UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 13, No. 1 (January) 2022, pp: 345–380 government officials and even some NGOs. This basic problem has become a challenge in determining the differences between stateless and refugee children. In Malaysia, at present there is in domestic policy or law, no identification procedure for stateless children. In addition, stateless children are often grouped or regarded as belonging to the category of undocumented refugees, or even as children seeking asylum in Malaysia. As such the government officials and NGOs who are responsible or involved in matters pertaining to stateless children will face considerable difficulties, and are usually unable to help these stateless children in an effective way so as to render the necessary assistance. The government officials are also not able to identify or make contact with the stateless children for census purposes. Notably, there are some overlaps in the meaning between a refugee and a stateless person. This is especially the case, in the context of children, in relation to arbitrary deprivation of nationality, such as the Rohingyas (who are stateless and seek refuge in Malaysia). Malaysia, being a non-signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1954 Convention and 1961 Convention does not have any policy or legislation to clearly define the categories of refugees, asylum seekers and stateless people or children. Many countries like the United Kingdom, Georgia within the European region and the Philippines within ASEAN are signatories to the Refugee Convention and conventions on statelessness. These countries do have provisions in their national laws or policies with regard to stateless people or children within their national context. However, several non-signatory countries within the ASEAN region, including Malaysia, remain less concerned about the conventions and the importance of having national laws or policies, despite the global attention towards issues on statelessness and refugees. The analyses of some case laws and judicial opinions of several courts from Canada, the United Kingdom and USA have indicated that there were overlaps in the meanings of statelessness and refugee law (Fullerton, 2015, pp.876-899). The analyses established that many states tended to overlook the overlaps between a refugee and 355