Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe by Email One would wonder why only now is there a proposal to limit the term of MIC office-bearers. I can’t remember any such proposal in the last 30 years during the MIC AGM or general assembly. Anyone can clarify? MCA had implement a limit since last two years. I think many other parties don’t have such limit, be it ruling or opposition parties.
Proponents say the limit will ensure new blood and ideas are constantly injected into the party. Detractors say there’ will be constant infighting/competition for posts and that long-term plans can’t be implemented if got term limit. But I think a 5-6 year term is more than enough to attain few milestones of a long term plan of, let’s say, 30 years. Let the next person come in and fine tune the plans put in place.
Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu, who has been MIC president for 11 terms, is proposing that the party limits the term of office-bearers as part of its re-branding exercise to regain the trust of the Indian community.
This is among the last mandate which he wants to accomplish as he enters the last lap of his presidency.
He has held the post since 1979 and has become the longest-serving leader in Barisan Nasional.
Samy Vellu said that besides limiting the term of office-bearers, the party wants to attract younger leaders in an attempt to regain its position as the main party for Indians.
“We want to ensure that MIC becomes a party with equal opportunities for the young and old,” he told newsmen after meeting party leaders at a hotel here yesterday.
Samy Vellu said these were among several proposals that he wants to implement before retiring from politics.
So, what do you think? Is term limit good or bad? If good, how long should a limit be?
