COMMENT The very notion of accountability means that you answer to a higher power. We have seen how Najib Abdul Razak has used his position of power to emasculate any and all institutions that might hold him accountable.

If there is no set date on which you are beyond doubt going to vacate your seat of power, then everyone beneath you in the pecking order (ie, everyone) is incentivised to assume that you will simply be there forever, and act (or kiss ass) accordingly.

True, you can theoretically have no term limits and still be accountable; but in practice, this basically just means being accountable only to yourself.

Of course, it’s easy to say “The great Lim Guan Eng would never do such a thing!”

Maybe some of us are comfortable living in such blind trust. Personally, I prefer to put my faith in value-based institutions and proper systems of checks and balances.

No one should accuse Lim or anyone else of corruption without considerable evidence. Cases like Taman Manggis , the Penang Tunnel and so on have however certainly raised eyebrows and given cause for reasonable doubt. I’m sure in the end the truth will out one way or another of course.

Arrogance and condescension

In honesty though, I think the part of Woo’s article that was saddest, and which most compelled me to write this article was this section:

“There is an assumption among the proposal’s proponents that good political leaders are aplenty.

Firstly, it remains to be seen if there are qualified candidates waiting to fill the role. One cannot simply assume without basis the availability of suitable aspirants for the job.

The proposal needs more than a rehashing of self-assuring pseudo-egalitarian shibboleth that everyone can be a great leader, for leaders are very much like money, they do not grow on trees.

After all we are talking about the chief minister position, a highly demanding job. Limiting tenure to two-terms does not only open up the floodgate for underqualified candidates to rise to the job but also prematurely terminates the service of great leaders and deprives the state of needed leadership.

Hence, instead of rejuvenating leadership, the proposal actually promotes mediocre leadership for the state. We do not need underqualified short-term office holders but determined visionary leaders whose service must not be prematurely aborted.”

‘Malaysian’ first?

I take the greatest exception to this claim, and it’s fundamental, underlying assumption that: (unlike the one and only Lim apparently), Malaysians are generally... underqualified?

The very notion that there simply aren’t enough good Malaysian leaders worthy to fill the great Lim’s shoes feels like a slap in the face - a scathing insult to who we are, and what we’re worth, as Malaysians.

I’m exhausted of hearing others talk down to Malaysians like we’re not good enough; even more so when this tired line is being used to justify keeping one man in power for as long as he likes.

As for: “Limiting tenure to two-terms... opens up the floodgate for underqualified candidates to rise to the job”; to follow that train of thought to its logical conclusion, there really is no need for democracy at all. A civil service exam will do just as well to choose our heads of state.

If we apply that logic to countries with strict term limits, we must also assume that either all leaders in states with term limits are underqualified, or Malaysians are just less qualified (or more stupid) than other people. I guess the Malaysian in DAP’s ‘Malaysian First’ is the secretary-general.

Using a term like ‘self-assuring pseudo-egalitarian shibboleth’ suggests that the author and his bosses believe that Malaysians are not in fact equal, and that those stupid enough to believe so are better off falling into line, and listening to their betters who know what’s actually good for the sheep that we are.

For those of similar convictions though, the good news is that paradise is only a causeway away.

No Malaysian as good as Lim?

The very notion that in the absence of Lim no one worthwhile would step in to fill his shoes not only suggests contemptuous condescension for all Malaysians, it also represents a vote of no confidence whatsoever in DAP as a party.

What is the real value of a movement or party that has only Lim to offer? Certainly no more than the value of a party like PKR with nothing beyond Anwar Ibrahim to offer.

Woo seems to justify the refusal to impose limits on the CM’s power because it is at best naive (and at worst, stupid, disloyal and impertinent) to believe that anyone can be a great leader.

On the contrary, I believe that it is the responsibility of great leaders to make their people never doubt for even one second that they all have it in them to be great - at anything, and everything.

Just ask Chef Gusteau, see here and here .

Siege mentality and the politics of fear

Woo quotes Fukuyama: “Before you can limit power, you have to be able to generate power”.

This calls to mind an attitude that I think is a siege mentality thought process prevalent in some of Lim and DAP’s most hardcore supporters: that Malaysian non-Malays and non-Muslims are under constant oppression and threat, and what political power is invested in ‘the Chinese’ (aka Lim) must be defended ruthlessly and at all costs.

Needless to say, it’s very, very easy to manipulate those fears for one’s own benefit.

I for one prefer Acton’s quote about how absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Institutions like term limits are based on notions that even the best of us can be corrupted by an excess of power.

The opposite of this thinking is that any one individual is some godlike entity beyond compare and whose infallible rule must be free from limitation.

Emulating Karpal’s faith

The year is 2016. I think we can leave feudalism and our cults of personality behind now. Maybe that’s the real shibboleth that we need to abandon.

I for one, do not choose to put my faith in any one man or woman. I put my faith in this nation as a whole.

This is no blind faith either. It is a faith based on Malaysians I have met, interacted with, worked with, struggled with, fought with, laughed with, and cried with - from all walks of life, including the DAP.

There is not just one, not just ten, but a hundred, maybe even a thousand of them (again, also many within DAP) who could easily do as good or better as Lim Guan Eng - or any other politician for that matter. Even the right honourable member from Bukit Mertajam perhaps.

Again though, it’s not about who should or shouldn’t replace Lim. It’s about what we want to build our country around: individuals or institutions?

Institutions like term limits are meant to safeguard us against all dictators, ‘benevolent’ or otherwise. It is no be all end all political solution, but I daresay the pros outweigh the cons.

Term limits and similar institutions are also predicated on faith in the idea that even should the best of us fall, there will be thousands of the same calibre ready to take their place.

Karpal Singh’s approach in 2014 was perhaps closer to the mark here, encapsulated in one simple quote : “If they knock one Karpal down, 100 Karpals will rise.”

I believe Karpal had real faith in Malaysians. I believe the rest of us should have the same.

Correction: Yesterday's inclusion of the UK in the list of countries with term limits for heads of state was incorrect. The UK has no term limits for its prime minister. The longest serving prime minister from the 20th century onwards was Margaret Thatcher, who served for less than 12 years.

Yesterday: Will Guan Eng be Dear Leader for life?

Nathaniel Tan’s cherry-picking and missing the elephant in the room

NATHANIEL TAN is a former member of the Malaysiakini Team. He believes in 'tegur kerana sayang', and is only offering humble, constructive criticism to those whom he actually believes have the potential to be better.