Prime Ministerial Term Limits in Parliamentary Democracies: A Malaysian Perspective

July 11, 2025

The duration that a person remains in power plays an important role in shaping the dynamic politics of a country. Prolonged leadership can bring stability that can benefit the country in the long term, but carries the risk of power being overly consolidated. A leader without a term limit will tend to behave more like a king. Although the Prime Minister’s power is limited in comparison to that wielded by the head of a presidential system, the leader of a parliamentary system can still consolidate influence over time, potentially weakening democratic institutions. With that in mind, how long is too long for one person to lead a constitutional monarchy like Malaysia? While it is difficult to determine the ideal length of time an individual could hold the post of national leader, the goal is to strike a balance where the benefits of consistent policymaking outweigh the risks of reduced accountability.

Malaysian Context

The concept of term limits has long been part of reform discussions in Malaysia. Over the years, many political leaders have advocated for the introduction of term limits to prevent a shift towards authoritarianism and to renew leadership at the top levels of government. These reforms are seen as crucial to maintaining a healthy democracy.

On 16^th March, Malaysia’s 10^th Prime Minister (PM), Anwar Ibrahim (PMX), vowed his support to Anthony Loke, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) Secretary General, who had suggested a 10-year term limit for the PM position during the party convention. This assertion led to a political shouting match between Pakatan Harapan (PH), their coalition partners, and the opposition.

PMX argued that the 10-year limit should be sufficient, as having a single leader in power for 22 years could damage the country. This claim was clearly aimed at Mahathir Mohammad, the fourth and seventh PM of Malaysia, who held the position for 22 years during his first term as PM. In 2018, Mahathir himself supported term limits for PMs, Menteri Besar, and Chief Ministers (CM), saying that limits were necessary to curb corruption. However, in 2025, he reversed his stance, saying that 10 years was insufficient to bring about positive changes within the country. Currently, Penang is the only state that imposes a two-term limit on the state CM.

The Penang State Constitution was amended in February 2019 (following its passage on November 16, 2018) to clearly state that the CM must be a member of the Legislative Assembly who has never previously held the position for two terms. The amendment of this state constitution concretely prevented Lim Guan Eng from returning as the CM of Penang, as he already completed his two terms in 2008 to 2018, allowing the current CM, Chow Kon Yeow, to complete his second term with ease.

The Presidential and Parliamentary Systems in Theory

Setting term limits on national leaders is often practised by countries that adopt a presidential system and semi-presidential system, such as the United States, France, and South Korea. The system grants the president the ability to serve a fixed term, regardless of how the members of parliament feel about the leader, and removal of the president is only possible through impeachment, which requires a high political threshold and a lengthy process. Unlike PMs, presidents serve as both head of state and head of government; hence, they hold significant executive independence from the legislature and are less immediately accountable to the parliament. Therefore, term limits are necessary to prevent a person from retaining power for too long, which can lead to democratic backsliding.

Parliamentary systems are founded on the idea of executive accountability to the legislature, which differ from the rigid independence and separation of powers found in presidential systems. This allows the legislature to more flexibly exercise checks on executive power, as the PM can be removed at any moment through a vote of no confidence by members of the parliament, without having to wait for the end of their term.

Most countries that adopt a Westminster parliamentary system do not impose term limits on their PMs. These countries include the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Canada, Japan, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand. Thailand is one of the exceptions, having introduced an eight-year limit through a constitutional amendment in 2018.

The Limit of the Theory in the Context of Malaysia

The Malaysian Parliament as an institution serves to check and balance the executive branch. However, in Malaysia, this body is not as effective as it should be in theory. The issue lies in the absence of a clear mechanism to respond to a loss of confidence.

In the UK, by convention, a motion of no confidence would not be blocked by the speaker, and debate will be scheduled promptly, followed by a vote in the British Parliament that determines the PM’s future. The UK Parliament Report on the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill also stated that ‘a motion of confidence should take precedence over other motions’, indicating that this practice should be a norm of the Westminster Parliament. The most recent motion of no confidence in the UK happened in 2022.

However, in Malaysia, due to the partisan nature of the Dewan Rakyat Speaker, safeguarding the executive’s power is always the priority of the speaker. This is where the practice differs from the UK, as the speaker in the House of Commons is strictly neutral.

