With the two rival MIC factions having chosen their respective presidents, the internal strife engulfing the party looks all set to be a protracted affair.
Dr S Subramaniam won the top party post for the 2013-2016 term unopposed during the presidential nomination last Friday. Eleven days earlier, on Aug 9, G Palanivel was declared head honcho during a separate presidential nomination held by his faction.
Both factions, say political analysts, have justified their actions, and while the Subramaniam-led faction has the backing of the Registrar of Societies (ROS), the other group claims its proceedings are in line with the Societies Act 1966.
The analysts also feel that recourse to the courts appear to be the only means to resolve the current dispute, adding that supporters of both factions should leave it to the court to decide who the rightful president is.
The MIC crisis was triggered after Palanivel and Subramaniam developed differences of opinion over a notice issued by the ROS last Dec 5 directing the party to hold fresh elections. The ROS had also declared the MIC's 2009 central working committee (CWC) as the valid interim CWC, but only for the purpose of conducting new elections.
The crisis escalated when ROS director-general Mohammad Razin Abdullah, in a letter dated June 25, said that Palanivel was no longer an MIC member as per Article 91 of the MIC constitution.
The article stipulates that members who resort to court action without first referring to the CWC will cease to be a member of the party.
(On Feb 24, Palanivel and three others filed judicial review proceedings to quash the ROS directive to the MIC to hold fresh elections. Their application was rejected by the High Court here on June 15, while their appeal against the court ruling was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on July 13. They have now filed an appeal in the Federal Court.)
Someone must go to court
Universiti Sains Malaysia lecturer Asso Prof Sivamurugan Pandian felt that one of the factions may have to go to court to challenge the other faction's presidential nomination and election.
His view was echoed by MIC veteran leader K Vijayanathan, who said: "Somebody must go to the court, unless there is intervention by a neutral party which can mediate and put some sense into them. We can't have two presidents running the party."
Sivamurugan said the conflict between the two factions was likely to continue even after fresh party elections have been conducted due to the presence of two presidents.
"But it's clear that ROS will only recognise one president, that is Subramaniam," he told Bernama recently.
Vijayanathan, who was a CWC member during the 1970s and is now election committee chairperson for the Palanivel camp, said the former natural resources and environment minister was now awaiting the Federal Court's decision on the appeal against the ROS directive to the party to hold fresh elections.
"We've to see what the highest court in Malaysia has to say about ROS issuing such a notice," he said.
Vijayanathan, who is a lawyer by profession, said both factions had flouted the MIC constitution by holding separate presidential nominations and elections.
"The constitution doesn't provide for two presidential elections," he said.
ROS no right to interfere
He also insisted that challenging the ROS directive did not necessarily warrant the termination of party membership of those who took the matter to court.
He agreed, however, that the much-debated Article 91 of the MIC constitution made it clear that internal disputes should be settled within the party and not be taken to court.
"However, my personal view is that the ROS directive runs counter to Section 18B and 18C of the Societies Act 1966 which, when interpreted, states that the ROS has no right to interfere in a political party's internal affairs," explained Vijayanathan.
Section 18B refers to the circumstances under which no election in any political party can be declared invalid, while 18C states that any decision made by a party is final and conclusive and that "such decision shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court on any ground, and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or determine any suit, application, question or proceeding on any ground regarding the validity of such decision".
"It is clear from these provisions under the Societies Act that the ROS cannot issue a directive to MIC to hold fresh elections," said Vijayanathan.
He, however, added that the best way to end the turmoil was for the leaders of both factions to "lay down their arms", resolve the various issues and work at uniting the Indian community.
"Do they want to see a party that is fractured for years to come or do they want a party that is strong? We have lost one cabinet post and if we continue like this, the MIC may lose the sole cabinet post it now has," he warned.
Never ending saga
Vijayanathan also pointed out that the presence of two presidents was creating a great deal of confusion among the party's branch chairmen throughout the country, as most of them have no issues with either Subramaniam or Palanivel.
He also said that the current feud was nothing new as far as the party was concerned as the MIC had a chequered history of similar rivalry between its top two leaders.
"It has been happening since the time the party was established. The first president, John Aloysius Thivy, had problems with Budh Singh in the 1940s. Then when Budh Singh became president, he had some issues with KL Devaser.
"And once Devaser became president, he had problems with VT Sambanthan who, in turn, had problems with V Manikavasagam. He (Manikavasagam) had issues with S Samy Vellu who, as we all know very well, later didn't get along with his deputy S Subramaniam," he related.
Vijayanathan opined that the party's never-ending saga of rivalry could be attributed to the inability of the top leadership to reach a compromise.
Source: Bernama
