff was entitled under the law to change the surname and given name of her child.

[18] The above issue brought into focus the role and duty of the Registrar- General of Births and Deaths ("the Registrar-General"). Was the Registrar- General in the instant case under a legal obligation to approve the applications by the plaintiff to alter her child's surname and given name?

The Applicable Law

[19] The primary piece of legislation that applied to the present case is the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 (Revised 1983