FINALLY, a concrete plan for reform has been put on the table by new Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob, who has largely retained most of the institutional changes proposed by his predecessor before his resignation. The timing of the proposal suggests that Ismail is in a far better position to implement these policies than Muhyiddin Yassin.

While reforms such as equal representation in select committees and a bigger role for the opposition in the legislative process would no doubt strengthen Parliament, there is, however, no visible merits in amending the constitution to limit the office of a prime minister to 10 years.

There is no doubt the idea of a term limit is a good sell for politicians and many people are naturally drawn to it.

After all, if the prime minister is mandated to serve only two terms, it would reduce the likelihood of him using the tools of government to weaken his political opponents and curb the hoarding of political power, therefore preventing him from becoming indomitable.

Some would even suggest that a term limit would compel political leaders to deliver concrete policies and leave office with a positive legacy.

This is what motivates many countries with a presidential system to set term limits for their highest office holders.

A presidential system also necessitates a provision for a term limit because a head of the executive branch of government enjoys far greater executive and political power compared to a prime minister in a parliamentary system.

Take the example of the president of the United States; the legislative branch possesses no mechanism to remove a sitting president from power.

The only way to remove a president is through a presidential election after four years. The term limit effectively restricts him from becoming “president for life” – a de facto dictator as some American scholars would argue.

Countries that adopts a parliamentary system like Malaysia’s  are less likely to bind their prime ministers to a term limit because he derives his executive power from the confidence of Parliament, a concept that Muhyiddin was only able to grasp in the last days of his leadership.

Technically a prime minister could be a leader for life so long as he keeps enjoying the confidence of the House, though that might prove easier said than done.

Naturally, one might surmise from what I have just said that a presidential system with a term limit might be superior to our system. Yet, an ideal parliamentary system has also multiple safeguards to prevent a prime minister acting like a president.

Firstly, unlike the presidential system, the cabinet, political party and parliament could serve to hold the prime minister accountable to his decision and force him to resign in a non-electoral manner.

It can be argued that our first and fifth prime ministers Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, respectively, were forced to step down due to internal pressure from their cabinets and political party.

Therefore, the argument against installing any term limit in a parliamentary system is that there are already existing institutions in place to check or remove a prime minister should he or she behave in an undemocratic fashion.

In Malaysia, the proposal for a term limit for the prime minister originated from Pakatan Harapan, and it was in reaction to the enormous authority and power that the prime minister could abuse, which was manifested during Najib Razak’s scandal-clouded time in office.

PH may have correctly identified that too much power has been concentrated around the office of prime minister, but the antidote of term limits that they have injected may be insufficient in tackling the problem.

Even if a 10-year term limit were enshrined in in our Federal Constitution, there is no institutional barrier preventing a prime minister from getting involved in a financial scandal of a scale and notoriety comparable to those of 1MDB.

Aide from Tunku Rahman and Dr Mahathir Mohamad, other prime ministers have not stayed in office beyond 10 years. Long as his tenure may have seemed to some, Najib stayed in power for only about nine years.

A term limit may look good on paper, but it achieves very little in checking the enormous power enjoyed by a prime minister.

Reforms such as strengthening Parliament to prioritise confidence voting or equal funding for opposition are more effective if Malaysia want more accountability from its prime minister.

Instead of attempting to amend the constitution to set a term limit, which requires 2/3 majority vote in Parliament, the more practical and effective fix is to weaken the hold that the prime minister has over the House.

Having said that, the opposition should still support the constitutional amendment but the view that a term limit could effectively reduce the prime minister’s power in Malaysia should be challenged and debated.

People often say a week is a long time in politics and 10 years for a prime minister is ample time and free rein for him to do whatever he wants if Parliament and the cabinet are not empowered to check the top executive. – September 12, 2021. 

* Kenneth Cheng has always been interested in the interplay between human rights and government but more importantly he is a father of two cats, Tangyuan and Toufu. When he is not attending to his feline matters, he is most likely reading books about politics and human rights or playing video games. He is a firm believer in the dictum “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.