In more than 700 words, the Malaysia Athletics (MA) president rearranged the narrative and softened the edges. But he also sidestepped the one issue he cannot outrun: a constitutional amendment that enabled his return despite a permanent global ineligibility ruling. On this central point, Karim said almost nothing. 

1.Turning a governance breach into a “dialogue” problem 

Karim framed the crisis as a healthy disagreement — “open discussions… constructive dialogue… evolving governance.” But this is not a clash of “views.”

It is about a rule that violates national sports regulations, contradicts a binding Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruling, and breaches World Athletics’ governance code. A structural breach cannot be recast as a conversation about perspectives. 

2. Distancing himself from the rule written for his return 

Karim stressed that he was not on the council when MA introduced the five-year cap for banned officials to run for office. Technically neat. Politically convenient.

What he did not explain is why: the rule surfaced precisely when his reinstatement became possible. every affiliate except the Federal Territory Athletics Association (FTAA) backed a change that directly benefited him. MA adopted a clause allowing even permanently banned officials to contest after five years. Silence on motive is not the same as proof of innocence.

3. Denying he is “banned for life” — without claiming he is eligible 

Karim’s strongest pushback was his insistence that he was not banned for life by World Athletics. The ambiguity is intentional.

World Athletics lists him as permanently ineligible: no expiry, no review, no reinstatement window. That meets every functional definition of a lifetime ban except the literal phrase. Karim did not say he is eligible. He did not say World Athletics has cleared him. He only disputed the wording. That is not clarification. It is evasion.

4. Ignoring why MA defied World Athletics’ standards 

Karim highlighted unanimous passage of the amendment and the sports commissioner’s approval. Those facts are not the issue.

The real questions remain untouched: Why did MA adopt a rule that contradicts its own international federation? Why treat a permanent CAS ineligibility as a temporary domestic inconvenience? Why realign MA’s constitution with World Athletics now if it was already compliant? Approval is not exoneration, especially when that approval is now under investigation. 

5. Proposing a special committee without accountability 

Karim announced a governance and integrity committee, the classic crisis-management buffer. But he did not say whether it will:

review the five-year cap, examine his own eligibility, amend the constitution to match global rules, hold affiliates accountable for enabling the breach. A committee without consequence is just theatre.

6. Emphasising legacy, not responsibility 

Karim shifted into statesman mode — “succession planning… developing new leaders… only a few years left.” It is a softer frame, designed to recast his tenure as service rather than survival. But reputational packaging does not answer the basic question: How can a permanently ineligible official lead a federation bound by World Athletics’ statutes? 

7. Leaving systemic complicity untouched 

Karim did not address why affiliates passed the five-year cap without objection. Or why the Perak Athletics Association — which he leads — did not move against him after World Athletics declared him ineligible in 2018. That silence is more revealing than the statement itself. 

The real issue is what remains unsaid 

Karim’s statement attempted to pull the controversy into the realm of perception: narrative, legacy, and dialogue. But this is not about perception. It is about legality, governance, and compliance with global sport. The question now is not what Karim says about himself.

It is what World Athletics says about him, and what Malaysian regulators are prepared to enforce. Until those answers arrive, the most important line in his statement is the one he did not write: