KUCHING: The proposed Prime Minister tenure limit must complete the legislative process before the next general election (GE16) or risk having to start from scratch.
Political analyst Dr Lee Kuok Tiung said the proposed constitutional amendment could lapse if Parliament is dissolved before it is passed by both Houses and receives Royal Assent.
“If the Bill is not passed by both Houses, the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, and given Royal Assent before the next general election, it will lapse.
“The newly elected government will have to start the entire legislative process from scratch, meaning a promise without a vote before dissolution risks ending up as empty political rhetoric,” he told Sarawak Tribune.
Lee said the amendment to Article 43 of the Federal Constitution is subject to Article 159, requiring the support of at least two-thirds of MPs.
He noted that an earlier attempt in March failed to secure the required majority, despite no MPs voting against it.
The Bill received 146 votes in favour, while 44 MPs abstained and 32 were absent.
Lee said securing the necessary support remained difficult to predict given the dynamics within the current unity government.
“In the era of Malaysia’s unity coalition government, which sometimes seems fragmented, it is difficult to predict or read the outcome.”
Beyond securing parliamentary support, he said there should also be clarity over whether the proposed restriction refers to two terms or a fixed 10-year period.
He said the two have sometimes been used interchangeably based on the assumption that one parliamentary term lasts five years, although Parliament may be dissolved earlier.
“It is sometimes confusing to see or hear politicians or media commentators use ‘two terms’ and ‘10 years’ interchangeably, assuming a standard five-year electoral cycle, even though their constitutional implications are quite different.
“Many would like the certainty of two terms or 10 years because, even though the maturity period of one term is five years, it does not necessarily end at the end of the term and might dissolve earlier.”
Lee nevertheless viewed the proposed tenure limit as a genuine institutional reform rather than a political gimmick, noting that a constitutional amendment could not simply be reversed without returning to Parliament.
He said among its benefits would be preventing a Prime Minister from remaining in power for too long and creating opportunities for new leaders and successors to emerge.
“It is also possible that when a PM knows their time is limited, they will focus more on implementing promises and policies for the people, rather than being busy with politics and simply wanting to stay in power.”
However, Lee cautioned that imposing a tenure limit could also create a “lame-duck” period towards the end of a Prime Minister’s tenure.
He said politicians and civil servants could begin looking beyond the incumbent leader once it becomes clear that the Prime Minister only has one or two years remaining.
Another drawback, he said, was that the country could be forced to give up a highly competent and popular Prime Minister solely because the legal tenure limit had been reached.
Lee also cautioned that a tenure limit would not necessarily eliminate the possibility of political power remaining concentrated in the hands of a former leader.
“It is also possible that a scenario called a puppet master occurs, where someone holds power from behind the scenes.
“Even if the PM has to step down, he may appoint a ‘servant’ as the new PM but continue to control the administration from behind.”
