TAN POOI YEE v. KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA

[2016] 5 MLRH 501

TAN POOI YEE v. KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA
High Court Malaya, Kuala Lumpur
S Nantha Balan J
[Originating Summons No: 24NCVC-1306-08-2015]
18 July 2016

JUDGMENT

S Nantha Balan J:

Introduction

[1] These are my grounds in respect of an application by way of an originating summons dated 24 August 2015. In this case, the plaintiff who was born as a woman, has undergone gender reassignment surgery and now seeks to obtain a declaration that "he" is legally a male and for consequential orders to direct the Director General of the National Registration Department of Malaysia to recognise and give effect to such declaration. For convenience and to avoid confusion, I shall refer to the plaintiff by the masculine gender rather than the feminine gender.

[2] I should state at the outset that this area of the law in Malaysia and other jurisdictions is not quite settled. Judicial opinion has been divided. In some cases, the courts have rejected the attempt to obtain curial recognition of gender reassignment on the grounds, inter alia, that the person seeking a declaration was not able to satisfy the "chromosomal" requirement for the particular gender (see Wong Chiou Yong v. Pendaftar Besar/Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara [2004] 3 MLRH 127; [2005] 1 MLJ 551; [2005] 1 CLJ 622; [2005] 2 AMR 415, Fau En Ji v. Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara [2014] MLRHU 1097; [2015] 1 CLJ 803, Bellinger v. Bellinger [2003] 2 AC 467, Corbett v. Corbett [1970] 2 All ER 33). But that has not always been the case. In J-G v. Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara [2005] 1 MLRH 760; [2006] 1 MLJ 90; [2005] 4 CLJ 710; [2005] 6 AMR 257, the High Court declined to follow the chromosomal requirement as a criteria for determination of gender post gender reassignment surgery.

[3] Hence, the question presently is, inter alia, whether this court should follow the one or the other approach and either grant the declaration that is sought or reject it, inter alia, on the basis that the plaintiff does not have male chromosomes. As stated earlier, the plaintiff was biologically and genetically born as a female and so will not carry the male chromosomes. I shall return to this point later in this judgment. I now turn to deal with the background facts.

Sign up to view full cases Login