WHEN Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced several institutional reforms on Jan 5, one proposal stood out for its long-term impact: limiting the tenure of the prime minister.
It is a bold idea because it challenges a political culture in this country that has long been shaped by personality.
If Parliament follows through, Malaysia could be among the first Westminster-style democracies to formally limit the tenure of its head of government. That alone makes this move historic.
More importantly, it forces us to confront a simple truth about power: without guardrails, power reshapes institutions around individuals rather than principles.
Anwar deserves credit for putting this reform on the table, especially when this affects him personally. But the real significance of the proposal lies beyond his leadership. Term limits are not about who governs now; they are about how we protect the country from what can happen when anyone governs for too long.
Malaysia does not need to look too far back to understand the risks of excessive concentration of power. History shows how leadership that stretches across decades can gradually blur the lines between party, government and state.
Institutions, knowingly or otherwise, become tools to individuals rather than serving the public interest. We should not risk that possibility again.
A term limit acts as a guardrail. It accepts that leaders are human and that even the most well-intentioned ones can change over time in office, often for the worse.
World history is full of examples of how “revolutionaries” ended up becoming the very type of dictator they had toppled years or decades earlier.
Just as important, a fixed tenure helps accelerate the reform agenda. When leaders know they have limited time, there is greater urgency to deliver and institutionalise change and stamp their legacy.
The Madani administration has placed institutional reform at the centre of its agenda, and the proposed term limit could help accelerate the pace of change.
There is also a generational case for term limits. Politics should not be a waiting room for one leader’s eventual exit.
A predictable term limit forces parties to groom successors, invest in talent and allow younger leaders to rise. It signals that leadership renewal is not a threat, but a feature of a healthy democracy.
We already have Malaysian examples of how limits can strengthen political culture. The Democratic Action Party (DAP) moved to cap the tenure of its secretary-general in the early 2000s to prevent the over-dominance of any one personality. DAP-led Penang adopted a two-term limit for its Chief Minister.
If parties and states can accept limits to protect their own institutions, the federal government should be able to apply the same principle at the national level.
Some critics argue that ten years is too short to carry out major reforms. But if reforms cannot be secured within two terms, the problem is not time, but the lack of political will. Others say voters should decide on how long leaders stay.
The reality is that term limits do not take power away from voters, but help ensure that no one, no matter how popular, holds it for too long.
A prime minister who supports limits on his own tenure is not weakening his position. He is strengthening the office he holds.
Malaysia has a rare opportunity to move from personality-based politics to system-based governance. We should seize it, not for this generation of leaders, but for every generation that comes after.
Ben Fong Kok Seng is the DAP Federal Territory Kuala Lumpur treasurer.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.
- Focus Malaysia.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.