KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 17 — A boy who was adopted by a Muslim couple in Sarawak will soon be able to have his name feature only his adoptive father’s name, instead of having “bin Abdullah” as his last name.
This is following the withdrawal of an appeal against a decision by the High Court, which had previously ordered for the official government records to be amended to remove the “bin Abdullah” patronym from the adopted child’s name.
Lawyer Belinda Hii who acted for the adoptive parents told Malay Mail when contacted that the Sibu district officer withdrew his appeal yesterday. She confirmed that this meant that the High Court order still stands.
According to a public listing of cases on the courts’ online filing system, the appeal came up before the Court of Appeal yesterday.
The Sibu district officer was represented by the Sarawak State Attorney General’s Chambers. From the online listing, it is understood that it was only in the preliminary stages and it was not a hearing for the actual appeal yet.
This means that the appeal was dropped before it went past the preliminary stages and before it was properly heard in the Court of Appeal.
What this means now is that the order by the High Court in Sibu that was in the favour of the child’s adoptive parents would have to be implemented. The boy gets to have his adopted father’s name instead of “bin Abdullah”.
In the interests of the child and for privacy reasons, Malay Mail is withholding the names of the adoptive parents as well as the adopted child. For ease of reference, the adoptive father and adoptive mother are referred to as A and B, while the child is referred to as C.
In the April 6, 2021 written judgment, High Court judicial commissioner Christopher Chin Soo Yin ordered the Sibu district officer and the National Registration Department to amend the name of the child in the special register (or the official records of adoptions in Sarawak), certificate of adoption, birth certificate, to have it read just “C A” instead of “C A bin Abdullah”, “in accordance to the wishes of his parents”.
Apart from enabling the child to be named according to his adoptive parents’ wishes, the High Court decision was based on multiple factors such as considering the child’s best interests.
In Malaysia, the words “bin Abdullah” or “binti Abdullah” for male and female names among Muslims are typically and primarily known as an indicator that a child was born out of wedlock, and had in the past been acknowledged by the courts as being a potential source of ridicule and stigma for such a child.
What happened in this case
Based on the High Court’s 30-page written judgment from April 2021, this boy was born in 2018 and his original registered name before adoption had the words “bin Abdullah”.
A and B adopted Boy C in November 2018 at the Sibu District Office, Sarawak, with a certificate of adoption issued on the same day of adoption. The adoptive parents gave the boy a new name that also featured the adoptive father A’s name.
A birth certificate for the child was issued after the adoption, but the child’s new name in this document still carried the words “bin Abdullah”, namely “C A bin Abdullah”.
The adoptive parents had intended for the boy to be named “C A” instead of “C A bin Abdullah”.
Upon realising their alleged “oversight” where “bin Abdullah” was still included in the child’s birth certificate, the parents in January 2020 filed a lawsuit against the Sibu district officer — through an originating summons — to ask for the removal of “bin Abdullah” from the child’s name in all official records.
Unlike other states in Malaysia, adoptions under Sarawak laws come under the district officer’s jurisdiction.
While the Sibu district officer was named as the only respondent in the lawsuit, the court papers were served on both the Sibu district officer and the director of the National Registration Department at the Sarawak state level, as directed previously by the High Court for the documents to be served to the appropriate authorities.
In objecting to the lawsuit, the Sibu district officer had argued that there was no mistake or error in the special register (or record of adoptions), the certificate of adoption and the birth certificate, and that the Sibu district officer’s decision to name the child as it currently is was based on the Sarawak Mufti Department’s “guideline” on naming such as for those who are adopted or illegitimate (Garis Panduan Penamaan (Bin/Binti) Anak Tak Sah Taraf, Anak Angkat Dan Saudara Kita).
The High Court ultimately decided in April 2021 that the official records should be amended to have “bin Abdullah” omitted from the child’s name.
Among other things, the High Court judge had agreed this case was not about trying to legitimise an illegitimate child or about an illegitimate child’s name, but that it was about an adopted child’s name.
The High Court had also ruled that a February 2021 Sarawak fatwa or religious opinion issued by the Sarawak Islamic Council (MIS) could not apply retrospectively to the child, who was adopted years before the fatwa was gazetted and had legal effect in Sarawak.
The Sibu district officer had also cited this February 2021 fatwa in seeking to justify the inclusion of “bin Abdullah” in C’s name.
Among other things, the Sarawak fatwa had stated that an illegitimate child who is adopted should carry the “name of Abdullah” after the child’s name, while also stating that the adoptive father’s name “shall not be a part” of such an adopted child’s name or last name. (Abdullah was explained in the fatwa to mean “servant of Allah” or servant of God.)
In listing a long list of factors on what would be in the best interests of the adopted boy, the High Court judge had ruled that it is well-established in Malaysia that the universal principle of the best interests of the child should prevail in such cases, and that “a child should not be punished” for the choice of his parents, regardless of whether they are his biological or adoptive parents.
The judge had also said it would not be in the child’s best interest to grow up, go to school and to work while “carrying a stigma that he was either illegitimate or adopted”, noting: “He has committed no sin to justify such lifetime of social, emotional and psychological punishment.”
The judge had also said the strongest and clearest expression of what would be the boy’s “best interest” is in the intention expressed by his adoptive parents, and they have the first right to decide what is in the child’s best interest as they are now “legally and morally responsible” for the child “and his welfare, emotions, health, education and generally, his upbringing” as his parents.
The full summary by Malay Mail of the High Court’s 30-page judgment can be read here.
The Sibu district officer on May 4, 2021 filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and this appeal was the one that was dropped.