Therefore, the tabling of a motion of no confidence is subjected to the discretion of the speaker, and based on his interpretation of the Standing Orders. In October 2015, the opposition called for a motion of no confidence against then PM, Najib Razak, after US$700 million from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) state fund were found to have been transferred into his personal bank accounts. Former Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia then argued that there is no clear procedure to follow when tabling a motion of no confidence. He even stated that he would only pressure the motion to be tabled if the opposition provided a list of MPs that support the motion, although there is no statute to prove this action is required. In 2020, former Law Minister Takiyuddin Hassan also argued in favour of 15(1) of the Standing Orders, which indicates that government business shall have precedence over other forms of business. This came about after Lim Kit Siang questioned why the motions of no confidence against PM Muhyiddin Yassin were not given priority.

Some scholars have opposed the above arguments, by emphasising that Standing Orders are just internal parliamentary rules, but are not legal-binding and cannot supersede the Constitution. Article 43(4) of the Federal Constitution suggests that a PM who has lost the confidence of the majority should resign. This has imposed a constitutional duty on the speaker to ensure that any motion of no confidence is tabled and debated.

This problem reflects a more chronic issue with Malaysia’s pre-2018 dominant-party system, where there are PMs who were able to centralise power for personal gain with fewer institutional checks. As academics have highlighted, accountability is limited by partisan control over the Parliament and other weak institutions. In the context of Malaysia, where motions of no confidence can be blocked, a term limit on the PM could serve as a safeguard to ensure democratic turnover.

Policy Design and Its Implications

Moreover, the government still needs to look into the actual policy design. Most importantly, they need to determine whether the term limit will be based on the number of terms or total years, as both will involve different policy implications.

1. Term Limits by Number of Terms (e.g., Two Terms)

If term limits are to be imposed by number of terms, it is important to determine whether these limits will operate alongside the current flexible parliamentary terms or under a new fixed-term parliamentary system. Currently, under Malaysia’s parliamentary system, the PM has sole power in advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to dissolve the Parliament at any time, which allows elections to be called at strategic times, and could result in shorter and uneven term lengths. While introducing a new fixed-term parliamentary system, standardising the length of each parliamentary term in addition to the PM’s term, could create greater predictability and consistency.

2. Term Limits by Total Years (e.g., Ten Years)

If a term limit is based on years (e.g., if a ten-year limit was imposed), then one specific scenario must be addressed. If a PM has served only eight years across two terms, and reaches the ten-year limit during their third term, it must be determined whether they would be required to resign and dissolve the Parliament, or if it would be sufficient for the party or coalition to appoint another member of Parliament as the new PM.

Such policy gaps require clear transitional provisions and legal interpretation mechanisms to avoid a constitutional crisis.

Additionally, to prevent a former PM from using his residual influences to affect the system or even appoint a “proxy” successor, further legal measures should be considered, such as prohibiting the former PM from holding any ministerial positions after stepping down. Political parties can also adopt internal rules to bar the individual from holding any prominent positions in the party.

Limiting the PM's Tenure is Not a Panacea for Our Democracy

Since 2018, PH has advocated that the tenure limit is necessary to prevent a single party from amassing too much power. However, the premier’s term is merely symbolic of our defective democracy. Malaysia’s core democratic problems are deeper and more institutional. Limiting the tenure of the premiership is definitely not the most urgent action to rebuild our system. Instead, the necessary steps to do so are as follows:

Establish an electoral system that ensures fair party competition.
Establish a truly neutral Dewan Rakyat Speaker.
Determine a clear mechanism that processes motions of confidence and no confidence.
Pass a Fixed-Term Parliament Act to create consistency and reduce political manipulation.

A term limit alone would not safeguard our democracy from bad leadership. Najib Razak, the sixth PM, served less than two full terms, yet was later convicted and imprisoned for his corruption regarding the 1MDB state fund. The imposition of a two-term limit does not guarantee the eradication of corruption. What matters most is the existence of a robust system of checks and balances, supported by a strong and effective opposition.

Conclusion

Term limits for Malaysia’s PM are necessary to help curb the risk of prolonged dominant authoritarianism. While these limits can promote leadership renewal, they do not guarantee a path to good governance. In some cases, term limits may risk losing capable leaders. Although the definition of a good leader is subjective, implementing term limits does not ensure that competent successors will be readily available. Therefore, term limits should be accompanied by institutional reforms that strengthen political parties’ capacity to cultivate future leaders. While institutional reforms are crucial, internal party reforms are equally important to make the implementation of PM term limits both practical and sustainable.