“Apa khabar?” “Khabar baik.” “Terima kasih.” “Sama-sama.”
These were among the basic Malay exchanges that home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said foreign footballers learnt before their citizenship interviews.
“Adequate knowledge is subjective. Typically, for this category, our practice is that we coach them before the interview: ‘Apa khabar?’ (How are you?), they answer ‘Khabar baik’ (I am well). ‘Terima kasih’ (Thank you), they answer, ‘Sama-sama’ (You are welcome). That is the current practice,” he said.
“It does not say fluent, nor does it require in-depth knowledge. It says adequate. If they understand, we pass them,” he added, according to the New Straits Times.
Saifuddin is defending the level of Malay required by law, but the controversy over the seven players goes well beyond a language test.
Fifa found that falsified documents had been used in the naturalisation and eligibility process, while the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) uncovered irregularities in the citizenship approvals.
The government must account for how officials handled the applications and assessed the supporting evidence.
Discretion needs limits
Saifuddin has acknowledged that some players did not meet the usual residency period for naturalisation. He argued that the Federal Constitution allowed him to count certain periods spent abroad as residence in Malaysia.
Article 19(3) sets the ordinary requirement at 10 years’ residence within the 12 years before an application, including the 12 months immediately before it.
The EAIC acknowledged the minister’s power to grant special approval under Article 19(2), read with Section 20(1)(e) of Part III of the Second Schedule to the Constitution.
It said the minister considered the players’ potential contribution to Malaysian football when exercising that discretion.
But the power to approve an application does not excuse a failure to follow proper procedures.
The EAIC found that officials considered the special approvals within an extremely short period and in an irregular manner.
It also flagged problems with entry permits, security screening, Malay language assessments and checks on the players’ renunciation of their original citizenship.
The commission urged the home ministry and national registration department (NRD) to review the applications and supporting documents. It also called for clearer guidelines on ministerial discretion and procedures for future cases.
The issue, then, is not simply whether Saifuddin had the power to approve the applications. It is whether officials properly scrutinised them before granting citizenship.
What did the authorities verify?
Saifuddin says the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) must answer for the documents it submitted to Fifa to establish the players’ eligibility to represent Malaysia.
FAM must account for its submissions but its responsibility does not absolve the government of questions about the citizenship process.
Fifa found that falsified documents had been used to claim Malaysian family links for the players. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the finding of falsification. It restricted the players’ 12-month suspensions to official matches but retained the 350,000 Swiss franc fine against FAM.
The EAIC examined material from both the NRD and FAM and called for a review of the citizenship files. Its public findings do not specify that every document found to be forged went directly to the NRD. The authorities should clarify which documents they received and relied on.
That is central to the case. If doctored documents supported the citizenship applications, how did they pass the authorities’ checks?
The NRD had previously told Fifa that it checked documents relating to the players’ family lineage. Its director-general said officials could not retrieve the original handwritten birth records and issued copies based on secondary evidence.
The department should identify that evidence and explain how officials verified it.
The EAIC also flagged shortcomings in security screening, the Malay language test and checks on renunciation of foreign citizenship.
It noted that requirements concerning the surrender of foreign passports had not been met. As Malaysia does not recognise dual citizenship, the government should explain how officials dealt with these requirements in each case.
CAS did not rule on the legality of the citizenship grants under Malaysian law but that does not make the government’s handling of the applications any less deserving of scrutiny.
The falsification finding and the EAIC’s findings of irregularities demand a proper account of the decisions.
What about other applicants?
The controversy also raises questions about fairness to ordinary citizenship applicants.
Many wait years for a decision. Some have spent most or all of their lives in Malaysia. Their circumstances vary, and not everyone will qualify.
But the government should explain how it applies the law, assesses language proficiency, verifies documents and decides when special approval is justified.
Saifuddin can defend his constitutional powers. He cannot use those powers to sidestep questions about the evidence or the way officials handled the applications.
Nor can the government treat the FAM scandal as a matter for football authorities alone when the citizenship process raises its own concerns.
The language test may be satisfied by a few rehearsed exchanges. The larger test is whether the government can show that officials verified the evidence, followed the rules and applied them properly.
Citizenship is not a favour to be defended after the fact. It is a legal status that demands a credible process.
If the government stands by these approvals, it should produce the evidence that supports them and account for the irregularities the EAIC identified.
Until it does, the questions over how these seven players became Malaysians will remain.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.