I am writing to you because I am disappointed with the current communications director of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR). Nik Nazmi, who also happens to be the state assemblyperson for Seri Setia, was reported to have made several comments against Zaid Ibrahim using Twitter.

 

I understand that his tweets were made in response to the news report on what Zaid said about being loyal to the president of PKR, Wan Azizah, and if elected as deputy president, he will restore presidential authority to her.

 

Of course, I am disappointed that my replacement has not conducted himself in a professional manner. As he is publicly recognised as the communications director of PKR he should be impartial insofar as party elections are concerned.

 

If he had been serving under the previous secretary-general, Salehuddin Hashim, he would have been briefed on Day One that no appointed official of the party shall participate in internal politics. Alas, he has not had the privilege of working with Saleh.

 

Anyway, I am not writing about Nik Nazmi. I am writing about his own lack of understanding of what happened in the 2007 PKR national congress, and how Anwar Ibrahim became the de facto leader of the party.

 

I remember I attended the congress as a delegate from the Petaling Jaya Selatan division. Indeed, I recall being very sad that Anwar decided not to contest for the president’s position because of legal advice from some so-called advisors.

 

And I also remember standing up and insisting that he defy the unjust laws and the selective prosecution of Umno-BN, especially because the people are waiting for him to lead them. More than that, I seconded an impromptu motion that if he withdraws as a presidential candidate, then the national congress shall appoint him as the de facto leader of PKR.

 

The impromptu motion became a resolution of the PKR national congress, the highest body of the party. And the motion got unanimous presumptuous because Anwar had a good reason for not contesting. He knew that he would win and that would have put the party in jeopardy with the Registrar of Societies because he was still banned from holding any positions in a political party then.

 

Now, in 2010, as opposition leader of Malaysia, things are very different for Anwar Ibrahim. Not only is he free to participate in politics but the whole country is looking to him to lead PKR and Pakatan Rakyat to Putrajaya.

 

What excuse has he got for not wanting to take any formal leadership of PKR? If the party is serious about practising democracy, shouldn’t the paramount leader of the party be democratically elected? And if we insist on the rule of law, then shouldn’t Anwar Ibrahim be subject to the party’s constitution, which does not provide for any de facto leader position.

 

Well, the point is that PKR members want to be able to democratically elect their party leaders. Not just the president but they want to be able to nominate and vote for any credible leader for any of the position. What is the point of this exercise, of amending the party constitution and giving each member a vote, and then deny them the right to vote for their paramount leader?

 

I’m sorry, I just don’t see how PKR can have a de facto party leader for life. And isn’t Anwar Ibrahim a bit presumptuous to think that the members will automatically agree to appointing him the de facto leader again?

 

Anyway, as a final comment, I suggest Nik Nazmi learn a little bit of respect for colleagues, especially those who are party leaders, even if they are contesting against their allies or preferred candidate in the party election. More than that, when one is appointed by the president, one serves the party, not the de facto leader or anyone else.

 

The writer is former communications director, PKR.