SINGAPORE: Malaysia’s social media landscape was a-twitter last month over term limits for the country’s highest office. The buzz began on Mar 16 at the Democratic Action Party’s national congress, when its secretary-general, Anthony Loke, stated that while his party supported Anwar Ibrahim’s leadership, it advocated amending the Constitution to limit prime ministers to serving a maximum of 10 years.

Under Malaysia’s Westminster parliamentary system, there is no limit on the length of a prime minister’s tenure. The rationale for a cap is that it would avoid the concentration of power around one individual and allow for fresh leadership and perspectives.

This reform has been periodically called for by the opposition over the past three decades, most notably Pakatan Harapan (PH) in the run-up to the 2018 general election. PH drafted a parliamentary bill on the subject in 2019, but progress was stymied by the so-called Sheraton Move in early 2020.

Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia’s 10th prime minister, was receptive to the idea of term limits. Already 77 years of age, Anwar said he was tired after just two years in office and affirmed that he had no intention of serving more than 10 years. The prime minister argued that lengthy tenures lasting 22 years had “damaged the country”.

He stated that the reform required careful negotiations and would need to be passed by a two-thirds majority in parliament. Anwar has tasked his Cabinet to study the idea, which would potentially need ancillary measures such as fixed parliamentary terms and very specific wording regarding the number of years or periods served.

ANWAR IBRAHIM’S JIBE WAS CLEARLY AIMED

Anwar’s jibe was clearly aimed at Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia’s venerable yet vigorous statesman. While Mahathir’s 22 years in office undoubtedly had achievements, his tenure was also characterised by the concentration of power around the executive.

A brief list of centralisation measures under his watch includes the expansion of the Prime Minister’s Office, including the absorption of the parliamentary civil service; interference in the judiciary; curbs on the prerogatives of the monarchy; absorbing responsibilities initially invested in state governments; and the state hand-picking entrepreneurs for support.

Coupled with modifications to the electoral system within his then party, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the dual position of UMNO party president and prime minister made the occupant of the country’s highest office well-nigh invulnerable.

None other than Mahathir himself supported term limits in 2018. This was against the backdrop of the monumental effort that he and other opposition leaders had to make to dislodge Najib Razak in the wake of the 1MDB scandal.

Part of what made this task so gargantuan was Najib’s hold on the very prime ministerial apparatus that Mahathir had forged.

This difficulty, and his age upon assuming office a second time, led Mahathir to support term limits, arguing that he could not be expected to lead the country at 100 years of age. In this more recent debate, however, Mahathir has stated that a decade is not enough time for sufficient progress to be made.

SOME SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGES

This discussion comes at an interesting time for Anwar. Momentum for systemic reform is rather slow, much to the chagrin of the country’s urban electorate.

Part of the reason is financial, as Malaysia must balance its books and be less dependent on petroleum for its revenue. The government thus needs to focus on reducing rather than increasing largesse to voters.

Another challenge is stewarding the Unity Government’s disparate components in the same direction. There have been some deliverables – such as amendments to the Constitution regarding citizenship and re-establishment of the Parliamentary Services Act (which reversed one of Mahathir’s centralising moves) – but there is yet to be a commanding achievement.

Establishing a two-term limit for the top office has significant advantages for Anwar. It would not entail any financial commitment and, once parliamentary support is established, would not require complicated and lengthy implementation.

It could garner substantial support from within and without the coalition as, if anything, it increases the chances of more parliamentarians getting a shot at the top job. Beyond broad support within PH, some UMNO leaders have supported it.

This idea has generated a range of reactions from the opposition. PAS leader Hadi Awang has said that the move is “against God’s will”, and PAS member of parliament Syahir Suleiman has demanded that any amendments to the Constitution also stipulate that the prime minister needs to be a Muslim.

This defensiveness is likely due to the recognition that a reform of this nature could put wind in Anwar’s sails. But PAS’ position is undercut by the fact that it has supported this very reform on more than one occasion in the past.

This reform could well morph into a win for Anwar. Given Malaysia’s recent run of ruptured prime ministerial terms, as well as Anwar’s circuitous route to the prime ministership, no one would fault him for running for a second term.

Should Anwar steward this change to the rules and then win the next election, it could be the one tangible legacy that clearly distinguishes him from Mahathir – a graceful exit.

Francis E Hutchinson is Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the Malaysia Studies Programme, ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. This commentary first appeared on the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute's blog, Fulcrum.