Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe by Email After interviews with the two challengers for deputy president post, Sothinathan and Dato Subra, Malaysiakini concludes the series with an interview with the incumbent, Palanivel:
Malaysiakini: Between the two contenders – S Subramaniam and S Sothinathan – for your post, who do you consider the bigger threat?
G Palanivel: I think the fight is between me and the former deputy president (Subramaniam).
What about Sothinathan (right)?
He is coming in like a spoiler.
Some say that Sothinathan’s entry into the race was orchestrated…
I don’t believe all these things.
Were you surprised that he chose to contest?
No, I am not surprised because he had expressed the desire to contest even during the last deputy presidential elections. He is quite an ambitious guy. So I am not surprised.
Some see it as an act of betrayal since he was a Samy Vellu loyalist.
I don’t want to comment on these things. It is not wrong to be ambitious.
Your detractors are accusing you of money politics. What do you have to say?
I don’t open my pocket and give out money. What I give (the delegates) are my brochures, books and (DVD) discs. If somebody gives on my behalf, somewhere, some money, it is not my fault.
Subramaniam has asked why you were defeated in your Hulu Selangor parliamentary constituency, when the president said you were the best man for the job.
True. True. But he forgot about his own defeat, just after becoming a young MP. He went into Parliament in 1974 and was defeated in 1978 at a very young age. First term, one term, and he got thrashed by V David. He doesn’t talk of that.
I lost (in the last general election) by only 198 votes in a (political) tsunami, in an election where people closely associated with him admitted that they were responsible for the defeat of party (MIC) candidates. They claimed responsibility in writing, I saw it.
He should (not) compare his defeat (to mine because) he contested at a time when Barisan Nasional was very strong. (At the time) you (could) put anybody also, you can win. (But) he lost to David by 3,000-over votes. And then we lost that seat (Damansara) forever, we never got that seat (back).
I was in my constituency for four terms. People know the political environment (when) we contested in (2008). We contested in a very hostile political environment.
Subramaniam has also described this as the battle for the presidency, since S Samy Vellu is campaigning on your behalf.
He wants to become president. That is his ambition. To become president (while) hiding in the post of the deputy president, hoping that one day something will happen to the president so that he can come and sit in the chair and start warming it, like the way he warmed it (as deputy president) for 25 years.
But he has said he did not want to contest the presidency for the sake of the party, in order not to weaken it further.
If that is so, he should not have challenged the president (in the past). Who was the cause of the disunity and fighting in the party? Not the president or me.
There is a perception that, without the president’s backing, you will not be able to pull this off…that you lack the support.
That is his (Subramaniam’s) opinion. I have my own strength. He knows it. On a one-to-one basis, I am still better off than him because I have served well in a short span of time. I have put my record (out) there. And in one of the press statements, I remember, he mentioned that if the deputy president candidate is supported by the president, it would be an advantage. So he was looking for that kind of support. I am so sorry, he never received it.
Subramaniam claims that he is the right man for the job because he has worked hard for the party and community.
That is okay-lah. Anybody can make that claim. Sothi also says he is the right man for the job. I have never said all those things. (laughs)
What are your comment on caste politics?
I can’t make any comment because I don’t belong to any of the dominant castes (in the party). I am (in) a minority. I am very insignificant in this, so I cannot make any comment.
Why? Because I have supported all the caste groups. Different sections of the Indian community support me, feeling that I am one of the most neutral guys, and I won’t domineer over them.
Do you believe this practice is rampant in the party?
I don’t think so. If you look at the way candidates are picked, (and) branches and divisions are structured from 1946 (up) to now, we are not a caste(-based) organisation. We are a political organisation.
Are your rivals exploiting this issue?
They are using it as a trump card to get (caste-based) votes.
But Subramaniam has completely denied using caste for political advancement and has even challenged the president to a debate to prove this.
I actually don’t read much of what Subramaniam says.
Sothinathan has stressed on the importance of youth to transform the party and suggested that both you and Subramaniam are past your prime.
He may be right but experience is a more important factor in politics. I have done many rounds in this party and have more experience than him. He is new. This was his first general election (in 2008), he was (previously) a by-election candidate.
Critics say that if you are elected and eventually become president, it will be nothing more than a continuation of Samy Vellu’s legacy.
No. Samy Vellu (right) has said many times that I move on my own. I always move on my own, I have my different style. I am a performer, I am a leader in my own right. I have shown leadership, I have proven it. I have my track record and I have got my footprints.
So you will chart your own course?
Yes. I will chart my own course. Of course continuity is important, you see. We can’t undo the achievements of the past by your predecessor. That won’t be my policy.
All three candidates are talking about change. This seems to be the central theme. How do you propose to change the party?
They are not giving any definition about their concept of change. They are just talking about change. Change means, they should have changed the president (laughs), they shouldn’t try to change the deputy president. I am just a small figure of this whole party, I am part of a team. I am a team leader.
