Two matters have dominated the local headlines in recent times — one involving document forgery in football, the other concerning alcohol consumption at state events.
Both appear disparate but converge on a common axis: the erosion of constitutional fidelity and the failure of public institutions to uphold the oath of office jurisprudence.
The football forgery scandal, which has escalated to international infamy and implicated the government and the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) in wrongdoing, is not merely a sporting irregularity. It is a constitutional affront.
If proven, the submission of forged documents to justify Malaysian heritage and naturalisation of foreign-born players suggests a collusion between state-linked agencies and sporting bodies.
After all, the citizenship naturalisation process is not a casual affair. It is governed by the Federal Constitution, and any abuse therein strikes at the heart of the rule of law.
Ministers and public officials who preside over such processes are bound by their oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the constitution.
If forged birth certificates were knowingly endorsed, then the breach is not an administrative error — it is an unconstitutional act.
If so, the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, recently invoked by the Federal Court to strike down the enticement of married women as a criminal offence, must be applied with equal vigour to this case. Selective application of constitutional principles is itself a violation of the oath.
The forgery scandal also raises questions about citizenship provisions contained in the constitution. Although judicial review of citizenship decisions is barred by Section 2 of Part III to the Second Schedule of the constitution, the oath jurisprudence may offer an opening for challenge.
It is not the letter of the law alone that governs us, but its spirit. If the spirit is violated, the courts must intervene — not merely to punish, but to restore constitutional integrity.
Equally troubling is the issue of alcohol at government-linked events.
In recent months, public debate has intensified over the presence of alcohol at state functions officiated by ministers or funded by state agencies.
The discourse, however, has remained moralistic and superficial, ignoring the deeper constitutional implications.
Article 3 of the Federal Constitution declares Islam as the religion of the Federation, while guaranteeing freedom of religion for others.
This duality is not a contradiction — it is a constitutional balance. Ministers, regardless of personal belief, are oath-bound to uphold this balance.
The serving of alcohol at events funded by the state or officiated by ministers may conflict with the constitutional spirit, particularly in a country where Islamic values shape public policy.
The issue is not whether alcohol is permissible in private life. It is whether its presence at state functions violates the oath of office or undermines public trust in governance.
The Federal Court’s decision to strike down the enticement provision — drawn up to preserve the sanctity of marriage and still retained in India — was met with silence from religious bodies.
If that decision stands unchallenged, why should alcohol at state events provoke greater outrage?
In India, a secular republic, the offence of enticing a married woman remains criminal under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. On the other hand, Malaysia, with Islam as its constitutional anchor, has struck it down.
The contrast is telling. It suggests that our constitutional compass is guided not by principle, but by convenience.
Both controversies — football forgery and alcohol at state events — share a common thread: they involve state actors, constitutional obligations, and potential breaches of public trust.
They are not matters for political posturing or moral grandstanding. They are matters for judicial determination.
In my student days, a football player straying into an offside position would be called out with a shout of “curi ayam”. On that score, to me, the football forgery case may well earn the cry “curi orang”.
But more properly, both the football forgery and alcohol debacles should be called out for “curi perlembagaan”, because in both cases it is the constitution that has been sidelined.
The courts must now act, not merely as interpreters of law, but as guardians of constitutional morality.
The doctrine of constitutional supremacy must be applied consistently, not selectively.
The oath of office must be treated not as ceremonial, but as binding.
The public must be reminded that constitutional fidelity is not a matter of convenience — it is a matter of national integrity.
The proper resolution for the football forgery and alcohol issues lies with the Federal Court.
In both cases, only the apex court is equipped to act as VAR — Violation Adjudicator and Remedier.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.