MIC’s continued indecision projects a negative image to the Indian community and to Malaysians in general. Party members have deferred the decision on exiting Barisan Nasional (BN) to the Central Working Committee and senior leadership.

The last-minute turnaround surprised many who expected the meeting to give the green light to break away from BN.

The reasons cited for not doing so were flimsy and strongly suggest that the party has last-minute reservations about leaving BN.

Perhaps some members expressed concern about the consequences of such a move.

Recently, former Deputy Chief Minister of Penang, Prof. Dr. P. Ramasamy, made a witty remark, suggesting that MIC’s exit from BN would be quickly followed by investigations by the MACC.

MIC was not known for transparency or accountability in its heyday, and fears persist that opening the Pandora’s box of past controversies could further alienate the Indian community.

At the same time, party leaders insist they want to leave BN but fully support Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim—a peculiar contradiction interpreted by many as political insurance.

Many observers anticipate a Cabinet reshuffle after the Sabah elections, with several ministerial positions currently vacant.

MIC appears to be hoping to win Anwar’s favour and secure a ministerial post.

MCA is likely to make similar demands as a show of loyalty to BN, which will further complicate matters.

This may explain MIC’s hesitation in leaving the coalition.

Historically, MIC has prioritised securing ministerial positions rather than advancing the interests of the Indian community. Even if it succeeds this time, any gain will likely be short-lived.

Given that both Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) have significant Indian membership, the Prime Minister is unlikely to prioritise MIC.

Supporting MIC could antagonise Indian members in those parties.

Within BN, MIC’s electoral prospects are bleak. It cannot win in Malay- or Chinese-majority constituencies even if seats are allocated.

Pakatan Harapan is equally unlikely to surrender winnable multi-racial seats simply to strengthen MIC. Its sole parliamentary seat could easily be lost in GE16.

Separately, MIC is reportedly in talks with UMNO Deputy President Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan.

Overall, MIC’s actions reflect both indecision and opportunism. It is not surprising that many Indians have long viewed the party as self-serving rather than community-driven.

Although the party has lost significant support, it could regain some if it prioritises community interests over leadership ambitions.

MIC must rebuild its grassroots base, explore viable options, and position itself more strategically ahead of the next general election.

Time is running out—GE16 will take place in less than two years, and substantial groundwork is needed to restore community confidence.

Remaining in BN would be politically suicidal, even if it yields temporary positions of power.

If MIC wants to join PN, it must secure a binding pre-election agreement to safeguard the interests of the Indian community. Without such guarantees, it should steer clear of the Malay-centric coalition.

Alternatively, MIC should explore forming a “Third Force” comprising smaller parties and prominent civil society figures to contest multi-racial constituencies in the west coast states.

This could offer a viable and independent political path, provided MIC has the conviction to pursue it.

The party must learn to stand on its own rather than rely on the electoral generosity of others.

Widespread dissatisfaction with the Unity Government presents opportunities that MIC could capitalise on.

With just a few parliamentary seats, MIC and a Third Force could exert influence in the formation of the next government—especially as GE15 demonstrated how small blocs can wield outsized power.

(V. Thomas has been regularly contributing to Malaysian newspapers for the last 40 years.)