The ‘Genuine and Effective Link’ both the length of time spent residing in Malaysia (evocative of the ‘lawfully and habitually resident’ precondition discussed earlier in this section), and of Malay fluency. In recognising the importance of social ties to the practice of naturalisation, we come full circle to Nottebohm. There, the Court itself cited the practice of naturalisation, and more specifically its interest with ‘the existence of a link [with the polity]’ as one of the sources from which the ‘genuine and effective link’ principle was derived. 86 If a person born outside the Malaysian polity can acquire these social ties over time, then the logic applies even more forcefully to those who have resided in Malaysia their whole lives, and who have no social ties to any other country or nationality. It follows, therefore, that the same considerations should apply when construing citizenship by operation of law under art 14(1)(b) and s 1(e), particularly since it has been explicitly stated that art 14(1)(b) in its present form is intended to confer citizenship upon those with an attachment to Malaysia. 87 Article 19 is not a panacea for the problems discussed earlier in this article. Unlike art 14, art 19 imposes a minimum age threshold of 21 or older. Requiring persons technically falling within the remit of s 1(e) to acquire citizenship under art 19 instead would be to subject them to effective statelessness for at least 21 years, with its associated detrimental effects: inability to access government services, denial of secondary education and so on. Further, there is no principled reason why pursuing this alternate route is necessary if they are already entitled to citizenship by operation of law. D Direct Legal Transplantation: An Impossibility? In the case of international law, there is an additional hurdle to surmount. As set out in Part II, the process of adopting customary international law into Malaysian common law remains an uncertain one that has not been fully developed by the courts. However, a plausible route for adoption may lie in the decision of Lee Kwan Woh v Public Prosecutor. 88 In Lee Kwan Woh, the Federal Court developed what may be termed the ‘reception thesis’ in interpreting the term ‘law’ in the Constitution. 89 The starting point is art 160(2), which provides that ‘“law” includes written law, [and] the common law in so far as it is in operation in the Federation’. The Court adopted the definition of ‘common law’ in s 66 of the Consolidated Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (‘Interpretation Acts’), 90 which in turn provides that ‘“common law” means the common law of England’. The justification was that the Interpretation Acts applied to ‘every written law … made or issued after 31 January 1948’, 91 and the Constitution was such a law, having come into force in 1957. On the reception thesis, therefore, customary international law that has been adopted into English common law can also be recognised as part of Malaysian domestic law. 86 87 88 89 90 91 Nottebohm (n 1) 22. See DR Hansard 29 January 1962 (n 8) 4166–68. Lee Kwan Woh v Public Prosecutor [2009] 5 MLJ 301. Shukri Shahizam, ‘The Use of English Caselaw in the Malaysian Law of Judicial Review’ (LLM Thesis, University of Cambridge, 15 May 2020) 38–40 <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3660398>. Consolidated Interpretation Act 1948 and 1967 (1 January 2006) (Malaysia). ibid s 66. 327