COMMENT | Enough tall tales, no more stalling: Malaysians deserve the truth

COMMENT | Last Friday, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail mounted a spirited defence of the government's decision to grant Malaysian citizenship to seven foreign footballers.

He explained that applicants were given basic coaching in the Malay language before their interviews and that time spent overseas could be counted as residence in Malaysia for citizenship purposes.

According to a New Straits Times report on Oct 16, Saifuddin (above) acknowledged that some applicants, including those from Argentina, had never lived in Malaysia for the period ordinarily required under the law.

Yet, he argued that the...

COMMENT | Last Friday, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail mounted a spirited defence of the government's decision to grant Malaysian citizenship to seven foreign footballers.

He explained that applicants were given basic coaching in the Malay language before their interviews and that time spent overseas could be counted as residence in Malaysia for citizenship purposes.

According to a New Straits Times report on Oct 16, Saifuddin (above) acknowledged that some applicants, including those from Argentina, had never lived in Malaysia for the period ordinarily required under the law.

Yet, he argued that the Federal Constitution empowers the home minister to grant exemptions and treat time spent abroad as though it were residence in Malaysia.

“He is from Argentina. Was there any period of residing in this country? The answer is no,” Saifuddin said.

"However, under the Federal Constitution, the home minister can grant an exemption. That means the period he was in Argentina or Spain can be considered as residing in our country."

Utter bunkum! If that interpretation is correct, it raises troubling questions. Does it mean that virtually any foreigner, regardless of where he resides, can be granted Malaysian citizenship simply because the minister chooses to exercise this discretionary power?

Could someone from Timbuktu, Mali, arrive tomorrow and become Malaysian despite never having fulfilled the residence requirement?

If so, what purpose does the constitutional residency provision serve? Is it a genuine requirement or merely an administrative obstacle that can be swept aside at will?

Article 19 (3) of the Federal Constitution reads: “The periods of residence in the federation or the relevant part of it which are required for the grant of a certificate of naturalisation are periods which amount in the aggregate to not less than 10 years in the 12 years immediately preceding the date of the application for the certificate, and which include the 12 months immediately preceding that date.

But Saifuddin’s assertion side-stepped a fundamental issue. The discretionary power over citizenship applications is subject to the provisions of the Federal Constitution and is exercised with due care, taking into account various factors, including public interest, national security, and the facts of each case.

What about NRD?

Before these questions can be answered, however, an even more fundamental issue demands attention: did the National Registration Department (NRD), which comes under the home minister's authority, process citizenship applications supported by forged, falsified or otherwise fraudulent documents?

Does the NRD have the power to issue birth certificates to grandparents of the applicant?

On Sept 19 last year, NRD director-general Badrul Hisham Alias, in a statutory declaration to International Federation of Association Football (Fifa), stated that the players submitted documents listing their grandparents’ details, conducted cross-verification, and received supporting documents from Argentina, Brazil, and Spain.

“However, original handwritten birth records couldn’t be retrieved. Instead, official copies were issued based on secondary evidence,” he said, but did not specify what secondary evidence was adduced and from its source.

What documents did it receive from these countries? If they had been birth certificates of the grandparents, NRD would have known none of them were born in Malaysia.

But was Badrul’s (above) statement untruthful? Yes. Because Fifa had retrieved the original birth certificates and published them in their report to refute the claims made by Badrul.

Using the same analogy, can the man from Timbuktu go to the NRD and request his grandparents’ birth certificates, and will the NRD issue them based on non-existent “secondary evidence”?

Until these questions are addressed convincingly, debates over exemptions and ministerial discretion will remain secondary to the far more serious issue of whether the integrity of Malaysia's citizenship process has been compromised.

While the minister has been making unconvincing arguments on his discretionary power, the man at the centre of this shameful episode, Badrul has chosen to maintain silence.

How long will this have to go on? It has been more than a year since the scandal emerged and there have been no plausible answers provided by the powers that be, including the prime minister, whom the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) thanked for “facilitating documentation” for the seven players.

READ MORE: COMMENT | 'Heritage' players: Mr PM, lead us to the truth

Nation’s credibility at stake

The issue is no longer about football, nor is it about the extent of a minister's discretionary powers. It is about the credibility of Malaysia's citizenship process and the integrity of the institutions entrusted to safeguard it.

For more than a year, the public has been served a steady diet of explanations about exemptions, discretion and "secondary evidence", yet the most basic questions remain unanswered.

How were the applications processed? What documents were relied upon? Who verified them? On what basis were birth certificates issued? And why do the official explanations appear to be contradicted by evidence subsequently revealed by Fifa?

While the home minister continues to advance increasingly unconvincing arguments about his constitutional powers, the central figure in this controversy, Badrul, has maintained a deafening silence.

Silence, however, is not an answer. Nor is it a substitute for accountability.

Citizenship is not a football trophy to be awarded for national convenience. It is the highest legal bond between a nation and an individual.

If residency requirements can be waived, records reconstructed, and citizenship granted on the strength of opaque procedures that cannot withstand scrutiny, then public confidence in the entire system is placed at risk.

Malaysians have waited long enough. Enough of the talk about discretionary powers. Enough of the vague references to secondary evidence. Enough of the evasions.

What is needed now is not another explanation, but the truth. The whole truth. From the moment the applications were submitted, to the issuance of birth certificates, to the granting of citizenship.

Anything less will only deepen the suspicion that this is not merely an administrative controversy, but a scandal that those responsible are determined to keep hidden.

R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who tries to live up to the ethos of civil rights leader John Lewis: “When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have to speak up. You have to say something; you have to do something.” Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.