Sports Bill: Where does ministerial power stop?

 The new law strengthens the minister and sports commissioner, but leaves a crucial question over where regulatory power should stop.

The problem with the Sports Development (Amendment) Bill 2026 is not simply how much power it gives the youth and sports minister.

It is where that power stops.

The Dewan Rakyat passed the Bill on Tuesday after 31 MPs debated it, amid concerns that the proposed Section 41A could give the minister sweeping authority over sports bodies.

Under the provision, the minister may declare a sports body unlawful if it is used for purposes harmful to national security, public order or morality. The order would cancel its registration after consultation with the sports commissioner.

Minister Dr Taufiq Johari has stressed that this is not a blank cheque. He said disagreement with the government, internal disputes or unhappiness with a sports body’s leadership would not, by themselves, justify action.

He also said the provision would rely on existing laws and offences and remain open to judicial review.

Those safeguards matter but they do not remove the central question.

If the sports commissioner is supposed to be the regulator, why is the most drastic regulatory power being placed in the hands of the politician who appoints the regulator?

That is the issue Parliament should continue examining before the Bill becomes law.

A stronger commissioner, but a stronger minister too

The Bill does not merely increase ministerial power. It also strengthens the sports commissioner.

Registered sports bodies will need the commissioner’s approval before changing their name, address or constitution, while the commissioner can direct amendments to bring a constitution into line with the law. The Bill also creates a stronger enforcement and investigation framework.

That creates an awkward structure. The commissioner becomes a stronger regulator while the minister retains the power to take the most serious action against a sports body.

There are therefore two centres of authority without a clearly independent layer between them.

That raises a basic question: who regulates Malaysian sport — the political ministry or an independent sporting regulator?

The answer should not depend on the personality of whoever happens to hold the minister’s post.

The sports commissioner is appointed by the minister, while the office already has substantial regulatory powers under the Sports Development Act 1997, including registration and deregistration functions.

The new Bill adds to those responsibilities rather than creating a fundamentally separate regulator.

If Malaysia genuinely wants a strong sports commissioner, perhaps the next step should be to make the office more institutionally independent from the minister, not merely more powerful under the minister.

That could mean clearer safeguards around appointments, tenure, removal and appeals. The precise model is open to debate.

The principle is harder to dispute: strong institutions also need strong boundaries between them.

The government has said it wants better governance and accountability in sport. The test is whether the new structure makes those institutions stronger, rather than simply making the executive stronger.

Deregistration is not a minor penalty

Section 41A deserves particular scrutiny because deregistration can go far beyond stopping an association from operating.

Under the Bill, assets of a deregistered sports body can vest in the director-general of insolvency for the winding-up of its affairs and settlement of debts. A new body may seek to take over its assets and liabilities with High Court approval.

Deregistration is therefore not simply a warning or suspension. It can end a sports body’s legal existence, trigger the winding-up of its affairs and disrupt control of its assets and liabilities.

Such a power may be necessary in extreme cases. A sports body used to finance terrorism, organise violence or facilitate serious criminal activity cannot expect registration to provide protection.

The minister has cited terrorism, subversive or espionage activity, riots and violence, and serious forms of sexual exploitation and trafficking as examples of the intended threshold.

But Parliament should still ask whether those limits belong clearly enough in the law itself.

The word “morality”, in particular, can carry a wide meaning. What evidence must be produced? Who decides when the threshold has been crossed? Must the conduct involve an offence under existing law? Does the sports body get a meaningful opportunity to answer the allegations before its registration disappears?

Those questions are not obstacles to enforcement. They are safeguards against arbitrary enforcement.

If the government’s position is that Section 41A will apply only in serious circumstances already covered by law, spelling that out more tightly would strengthen the provision.

The football citizenship scandal inevitably surfaced during the debate, with MPs warning against concentrating too much authority in one political office.

But this should not become a FAM story. The more useful question is: what lessons from FAM should be written into the institutional architecture of Malaysian sport?

If the episode exposed weaknesses in governance, accountability, documentation or decision-making, the answer cannot simply be to give the government more power over sports bodies.

It should be to make the system harder to circumvent, with clearer duties, better records, transparent procedures and credible independent review.

Malaysia already has rules, registration requirements and enforcement powers. Yet 4,687 sports associations and clubs were recorded as inactive or problematic between 2020 and 2025.

The figure included 23 national bodies, 206 state bodies, 486 district bodies and 3,972 clubs, with some found to have breached their constitutions or the Sports Development Act.

The issue, then, is not simply whether the law has enough teeth. It is whether the system can make sports bodies comply and govern themselves properly.

The commissioner already has considerable authority. The bigger challenge is making the regulatory system work consistently and effectively.

That is why strengthening the office should mean more than adding powers. It should mean bolstering its independence and accountability too.

The government has also stressed the need for better governance and accountability in sport. The new legislation therefore needs to draw a clear line between legitimate public regulation and political control of sport.

The Bill has passed the Dewan Rakyat, but it is not yet law. It still has to go through the Dewan Negara before royal assent and gazettal. That leaves room to tighten the framework.

The question is not whether the state should act against a sports body that genuinely threatens national security or public order. It should.

The question is who decides when that threshold has been crossed, on what evidence, under what process and with what independent scrutiny.

The amendment strengthens both ends of the regulatory chain. The minister gets a formidable new power. The sports commissioner gets stronger regulatory powers.

What it does not yet appear to provide is a sufficiently independent middle or appellate layer.

The problem is not power. It is where the power stops. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.