The ‘Genuine and Effective Link’ ramifications for foundlings or persons with no official documentation of their lineage. 37 The strict evidential burden effectively prevents many stateless persons who, prima facie, fall within the scope of s 1(e) from being granted citizenship by operation of law. It is perhaps also worth noting that this position runs contrary to international practice, which, although not directly applicable to Malaysia, is a useful model to draw upon as a comparator. It is generally accepted that in statelessness cases, precisely due to the possibility that applicants may be stateless because they do not have the proper documentation, the burden of proof is shared between the applicant and the state. Thus, the UNHCR Handbook on the Protection of Stateless Persons provides: In the case of statelessness determination, the burden of proof is in principle shared, in that both the applicant and examiner must cooperate to obtain evidence and to establish the facts. The procedure is a collaborative one aimed at clarifying whether an individual comes within the scope of the 1954 Convention. Thus, the applicant has a duty to be truthful, provide as full an account of his or her position as possible and to submit all evidence reasonably available. Similarly, the determination authority is required to obtain and present all relevant evidence reasonably available to it, enabling an objective determination of the applicant’s status. Given the nature of statelessness, applicants for statelessness status are often unable to substantiate the claim with much, if any, documentary evidence. Statelessness determination authorities need to take this into account, where appropriate giving sympathetic consideration to testimonial explanations regarding the absence of certain kinds of evidence. 38 The second notable issue is that the courts do not engage with a substantive assessment of whether the applicant is, in fact, stateless. Consider Lim: having accepted that L was born an illegitimate child to a Thai mother, the Court subsequently ruled — without any further explanation — that they had acquired Thai citizenship. It was also held that there was no need for the Government to call an expert witness to testify that the appellant had acquired Thai citizenship, despite the fact that the Court was dealing here with the citizenship laws of another country. 39 Closer scrutiny of the facts reveals that this superficial analysis is deeply problematic. Crucially, the Court failed to distinguish between the appellant being entitled to Thai citizenship versus him actually acquiring it. There are strong reasons to engage in deeper analysis here: an entitlement to citizenship may be attached to procedural requirements such as birth registration that, as a practical matter, must be satisfied to transform it into actual acquisition. 40 Whilst registration is not itself synonymous with acquisition, failure to comply may result in a lack of documentation proving the link between the individual and the state, 37 38 39 40 See for instance Chin Kooi Nah (n 13). United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons under the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (Report, 2014) 34 [89]–[90]. Lim (n 35) [41]. UN Human Rights Council, Birth Registration and the Right of Everyone to Recognition Everywhere as a Person before the Law: Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Doc A/HRC/27/2 (17 June 2014) [23]–[24] <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A_HR C_27_22_ENG.doc>. 317