Did the Prime Minister meet the MIC, or did the MIC meet the Prime Minister?

This I ask because in politics who meet whom can be read many ways. In short, it is a big deal.

Perhaps it’s a Malaysian rather Asian society “fixation” which has got a lot to do with “saving face.” I don’t know!

Anyway, for instance under “unhappy” circumstances, if it is said that Mr X meets Mr Y, it can be interpreted as Mr X wanting to settle issues between them and is showing respect to Mr Y. What more if the meeting is held at the home of Mr Y?

At least that’s how Mr Y would usually go about telling all and sundry.

If it is said to be the other way round, i.e. Mr Y meets Mr X. It can be seen as Mr Y is the one who needs the issues between them settled and it is he who is showing respect to Mr X, even if the meeting takes place at Mr Y’s home.

This is speaking in general. Hence, I am not suggesting it being the case of the meeting between the PM and MIC which took place on August 2, Wednesday, incidentally at MIC headquarters.

Here’s the thing.

FMT earlier reported a leaked circular saying a meeting had been arranged by the MIC on August 2 with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, while a party insider, according to the news portal, said the meeting “is about the ill treatment of MIC by Umno.”

That the MIC is unhappy with Umno is not a big secret. In fact, this would later be revealed by its president S.A. Vigneswaran during the meeting with Anwar. More about this in a while.

FMT also reported on August 1 that Anwar had confirmed the meeting.

So, we have what we have. The meeting has already taken place. So, what are the takeaways?

A political observer tells me that the meeting is a show of unity of the unity government. In fact, the MIC has pledged support for Anwar’s leadership and will campaign for the PH-BN candidates contesting the six states elections on August 12. All that is good for the Prime Minister.

And Anwar has said all the MIC grouses will be looked into.

Although he said he would not interfere in BN’s internal affairs, he believed any rising issues should be resolved amicably. That is to put it simply. Again, good for the Prime Minister.

“With or without the MIC, the majority of Indian voters will support the PH-BN pact. The MIC has lost its way.”

Speaking about Anwar’s non-interference of BN affairs and the MIC’s problems with Umno, political analyst Sivamurugan Pandian told me this a day before the Anwar-MIC meet up: “Anwar can advise but I don’t know to what extent he can be involved in the other bloc party member. I mean MIC is a member of BN while Anwar leads PH.

“I don’t know if they allow interference into the affairs of bloc component members or they practice the non-interference concept.”

Well, the doubt was cleared by Anwar at the meeting.

Vigneswaran nevertheless went on to “complain” to Anwar alleging that Umno had sidelined MIC which was among the grouses felt by his party, bringing it up despite saying he was surprised Umno president Zahid Hamidi was present at the meeting.”

It’s hard for me to speak (openly) “I didn’t expect Zahid to be here,” he was quoted saying.

But not knowing or failing to anticipate Zahid’s presence is, I would say, a bit naïve. But still he said what he wanted to convey to Anwar in front of Zahid.

Bravado or suicidal only time will tell. But we know Umno too has its complaints about the MIC. For example, the perceived threat by the MIC to leave BN, besides MIC staying away from the state elections and its no show at the campaign trail (before the meeting with Anwar).

The painful truth for the MIC is that it has lost the support of the Indian community, the very community it claims to represent.

The Indian community just does not care about the party. That is putting it mildly.

Hence, a member of the party whom I would not name for obvious reasons, said firstly the MIC must set clear directions and the mood within the Indian community.

“What’s the point for the PM to meet the MIC when the party does not call the shots as to whom Indians should vote.”

The party, he said, is perceived as being interested only in securing positions in government and GLCs.

Come to think of it, during the meeting with Anwar, the MIC president was said to have said “it’s not that we want government posts. It’s about respect.”

But at the same time, he was also quoted saying, “MIC has been in BN for very long. We only follow our ‘brother.’ We only want one minister’s post and in certain states, one exco post.”

As the MIC member sees it, the party has nothing to show as to what it has in store to alleviate the problems faced by the Indian community. And the question in the minds of Malaysian Indians, according to him, is who is representing them in government?

Having said that, he also said this: “With or without the MIC, the majority of Indian voters will support the PH-BN pact. The MIC has lost its way.”

For the record, his comments, just like the one by political analyst Sivamurugan earlier, were made before the MIC’s meeting with the Prime Minister.

And also for the record, I need to say the MIC member has been with the party since 1988. 

(Mohsin Abdullah is a veteran journalist and now a freelancer who writes about this, that and everything else.)