Malaysia S Own Goal Foreign Footballers And Dubious Birth Certs

---

 


Malaysia’s football scene has been rocked by a scandal almost too absurd to believe: the National Registration Department (NRD) issued birth certificates to the grandparents of seven foreign football players - from Argentina, Brazil, the Netherlands, and Spain - on the patently implausible claim that they were born in Malaysia.
The claim is especially far-fetched, given that Malaysia has no historical, colonial or migratory ties with these countries, making the alleged Malaysian births of these grandparents virtually impossible.
This alleged scheme, seemingly designed to make the players eligible under International Federation of Association Football (Fifa) regulations, raises serious concerns about the misuse of the law and the integrity of national institutions.
An extremely serious issue - one that Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail has casually brushed aside - is the blatant misuse of Section 10A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957, under which the NRD issued these certificates.
Section 10A is a special provision allowing the registrar-general to register a birth if satisfied, based on the evidence, that a birth has occurred.
NRD powers limited by law
But leaving aside the serious question of what evidence could possibly substantiate the alleged Malaysian birth of these seven players’ Argentinian, Brazilian, Dutch, and Spanish grandparents, it is completely wrong to interpret the provision in isolation - or to suggest that the NRD has unchecked, absolute power to register a birth simply because one occurred.
The powers of the NRD, like those of all administrative or statutory bodies, are conferred and limited by law.
Any exercise of power, even discretionary, cannot exceed the limits imposed by law; otherwise, it can be declared ultra vires and rendered null and void.
The special provision cited, as any competent lawyer would tell you, cannot be interpreted “whichever way you like” without regard to established principles of statutory interpretation - including reading the statute as a whole and in context, and considering the purpose or object of the legislation.
Reading the Act, it is clear that Parliament intended “the birth of every child born in Malaysia shall be registered” (Section 7).
Sections 7, 8, and 9 specify who is qualified to provide information concerning a birth: the father, the mother, the occupier of the house in which the child was born, any person present at the birth, or any person having charge of the child.
Such information must be submitted within 60 days. In the case of a newborn found exposed, it must be submitted within 14 days.
For late registrations, the birth cannot be registered except with the written authority of the registrar-general (Section 12). These are the general provisions governing the registration of births.
Section 10A was only inserted in 2017. Although the provision is silent on the circumstances under which it may be applied, a review of the Hansard - the official record of parliamentary proceedings - shows that the provision was intended to provide for the registration of births not previously covered by the Act, such as those occurring on aircraft, on ships, or involving foreign jurisdictions.
It was certainly never meant to cover dubious cases involving foreign grandparents - presumably long deceased - allegedly born in Malaysia 70 to 100 years ago - merely so their grandchildren could play football for Malaysia under Fifa regulations.
As the then deputy home minister Nur Jazlan Mohamed explained during the second reading of the amendment bill in Parliament on Nov 23, 2016:
“Clause 8 aims to insert a new section, Section 10A, into Act 299 to address special provisions for the registration of births.
“At present, there are situations where birth registration is done administratively because it cannot be carried out under the existing provisions of Act 299, such as births occurring on board an aircraft or ship, or those involving the jurisdiction of a foreign country.
“Therefore, the proposed amendment seeks to establish clear provisions regarding the powers of the registrar-general to register any birth if he is satisfied with the evidence submitted to him that the birth has indeed occurred.”
Crystal clear
So, there you have it - clear and irrefutable proof shows that the provision cited to justify issuing birth certificates to the foreign players’ grandparents is erroneous, and the power was blatantly abused.
The NRD’s decision is ultra vires, made in bad faith or for an improper purpose. Worse, it relied on considerations irrelevant to the Act - namely, to enable seven foreign players to represent Malaysia in football, despite being ineligible under Fifa regulations.
In attempting to bend the rules for an unsporting advantage, the perpetrators of this scheme have scored the ultimate own goal - one that undermines the integrity of state institutions and tarnishes Malaysian football’s reputation. - Mkini
ERIC PAULSEN is the co-founder and adviser of Lawyers for Liberty; former representative of Malaysia to the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR).
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---