The ‘Genuine and Effective Link’ positive manner — by providing for the conferral of citizenship if a social fact of attachment to the Malaysian polity is established. As seen in Part III, however, the modified test also allows for the principle to be applied restrictively, as it is used in the diplomatic protection context. For instance, where a person with nominal links to the country of their nonnational mother’s origin has an entitlement to the citizenship of that country and they have taken active steps towards acquiring it, this should operate against the finding of a social fact of attachment to Malaysia. While merely taking steps is a less compelling factor than holding the passport of another country, 77 it is nevertheless relevant and should be considered when identifying whether an individual has a ‘genuine and effective link’ with Malaysia. In advancing this view, I do not purport to comment on the wider issue of whether such a finding would render the individual de facto stateless and thus, potentially, breach international law. In any event, as noted in Part II, Malaysia presently has not acceded to any obligation to extend citizenship to stateless persons, and thus the discussion here extends only to domestic law. B English Common Law English common law offers an example of the principle (or its analogue) being applied. In Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘Pham’), the appellant (‘P’) was born in Vietnam but was subsequently granted asylum in the United Kingdom with his family, and they eventually acquired British citizenship. 78 They became radicalised and aged 21, travelled to Yemen to fight with Al-Qaeda. The Home Secretary then revoked his British citizenship under s 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981, taking the view that P would not be rendered stateless because he had retained his Vietnamese citizenship. P appealed this decision to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (‘SIAC’), who allowed his appeal on the grounds that in practice, the decision would in fact render him stateless. The Home Secretary’s appeal of the SIAC decision was allowed by the Court of Appeal, whose decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. 79 At the Supreme Court, P submitted that depriving him of his British citizenship was also a violation of European Union law. As the issue was not raised at the first instance, the Court did not deal with its merits but took the opportunity to consider the relationship between EU proportionality and common law unreasonableness, from Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation as grounds of review. 80 Interestingly, Lord Mance noted that Removal of British citizenship under the power provided by section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 is, on any view, a radical step, particularly if the person 77 78 79 80 Bermillo Chan (n 47). Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19 [2]; [2013] EWCA Civ 616. ibid [5]–[19]. Wednesbury unreasonableness, as it is commonly known, is a ground of judicial review at common law upon which the decisions of public authorities may be challenged on the basis that they are ‘so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it’: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223. 325