Tough choices for MIC
Whatever it is, the CWC meeting could either be an explosive affair with the party leadership deciding to pull out from the cabinet, or just fizzle out with the party reiterating its denial it made such a threat in the first place.
Written by Surin Murugiah, The Edge
The MIC central working committee (CWC) meeting today could well determine the future of the party in Malaysian politics, as its top echelon grapples with the reality that Indians are fast losing faith in the party.
All eyes will be on the party and its supreme leader Datuk Seri S Samy Vellu as the CWC is expected to discuss, among other things, an online story that broke out a few days ago, citing unnamed sources, that said the party was considering pulling out its representatives — one minister and two deputy ministers — from the government administration to reflect its dissatisfaction over the “poor representation” of Indians in the line-up.
The report also said Samy Vellu was unhappy that he was not made a senator and given a ministerial position. Subsequently, speculation is rife that the idea of a pullout threat came from Samy Vellu himself, although he vehemently denied this.
The party’s top brass have also denied that any such plan had been hatched for Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S Subramaniam and deputy ministers Datuk SK Devamany and Datuk M Saravanan to be yanked out from the government.
Yet, they admit that there is growing discontent among the grassroots questioning the lack of a stronger representation in the cabinet.
Whatever it is, the CWC meeting could either be an explosive affair with the party leadership deciding to pull out from the cabinet, or just fizzle out with the party reiterating its denial it made such a threat in the first place.
Either way, MIC’s next course of action will be watched closely, as the party has been a steadfast Barisan Nasional (BN) ally.
Since the general election in March 2008 when the party was soundly beaten, MIC has embarked on a long and arduous rebranding exercise to change its image and find favour and flavour among Indians.
But it has continued to draw flak from the Indian community for doing little for the betterment of the minority group. The writing has been on the wall for the party since before the infamous Nov 25, 2007 street protest led by the now-outlawed Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf).
For too long the party had taken it for granted that it would have Indian support no matter what.
But the Hindraf movement and widespread alternative news channels changed all that as Indians decisively voted out Samy Vellu and most of his higher echelons in the general election, opting to throw their support behind the opposition that rode on Hindraf’s “Makkal Sakthi” or “people power” battle cry.
Endearing itself even less to the people was the fact that MIC had demonstrated little aggression in demanding rights for Indians prior to the street protests led by Hindraf, or that its leaders were conspicuously absent during the funeral procession of police detainee Kugan Ananthan who died while in custody earlier this year.
While the party has started to make some noise in championing Indian rights, the damage it had done to itself will take a very, very long time to be rectified.
The party has very few options. If it were to maintain status quo and acquiesce to playing a subservient role to other parties in BN, it will continue to be criticised by Indians.
On the other hand, if it decides to pull out of the government administration, it might as well leave BN, and perhaps join Pakatan Rakyat. However, as Pakatan is a multiracial coalition, it might be somewhat difficult for MIC to remain in its present form.
So what are the other options? Dissolve and disappear into oblivion, or stay on in BN with “junior” ministerial positions?
Even as MIC claims to be an important partner in the ruling BN coalition, its dismal performance in the last general election and more recently, in the Bukit Selambau by-election, has raised questions as to its relevance to the Indian community.
As much as the party or its grassroots may complain about cabinet positions, the appointments might reflect the importance attached to its actual role in the ruling coalition.
As long as the president runs the party with an iron fist and surrounds himself with yes men, MIC has no chance of changing itself for real.
It is time that the party heeded what the masses say if it truly wants to stay relevant.