I saw them all shouting about change. (If they wanted to change,) they should have changed the president. He (Subramaniam) never had the guts to do that. I have said that earlier.
When he said that I was a ‘shadow’ (of the president), I said ‘If I am a shadow, it’s okay-lah, shadows also can out-shadow people like him’. If I am a shadow, how is it that I can stand up on my own, speak on my own, think on my own, do things on my own.
I brought the government to the people all on my own, I didn’t consult the party president as far as my ministry work was concerned. As far as party work is concerned, of course, I am under a leader, I have to consult him, argue with him, and finally follow his directions.
Critics say that any form of change in MIC is not possible because the president’s presence is a stumbling block.
The president is not a stumbling block. The president has created enough change in this party. The person who follows up on his leadership will create more change according to the needs of the times.
Some disagree with the president coming up with a list of preferred candidates, as it creates an uneven playing field. Is this healthy for a political party which claims to be democratic?
There was one point in the political history of this party, when the president continuously supported Subramaniam (right). When ‘Jumbo’ Maniam (a MIC division leader) filed the nomination papers to challenge the post of deputy president, he (the president) was very unhappy with it, and he (the challenger) withdrew from the contest.
So in the past, before 2006, Subramaniam was always proposed… and the party president has seen to it that he is elected unopposed.
Why is it that, when he was supported by the president, he kept quiet? I am being supported by the president now, just like the way, the president supported him in the past. It is unfortunate that they (cannot) get along, (but) am I to be blamed for it?
Despite the president naming his line-up, there are an overwhelming number of contestants. Some say this is a sign that the president’s influence is waning and the members desire for change. Do you agree?
No, no. There were times when there were so many fellows contesting for the post of president, so many fellows contesting for the other posts. In the last elections, many contested for the posts in the CWC (central working committee) and (for) vice-president. It just shows that democracy is very vibrant in our party.
Is MIC still relevant?
MIC is relevant and will continue to be relevant because we are the only party that represents the Indians in this country. You can look at the way our political campaigns are carried out and the way (people) attend our campaigns, our elections and our nominations as well as our meetings… the party is largely intact. So it (the influence) is not waning at all. We can see more and more people interested in joining the party.
Like how Umno represents the Malays, MCA represents the Chinese, MIC will continue to represent the Indians because there are no other holistic party which can represent the Indians. And we are the only party with an archival memory, we have a long history. So at some points during our history, we have suffered, then we make a comeback.
Critics say that MIC leaders, from top to bottom, are more interested in serving themselves rather than the community.
MIC leaders have served the community well, but the general political environment (in the past) was not enabling (enough) for us to function. So that crippled most of our activities. So we need a very enabling political environment and now, the new government under the new prime minister, is creating this enabling environment for us. I think with this, we will be able to function better.
Why should delegates vote for you?
Well, I am not forcing the delegates to vote for me. I am just canvassing for votes, but I think they will vote for me because they like me. I can see this feeling of like and of love… they think that I am a reliable guy, that I am a guy with a lot of passion and commitment for my work, that I am accountable, that I am transparent and I report to them about what I do.
At all times in my political career, I have been reporting to them three times, four times a year and I have always maintained a (line of) communication with them. I used to send them birthday cards, greeting cards and SMS. I had a service centre in my constituency.
I (have been) a very consistent politician. Consistency is my hallmark. I am not a politician who, when I like it, I come in and when I don’t like it, I go out, (I don’t) as and when I like, come back and make a stake for the throne.
What about the controversy that surrounds Maika Holdings?
The Maika Holdings issue, we will resolve it. At the moment, we are unable to resolve it because of the injunction that has been put by Subramaniam… so there are some arguments going on between the parties involved in this. You notice one thing, all those who are holding their shares who are our party members, they are not making much noise.
If someone (a shareholder) is financially in trouble, and he wants back his shares, I think that is being taken care of to a large extent. But sometimes, you cannot pay everybody. So the moment the insurance company (can) be set up for sale and when there is a buyer, I think we can settle it.
But Subramaniam says the injunction was filed in the best interests of shareholders, and Maika did not look for the best buyer…
Then, he should have gone around looking for the best buyer. If he is unhappy with the buyer that the present people brought in, then he should have brought in a better buyer and offered a better offer, ‘hey you guys are only offering pennies, I am now offering you millions of ringgit’.
He should have brought (in) the buyer, (but) he didn’t. He only stopped the sale… why didn’t he bring a buyer? Why did he choose to go to the court?
After reading all three interviews, what’s your views? Who is most suitable among the three? Perhaps should have set up an open debate between them for the delegates to decide. Whatever it is, we are just observers and won’t make a difference in the party elections. Only the 1000 plus delegates have the power to make the “change”.
