The ruling party and government have differing views and are taking a cautious approach… putting the brakes on limiting financial holding company CEOs to three consecutive terms.

The issue of limiting the term lengths for financial institution chairmen has been a contentious topic in discussions, but it has yet to gain traction. Despite repeated attempts by financial authorities, the proposed "three-term limit law" remains stagnant due to opposition from both the ruling party and opposition factions. The core of the proposed legislation aims to restrict a financial institution chairman's term to one extension of three years.

This is seen as necessary to prevent ex-chairmen from infiltrating the board of directors with loyal appointees and continuing to wield influence for extended periods. However, the effectiveness of such a measure is debated, as there are concerns about weakening the independence of the board and the ability of shareholders to assess and hold the management accountable.

Despite recent improvements in the financial sector, there are doubts about whether simply limiting the terms of chairmen will address the underlying issues. The stability of financial institutions often stems from regulatory safeguards rather than the competence of individual chairmen. Critics argue that merely capping the number of terms for chairmen does not inherently guarantee better governance and may not be a practical solution.