Why is opposition interested in MIC’s problems? – Thomas Samuel

I refer to the article on your news portal titled “MIC's Palanivel rejects Umno's interference” published on February 19, 2015.

It is always strange when a member of the opposition party starts to support a member from the ruling party. 

In the article, P. Ramasamy, the deputy chief minister of Penang (Pakatan Rakyat-run state) from DAP is clearly seen as supporting the actions taken by Datuk Seri G. Palanivel to challenge the Registrar of Society (RoS) and rejecting the helping hand extended by Umno a member of the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition of which MIC is a member.

There can only be two reasons Ramasamy is throwing his weight behind Palanivel: he is a childhood friend of Palanivel or for the ulterior motif of endorsing a weak leader! The latter seem more relevant.

Any opposition party will be delighted to have a weak challenger as their objective can be achieved much faster with a weak competitor. Palanivel had declined the assistance extended by BN.

However, he failed to respond to Ramasamy to “mind your own business”, knowing very well that the opposition man is more than happy to disunite MIC and BN. 

Many in MIC are well aware that Palanivel has a soft spot for DAP and to prove it, he had considered BN's challenge during the 13th general election in Penang irrelevant. 

According to sources, he had said that it was difficult to win Penang even before trying. Is this the trait of a good leader?

Ramasamy’s article can clearly be seen as an effort to split MIC. His endorsement of the actions by Palanivel and making Datuk Seri Dr S. Subramaniam seen as a villain is nothing but to create chaos in MIC. 

Is this so difficult to understand? A true leader would have protected his party and its members from outside forces trying to disunite them. 

However, Palanivel failed to react to such an obvious agenda in return for his personal gains, whatever that may be.

In the latest development on the MIC saga, as a leader, Palanivel was yet again unable to control his strategic director, A.K. Ramalingam from filing a case against the RoS to quash its directive to hold fresh elections for all positions, after agreeing to it on February 19.

This again exposes him as a weak leader.

Technically, Palanivel was never elected as the president of MIC. In 2010, with the resignation of Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu, Palanivel took over the leadership of the party. 

As per clause 63 in the MIC constitution, “the deputy president shall in the absence of the president act for the president and perform such functions as are normally exercised by the president”.

As for the duties of the president, it is clearly specified in Clause 60.3 that he has the power vested in him to secure the observance of the constitution. 

Again in Clause 61.1, it says “The president has the power to suspend a member from his membership”.

It is, therefore, clear that the deputy president does not have the power but a supporting role to perform such functions as are normally exercised by the president. 

The constitution deliberately does not say all functions and we can conclude that the deputy president cannot execute the power of an elected president.

The spirit of the constitution for the role of the deputy president is to ensure the smooth administration of the party in the absence of the president for whatever reasons. 

Again in 2013, Palanivel cannot claim to be the President when RoS had found irregularities among the branches that had voted Palanivel uncontested as the president.

RoS concluded that there were serious illegality issues with regards to the formation of branches after 2012.  And rightly, it had decided elections should be conducted again.

Given this scenario, the only honourable thing for Palanivel to do is to call for elections for all positions.  However, Palanivel is seen as putting a barrier to every solution proposed to resolve this crisis.

I pause to ponder what his ulterior motif is? To deregister MIC?

* Thomas Samuel reads The Malaysian Insider.