Stretching Minister S Power For Instant Citizenship

---

 

Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail’s admission that he used discretionary powers to dispense with residency rules to grant citizenship to seven “heritage” footballers has ignited a debate of legitimate legal and ethical concerns.
This was in reference to seven foreign footballers who were granted Malaysian citizenship without meeting the prerequisites, including residency of up to 10 years and language proficiency.
While discretionary power under Article 20(1)(e) of the Federal Constitution is a vital tool for navigating complex scenarios, it is not a blank cheque for ministerial fiat or sanction.
Its legitimacy hinges on transparent, accountable, and constitutionally aligned exercise.
In this case, the minister’s actions and justifications have dangerously stretched these principles to their limit, creating a precedent that threatens the integrity of Malaysian citizenship.
The core of the controversy lies in a deeply contentious legal interpretation. Saifuddin contends that the constitutional requirement of “residency” can include time spent outside Malaysia. (Some of the seven footballers had never set foot on Malaysian soil until this year to play football.)
This use of discretionary power is not a mere technicality - it effectively abolishes the minimum residency period, creating a pathway for “instant citizenship” that bypasses an essential requirement for every other applicant.
If this interpretation stands, what prevents it from becoming a precedent for any foreign national who seeks citizenship?
Questions unanswered
This alarming legal flexibility is compounded by an insightful lack of transparency, raising the danger of selective privilege. The minister has provided no timeline or clear rationale for these expedited approvals.
Critical questions remain unanswered: What were the actual dates of the players’ arrival, application, and approval? When and how was the mandatory Malay language proficiency requirement assessed, or was it simply waived?
Most importantly, on what basis were Malaysian birth certificates issued when the National Registration Department (NRD) itself admits to having no records of the players’ grandparents being born in Malaysia?
This last point strikes at the heart of the “heritage” claim. It is irreconcilable with Fifa’s own findings that the grandparents were born in Brazil, Argentina, and Spain.
The government’s tale is not just unverified - it is directly contradicted by external evidence.
Double standards
The bluntest injustice, however, lies in the contrast this case presents. While these footballers received citizenship in a matter of weeks, tens of thousands born and raised in Malaysia - stateless individuals who have waited years, even decades - are left wondering if the same discretionary leniency will ever be extended to them.
Citizenship is the bedrock of national identity, not a trophy to be awarded for athletic talent or winning a race or a match. By treating it as such, the government devalues it for all.
The seven Harimau Malaya players whose citizenship are in disputeDiscretionary power is a necessary component of modern governance, but it must be wielded with utmost responsibility.
When exercised behind a veil of secrecy and justified by legally dubious interpretations, it ceases to be a tool for the public good and becomes an instrument of privilege.
The “instant citizenship” scandal is more than a political misstep - it is a direct challenge to the rule of law, procedural fairness, and public trust in Malaysia’s institutions and its systems.
Without immediate and credible answers, the damage to our constitutional fabric will only deepen.
Meanwhile, hundreds of individuals born and raised in Malaysia continue to wait - some for decades - for their citizenship to be recognised. Would Saifuddin use the same discretionary powers to resolve their plight?
After years of campaigning and court battles, only in March did the Federal Court rule that children born overseas to Malaysian mothers and their foreign spouses before the enactment of the Federal Constitution (Amendment) Act 2024 are eligible to apply for Malaysian citizenship under a recent legal settlement between the government and affected parties.
The settlement was reached following an appeal at the Federal Court involving six Malaysian mothers and the Association of Family Support and Welfare Selangor and Kuala Lumpur (Family Frontiers), an NGO advocating for gender-equal citizenship rights.
But note that they are only eligible to apply, and once again, the discretionary power comes into play.
Citizenship is not a reward for talented sportspersons. It is a legal status that carries rights, responsibilities, and national identity.
If discretionary power is to be used, it must be accompanied by transparency, fairness, and respect for the rule of law.
Anything less risks eroding public trust and undermining the integrity of our institutions and our systems. - Mkini
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: [email protected]
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---