Will the Malaysian government move to limit the Prime Minister’s tenure to two terms or a maximum of 10 years? This idea has sparked intense debate — particularly among the country’s major political parties and figures — over the past two weeks.
DAP Secretary-General Anthony Loke, who also serves as the Minister of Transport, brought the issue to the spotlight during the 18th National Congress. He urged the federal government to amend the Constitution to allow this proposal to move forward.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim promptly expressed his support for the idea, but noted that any constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds majority in Parliament to be passed.
He later instructed the Cabinet to study the proposed two-term limit, acknowledging it as an initiative by the Democratic Action Party (DAP) — the largest party in his Madani coalition government, which draws strong support from Malaysia’s ethnic Chinese and Indian communities.
This idea is nothing new — it has surfaced at least three times in the past. Given its recurrence, one might expect it to gain traction easily, but it hasn’t. Curiously, some of those who once supported the proposal now appear to oppose it. A few have even gone a step further by rejecting it outright.
This year marks the fourth time the proposal has been raised. The most recent attempt was four years ago during the Perikatan Nasional (PN) administration under then Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin. In a special televised address, he announced that a Bill would be tabled—provided the government could secure more than two-thirds bipartisan support in the Dewan Rakyat and the Dewan Negara.
Just three days later, however, on August 16, 2021, Muhyiddin resigned as Prime Minister, along with his Cabinet, effectively shelving the proposal.
The concept was first introduced in 1998 as part of the manifesto of the Barisan Alternatif — a coalition comprising Keadilan, Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM), Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS), and the DAP. It resurfaced in 2019 during the Pakatan Harapan (PH) administration when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad returned as Prime Minister for a second time.
Technically speaking, all major political parties have, at some point, expressed support for the idea. Yet, ironically, the situation this time paints a very different picture.
Back then, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad — Malaysia’s longest-serving Prime Minister, who held office from 1981 to 2003 and again from 2018 to 2020 — even described the move during the 11th Malaysia Plan mid-term review as a key step in Putrajaya’s political reform agenda. Now, however, he argues that a decade “is not enough to implement successful progress.”
PAS President Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, meanwhile, took a sharper stance, dismissing the proposal altogether and declaring that it “goes against God’s will”.
Bersih Malaysia (The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections), on the other hand, has taken a clear and supportive stance. The electoral reform group echoed the call for the government to table a constitutional amendment to limit the Prime Minister’s tenure to 10 years or two terms during the upcoming parliamentary sitting.
Its chairperson, Faisal Abdul Aziz, expressed confidence that the government could secure the required two-thirds majority, pointing to the smooth passage of the Parliamentary Service Bill — which received bipartisan support earlier this month — as a positive precedent.
“We hope that this agenda will also be supported by opposition MPs for the sake of a better future,” Faisal wrote in a post on X.
Objectively speaking, the proposal — like any other — comes with two sides to the coin: its advantages and drawbacks.
A two-term limit would, to a certain extent, be effective in curbing the abuse of power and reducing the risk of authoritarian drift. As history has demonstrated in Malaysia and numerous other nations, extended periods in power can solidify control, promote a sense of satisfaction, and create conditions conducive to corrupt practices.
Many democracies around the world have implemented term limits. The United States and Indonesia are notable examples. Such limits not only allow for the infusion of fresh perspectives and ideas but also open up political space for younger, more diverse leaders. More importantly, they send a strong message about structural reform and a commitment to good governance. Undeniably, it also aligns with the vision of a ‘Madani Nation’ — one that aspires toward democratic maturity.
On the other hand, the proposed term limit has drawbacks. One concern is the potential for lame-duck leadership. Leaders in their final term may gradually lose political capital or the incentive to make bold decisions, knowing their time in office is limited. This could result in a lack of continuity or diminished effectiveness in governance.
Additionally, the risk of political instability or short-termism cannot be ignored. Successors might be too eager to dismantle or reverse their predecessor’s policies, leading to inconsistency and disruption. Long-term national planning could suffer if leadership changes too frequently, with each new administration steering the country differently.
I don’t believe the proposal should be rejected outright, as it has proven effective in certain countries. However, I would partly agree with Mahathir’s current opinion. If the government is serious about limiting the Prime Minister’s term, then two terms or 10 years might be too short. Ideally, it should be capped at three terms, but not exceeding 15 years in a continuous stretch.
Ultimately, the proposal to limit the Prime Minister’s tenure to two terms is neither perfect nor without merit. It holds the promise of strengthening democratic institutions, curbing the consolidation of power, and encouraging a more inclusive and accountable leadership culture. At the same time, it raises valid concerns about political continuity, policy consistency, and the potential weakening of leadership effectiveness during final terms in office.
What’s important now is for all political stakeholders to approach the matter with sincerity and foresight — beyond party lines and short-term gains. If Malaysia aspires to be a mature democracy under the Madani framework, institutional reforms like this must be debated in-depth, not dismissed for convenience. Whether this proposal becomes reality or remains another missed opportunity will depend not just on numbers in Parliament, but on the political will to do what is right for the nation in the long run.
The views expressed here are those of the writer which do not necessarily represent the views of the Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at drnagrace@gmail.com.
