Constitutional experts favour 10-year limit over two-term cap for prime minister

PUTRAJAYA: The Cabinet will meet tomorrow to discuss limiting the prime minister’s term of office, with two experts throwing their weight behind a 10-year limit. Law Minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said such a law would demonstrate that no one is indispensable.

Speaking at a town hall on limiting the prime minister’s term of office, constitutional expert Professor Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi and political scientist Prof Dr Wong Chin Huat shared their views on the pros and cons of the proposal.

The town hall comes a day after the end of a week-long government survey that attracted 3,722 respondents.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim earlier pledged to push for institutional reforms, including limiting the prime minister’s term, separating the powers of the Attorney-General and public prosecutor, setting up an ombudsman office, and introducing a freedom of information law.

Both Shad Saleem and Wong, however, were in favour of a 10-year limit instead of a fixed two-term cap, noting that a single term could last less than two years. This was evident after the Sheraton Move in 2020, which saw Malaysia have four prime ministers in four years – Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (2018–2020), Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yasson (2020–2021), Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob (2021–2022) and Anwar, who took office in November 2022.

Shad Saleem said a two-term rule poses problems because Parliament has no fixed term and may be dissolved early under Articles 43(4) and 55(3) of the Federal Constitution.

“Introducing a Fixed-Term Parliament Act would be necessary, but I do not recommend this, given the UK’s short-lived experience with such legislation,” said Shad Saleem, from Universiti Malaya.

“Moreover, a capable prime minister may lose his majority through circumstances beyond his control, such as deaths, disqualifications under Article 48, or expulsions under Article 63 of the Federal Constitution. In these situations, he would be forced either to resign or to seek a dissolution.

“If a dissolution is granted, he may permanently lose the opportunity to serve a second term despite no personal fault. For this reason, limiting tenure by years rather than terms may be preferable.”

He said limiting a prime minister to a total of 10 years also raises difficult questions.

“Should the 10 years include the caretaker period following a dissolution, which can last up to 120 days, as well as the time taken by the King to appoint a new prime minister?” he asked.

“In the case of a hung Parliament, an interim prime minister may remain in office for many months.

“European experience shows that interim governments can last over a year. It is therefore recommended that the 10-year limit should include any caretaker or interim period.”

Shad Saleem added that the prime minister’s extensive powers over Cabinet appointments, government-linked companies and public agencies make strong checks and balances more important than the length of tenure alone.

“To ensure accountability, responsibility and answerability, the government must continue with broader institutional reforms involving Parliament, the judiciary, the anti-corruption agency, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the police,” he said.

Wong agreed that a 10-year limit was more appropriate, as a prime minister may be forced to leave office early. He said this could dissuade a capable leader from taking over, as they would have to serve the remainder of a term that would count towards their limit.

“If a prime minister has to leave after three or four years, the next person taking over may only serve a year or two. That counts towards their term limit,” said Wong of Sunway University.

“That may not be appealing to some leaders, and we could lose out on someone capable of running the country.

“Having a 10-year limit, whether consecutive or non-consecutive, is the better option.”

Both Shad Saleem and Wong also agreed that the reform should apply only to the prime minister and not be extended to the states at this stage, as this would require the consent of the Conference of Rulers under Articles 38(4) and 159(5), raising complex political issues.

Meaning business

Azalina said the decision to move forward with a term limit for the prime minister was intended to ensure that no individual becomes too powerful.

“It is important to have limits to show that no one is indispensable,” she said.

“The argument that this could mean losing out on leaders who are still young does not hold water. If a person is a good leader, he would have had a succession plan.

“Moreover, such a leader can continue to serve in other capacities. In politics, we work as a team.”

She added that if a prime minister were to leave office after 10 years but before the end of Parliament’s five-year term, the Cabinet would not be required to resign.

Azalina acknowledged that implementing the changes would not be easy, as Parliament would require a two-thirds majority to pass the amendments.

“However, those who oppose the idea should come out and tell their constituents why they believe it is better not to have a limit,” she said.