Time to put a clock on power?

Malaysia’s political history is inseparable from the personalities who have dominated it. For decades, leadership was defined not only by elections or party structures but also by the longevity of individuals at the very top. Stability, continuity, and experience were often cited as virtues of long rule. Yet, as the country enters an era of fragile coalitions and rapid political turnover, a harder question has emerged: has the absence of clear limits on power strengthened Malaysia—or quietly weakened it?

No figure illustrates this tension more clearly than Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. His 22-year tenure as Prime Minister from 1981 to 2003 transformed Malaysia’s economy, infrastructure, and global standing. His unexpected return in 2018 at the age of 92 was both historic and symbolic, reinforcing the perception that Malaysia still turns to familiar figures in moments of crisis. Yet it also exposed a deeper structural weakness: the system’s heavy reliance on individuals rather than institutions.

Long-serving leaders bring experience, authority, and institutional memory. However, decades-long tenures often come with trade-offs. Succession planning is postponed, internal party renewal stagnates, and loyalty to the leader can overshadow accountability to institutions. Over time, governance risks becoming personalised, with power concentrated in a narrow circle rather than dispersed through resilient systems.

Malaysia’s leadership record reflects this imbalance. Tunku Abdul Rahman served 13 years as the nation’s founding Prime Minister, setting early norms of authority. Tun Abdul Razak Hussein and Tun Hussein Onn governed for shorter periods, but Dr Mahathir’s long dominance reshaped expectations of leadership longevity. After his departure in 2003, subsequent Prime Ministers served markedly shorter terms: Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for six years, Datuk Seri Najib Razak for nine, followed by a rapid succession of leaders between 2020 and 2022.

The contrast is striking. Some leaders governed for decades, while others barely lasted beyond a year. The post-2018 period has shown that, without clear rules, leadership changes become reactive rather than orderly. Governments fall not because terms end, but because alliances fracture. Prime Ministers leave office not through planned succession but through political exhaustion.

Thus, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s announcement yesterday of a bill to limit a Prime Minister’s tenure to 10 years or two terms—set to be tabled in Parliament this year—not only revives a key electoral promise of Pakatan Harapan (PH) but also signals a notable shift in political thinking.

A decade is not a short time. It gives leaders adequate space to implement policies and leave a legacy while compelling parties to groom successors and invest in institutional capacity. It reinforces the idea that leadership is a responsibility, not a personal entitlement, and signals a serious commitment to renewal and accountability. Crucially, it could help restore public confidence in a system increasingly judged by how well parties manage leadership transitions.

Political realities, however, complicate reform. Malaysia’s party system remains deeply factionalised. Umno is likely to resist such a move, as entrenched leaders have historically benefited from prolonged tenures. Younger or reform-minded voices may quietly support limits, but they remain a minority. Bersatu would likely endorse a 10-year cap—at least rhetorically—as it aligns with its reform narrative, though enforcement may depend on whether current leaders are affected.

Pas may support the principle in theory, but its stance would likely be shaped by coalition considerations, particularly in Muafakat Nasional-style arrangements. Reformist parties such as DAP and Amanah are expected to be strong supporters, consistent with their advocacy for institutional reform and accountability. PKR is broadly supportive, though cautious if limits constrain senior leaders’ ambitions. Regional parties like Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) and Warisan are likely to approach the issue pragmatically, negotiating based on coalition leverage rather than principle. Smaller parties and independents would likely follow suit.

Passing a 10-year term limit will not be easy. A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds parliamentary majority—a formidable hurdle in Malaysia’s fragmented, coalition-driven politics. Incumbent leaders rarely support measures that curtail their own tenure unless public pressure is overwhelming. While the idea enjoys broad appeal, entrenched interests and political self-preservation remain significant obstacles.

GE16 presents a critical moment for Malaysia to rethink leadership. Parties must demonstrate that they can balance experience with innovation, credibility with renewal. Voters are increasingly sceptical of leaders who trade solely on past achievements; they want parties that prepare the next generation, institutionalise leadership, and prioritise governance over personality.

Ultimately, leadership is transient, but ideas and institutions endure. By considering a 10-year limit for Prime Ministers, political parties can send a powerful message: governance is about vision, not longevity, and political credibility matters as much as political clout.

The question heading into GE16 is no longer only who leads, but how leadership is structured—and whether Malaysia is ready to balance continuity, credibility and renewal for the decades ahead.