Looking Back at Mahathir's Multiple Terms as PM

Former prime minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’s recent rejection of a proposed two-term limit for Malaysian prime ministers is hardly surprising. Having ruled for 22 years between 1981 and 2003—longer than any other leader in Malaysia’s history—before returning for a brief second stint from 2018 to 2020, Mahathir is the embodiment of the very problem this reform seeks to address: the dangers of prolonged rule.

Mahathir argues that ten years is not enough to implement meaningful progress. Yet, if over two decades in power were insufficient, one must ask—what more did he need? His first tenure saw an unprecedented consolidation of executive authority, at the expense of Malaysia’s democratic institutions. The judiciary was systematically undermined, with judicial independence shattered in the late 1980s, leading to a judiciary that, for years, struggled to regain credibility. The Internal Security Act (ISA) was used to silence political dissent, and media freedom was heavily restricted.

Then there was the economy. While Malaysia experienced rapid industrialization, it came at a cost: the rise of crony capitalism. Government-linked contracts were funneled to well-connected businessmen, creating a system where political loyalty mattered more than economic efficiency. The policies of Mahathir’s era laid the groundwork for endemic corruption that continues to plague Malaysia today.

Perhaps most infamous was his ruthless removal of Anwar Ibrahim in 1998. What should have been a routine political transition turned into a spectacle of state repression, with Anwar imprisoned on what were widely seen as politically motivated charges. This move not only sparked the Reformasi movement but also cemented Mahathir’s legacy as a leader who would do whatever it took to maintain power.

Despite all this, Mahathir now claims that if a prime minister is doing more harm than good, lawmakers should simply remove them. But this statement rings hollow coming from a leader who, during his own tenure, ensured that any serious political opposition was suppressed, either through legal maneuvers or outright intimidation.

His comments also come amid a stark contrast: Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has signaled he will not hold office beyond two terms. Anwar’s statement that 22 years of uninterrupted rule would “destroy the country” is an unmistakable jab at Mahathir’s legacy. Unlike Mahathir, Anwar appears to recognize the dangers of unchecked power.

Mahathir insists he stepped down willingly, but history tells a different story. Even after resigning, he continued to wield political influence, undermining his successors and returning to power when the opportunity arose. His refusal to step aside—even at the age of 100—suggests a man still unwilling to accept that his time has passed.

Malaysia should take this moment to reflect. The two-term limit proposal is not just about Mahathir, but about ensuring that no leader—no matter how popular or powerful—is allowed to overstay their welcome. Power, when left unchecked, inevitably leads to abuse. The country must learn from Mahathir’s long and controversial tenure and put safeguards in place to prevent history from repeating itself.

It is time to move forward. Malaysia cannot afford to be held back by leaders who refuse to let go.