The foreign factor in rugby
A NATIONAL team impregnated with non-nationals? Well, look no further than international rugby. World Rugby, the governing body of the game, has Rule 8 that governs player eligibility for representative matches. It is worded liberally to the extent that it amounts to a no rule at all, enabling its affiliates to lure talents from any region.
A player is eligible to play for the country in which he or his parent or grandparent was born or if he has completed 36 consecutive months of residency. The last criterion, amended recently to 60 months and to take effect from Dec 31, 2020 after the next Rugby World Cup in Japan in 2019, is the commonest route for foreign professional players who ply their rugby at club level in a particular country so as to qualify and represent that country subsequently.
Another limb of the rule could also give rise to an awkward situation where a player who has never set foot in a particular country is qualified to represent it because his parent or grandparent was born there, the so-called heritage/ granny provision. At one time, there was much talk of enlisting the services of the Underwood brothers, Tony and Rory, then England players, to represent Malaysia. Their mother is a Malaysian!
Consequently, Rule 8 has vast ramifications on the sovereignty of many nations when it comes to team composition. It bestows legitimacy falsely on a foreign player to represent a particular country when that player is a legal non-entity insofar as the country is concerned. There is no consideration to the fact that Rule 8 is in conflict with the more strident citizenship laws of a nation like ours. But such an anomalous and incongruous happening is made possible because many national rugby associations seem anxious to exploit Rule 8 to the fullest to achieve victory at all costs, even to the extent of de-nationalising their teams in line with the adage that the ends justify the means.
Interestingly, all the finalists at the last Rugby World Cup, except Argentina, had foreign-born players. Even the venerable All Blacks, the eventual champions, had a number of players not born in New Zealand.
Malaysia is no exception. It has been fielding Fijians in its international campaigns, especially in the Asian Rugby Championships, for many years now. It is a monumental reversal of the patriotic inspired policy, started in 1966, that only nationals were eligible for the Malaysian XV, a policy that had endured almost unscathed, but for the unfortunate break in 1970, to the late 90s, despite successive changes of office bearers in the Malaysian Rugby Union (MRU), now named Malaysia Rugby.
In fact, at a regional meeting in 1993, the MRU even proposed to restrict only nationals for the Asian Rugby Championships on the grounds of nationalism and patri- otism. Of course, it failed as many rugby nations including the top and richer ones have been making use of Rule 8 to tap foreign talents, particularly from the Pacific Islands of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga. The Rule is often referred to as the “Poaching Clause”.
Admittedly, the policy of only nationals took more than a decade after independence to become a reality. Most probably, the main reason was that the MRU continued to be led mainly by British expatriates; there were eight of them out of eleven presidents, with two Singaporeans, from 1955 to 1965. The late Ung Khek Chew was the first Malaysian to be president in 1959 but his committee was overwhelmingly expatriates. Nevertheless, increasing numbers of locals were inducted into the national XV which was almost an expatriate enclave during the colonial era and in the early years of our nationhood.
It was at the tail end of the presidency of J. B. Potter that the first Malaysian XV of only nationals was paraded at the inaugural international against Singapore on Feb 5, 1966. A truly multi-racial XV comprising seven Malays, six Chinese, one Indian and one Sikh, it beat Singapore 10-3.
But this policy was tweaked in 1970 to accommodate three expatriates, Tim Sheeham, Tim Bagot and Frank Gosling for the Asian Rugby Championship in Bangkok. The trio had earlier represented Selangor in the HMS Malaya Cup final against Singapore Civilians with a performance that probably mesmerised the MRU, then led by Tan Sri Taib Andak, to earn them a last minute call up. A very difficult decision, no doubt, but it left an indelible blight on the nascent policy.
Rugby is always touted as a gentleman’s game. A true gentleman as in the age of chivalry will accept unhesitatingly and fight with dignity when challenged to a duel – sword or pistol but no proxy. On this note, it is time for World Rugby to promulgate a simple and uncomplicated rule of only nationals for a national team. In this regard, France, the thrice beaten finalists at the Rugby World Cup (1987, 1999 and 2011) has now announced that it will select only players holding French passport. To them, I say “bien joue” (well done).
Yes, the MRU of yesteryear was absolutely right to completely ignore Rule 8 on rugby’s laxity on player eligibility and its insidious impact on national sovereignty, preferring instead to uphold national integrity and pride in fielding only nationals for its campaigns. And I stand proud to be counted in that band of rugby administrators.