Respectfully, I Beg to Differ

A Response to Syerleena’s Views on Limiting Leadership Terms

I respect your views, YB Syerleena Abdul Rashid, but I must humbly disagree. You argue that democracy – not divine will – should dictate leadership terms, as if democracy is some flawless mechanism immune to manipulation, corruption, and self-serving interests. If only the world were that simple.

The Flawed Assumption of Democracy

You claim that limiting leadership terms ensures good governance. Yet history tells us otherwise. The US, the self-proclaimed champion of democracy, strictly limits its presidents to two terms. Did that prevent it from waging endless wars, toppling governments, and leaving nations in ruin? George W Bush had eight years to devastate Iraq, Barack Obama had eight years to turn Libya and Syria into bloodbaths, and Joe Biden continued the tradition with unwavering enthusiasm. Clearly, the length of service has nothing to do with the quality of leadership.

The Real Issue: Leadership Principles

The real issue, Syerleena, is not how long a leader stays, but how they lead. A corrupt leader can destroy a nation in a single term while a just leader, grounded in faith and moral integrity, can serve for decades and still act in the people’s best interests. Leadership should be measured by principles, not an arbitrary time limit imposed in the name of democracy.

The Importance of a Higher Moral Compass

Without a higher moral compass, democracy is merely a numbers game, where power belongs not to the people but to those who control the narrative – media tycoons, corporate elites, and political financiers. And let’s be honest, it doesn’t take eight years to know that a leader is unfit for office. Two years is more than enough to see a prime minister break his promises, betray the very principles he once preached, and prove himself unworthy of the position he holds.

A Call for Meaningful Change

This is not about whether PAS, as a party, agrees or disagrees with the proposal to limit the prime minister’s post to two terms. The bigger issue is whether such a change will truly create a healthier political climate in Malaysia. If not, it is nothing more than a cosmetic enhancement to democracy – an illusion of reform that lacks real impact on the rakyat.

PAS’s Stance

PAS will not allow itself to be dragged into any agenda that serves to merely beautify the government’s image without bringing meaningful change to the nation.

The True Test of Leadership

So, with all due respect, Syerleena, limiting leadership terms is no guarantee of good governance. The true test of leadership is not its duration, but its righteousness. And no ballot box alone can determine that.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while I acknowledge the importance of democracy in shaping the political landscape, I firmly believe that it is not the sole determining factor in leadership. True change requires a higher moral compass, a commitment to principles, and a focus on the well-being of the people.

FAQs

* What is the author’s stance on limiting leadership terms?
+ The author disagrees with the proposal to limit the prime minister’s post to two terms, believing that it is not a guarantee of good governance.
* What is the author’s alternative to limiting leadership terms?
+ The author suggests that leadership should be measured by principles, not an arbitrary time limit.
* What is the author’s view on the role of democracy in shaping the political landscape?
+ The author acknowledges the importance of democracy, but believes that it is not immune to manipulation, corruption, and self-serving interests.
* What is the author’s position on the importance of a higher moral compass in leadership?
+ The author believes that a higher moral compass is essential in ensuring that leaders act in the best interests of the people, rather than serving their own interests.