44. In the case of Fau En ji v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara57, the High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur dismissed the application made by by a trans man. The applicant filed a judicial review for him to be legally declared as a male, to quash decision made by the National Registration Department, to amend his name and to amend his detail gender from female to male and to change the last digit of his identification card number to reflect a male gender. The learned judge, Zaleha Yusof J opined that “psychological factor alone or gonadal factors were not sufficient to assess the applicant sexual condition”58. She was also of the opinion that “the applicant should file an originating summon for a declaration sought before applying for the change in the identity card and the issue of the gender change was a complex issue and need to be proven by evidence of witness”59. 45. By and large, the courts are reluctant to allow transgender persons to change their identity card details to reflect the new gender status. There is another similar case in 2015, when a transgender woman Vasudevan Ramoo’s application (an unreported case) to change her identity details to reflect her new gender status as a woman was rejected by the High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur60. 46. But that is not always the case, as in the case of Re JG, JG v. Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara61 by the High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur allowing the change of the last digit of the plaintiff identification card to reflect her as a female62. The plaintiff, a trans woman filed an originating summons requesting the court a declaration that she to be declared as a female; and the National Registration Department to be directed to change her last digit of her identity card to a digit that reflects a female gender. The presiding judge, James Foong J opined that there were two schools of thoughts on the matter: the traditional and the progressive. The traditional thought that insisted a person must fulfil the requirements stipulated in the case of Corbett v. Corbett [1970] 2 ALL ER 3363 or Bellinger v. Bellinger [2003] 2 ALL ER 593; and the progressive one which depend on medical opinion. He stated that “when it is based on medical evidence then the courts should play its part and grant relief when justice is due”64. In the case, the learned judge refused to follow the traditional thought on the chromosomal requirement as a criteria for determination of gender post gender reassignment surgery, therefore the plaintiff’s application was granted. 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 24 [2014] MLRHU 1 [2014] MLRHU 1 at page 4 [2014] MLRHU 1 at page 6 http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/transgender-fails-court-bid-to-change-identityto-woman-judge-says-hands-ti#sthash.rskf3a4I.dpuf (accessed on 27 February 2017) [2005]1 MLRH 760 The Malaysian Bar - Jefrey Jessie: Recoginising Transsexuals by Honey Tan Lay Ean on 17 November 2005. Accessed via http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/gender_issues/jeffrey_jessie_recognising_transexuals_by_honey_tan_lay_ean.html (accessed on 19 November 2015) Justice Omrod made the following observation: … at the medical witnesses accept that there are, at least, four criteria for assessing the sexual condition of an individual. These are chromosomal factors, gonadal factors, genital factors and psychological factors …. [2005] 1MLRH 760 at page 764 | Report On Transgender Persons In KL And Selangor