The ‘Genuine and Effective Link’ occurred and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. 45 Had the order M sought not been granted, she would have been rendered stateless. The appeal therefore succeeded on both the ss 1(a) and 1(e) grounds. Madhuvita exemplifies the promise of the existing s 1(e) test if applied correctly, just as Than/Lim represents how it can be used to deny citizenship to those who would otherwise be eligible under the Constitution by imposing an unrealistic burden of proof to discharge upon them. Further, the inconsistent application of the test generates significant legal uncertainty. The challenge, then, is how to amend the test to prevent a Than/Lim-type analysis from arising. Part IV of this article considers how the ‘genuine and effective link’ principle may be adopted into the existing test for this purpose. A final point bears mention here. The most recent statelessness appeal heard by the Court of Appeal, Chan Tai Ern Bermillo v Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara (‘Bermillo Chan’), concerned the issue of whether a child could be legitimated after birth such that sch II pt III s 17 did not apply. In Madhuvita, the Court had (in the course of dealing with the s 1(a) grounds) held that s 17 was concerned with the present status of the appellant, and so a subsequent legitimation (provided it had occurred before the appeal) would render s 17 inapplicable. 46 In Bermillo Chan, however, a different panel of the Court of Appeal held otherwise, agreeing with the High Court judge that s 17 was concerned with the status of the appellant at the time of birth, and so subsequent legitimation had no effect insofar as citizenship by operation of law was concerned. 47 Madhuvita was never considered by the Court in Bermillo Chan, rendering the decision in the latter per incuriam; further, Bermillo Chan does not touch upon s 1(e) at all. As it stands, however, this leaves Madhuvita on precarious ground: it is the only decision to date that adopts a more progressive, applicant-friendly approach in applying the relevant tests, making it an outlier to the general rule. It is altogether too easy to see how subsequent courts may deem it wrongly decided or seek to downplay its importance. Indeed, at the time of writing, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Bermillo Chan has since been partially upheld by the Federal Court, with Rohana Yusuf PCA (writing for the majority) commenting on the exceptional status of Madhuvita. The implicit repudiation by the apex court significantly undermines its authoritativeness, thrusting its precarious position into the spotlight. 48 The case law at present is thus contradictory, and the inconsistent application of the existing test risks denying citizenship to stateless persons prima facie caught by the s 1(e) safety net. A better solution is needed: I suggest the ‘genuine and effective link’ provides the answer. 45 46 47 48 ibid [75]. ibid [61]–[65]. Chan Tai Ern Bermillo v Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara [2020] 3 MLJ 634, 641 (‘Bermillo Chan’). At the time of writing, the grounds of judgment for the Federal Court decision in Bermillo Chan (n 47) have yet to be released; however, the press summaries issued by the Registrar make specific note of Madhuvita (n 43). 319