Do you remember Nathaniel Tan (Nat), once a personal aide to Anwar Ibrahim and then deemed a naive but staunch anwarista, wakakaka, but he like many eventually fell out of love with the Great Reformer.
![]()
Nat asked us what countries impose time limits, which he answered himself as the nations of France, Germany, the UK and the US.
But Nat, naive as he had been under Anwar, has a sneaky side to his character.
Like most PKR people he holds an invincible prejudice against the DAP. Could it be due to PKR's jealousy of DAP, or that the rakyat favours DAP more than PKR?
Like most PKR people he holds an invincible prejudice against the DAP. Could it be due to PKR's jealousy of DAP, or that the rakyat favours DAP more than PKR?
In early April this year he penned a letter to Malaysiakini titled Will Guan Eng be Dear Leader for life? which in my pro-DAP assessment (wakakaka) I considered as extremely biased, but a bias to be expected of a PKR-ista (or whatever party he has aligned himself to, though definitely not the DAP, wakakaka).
In that letter he questioned Lim Guan Eng’s tenure as chief minister (CM) of Penang and the issue of setting a term (not time) limit for a CM. Would that term-limit be constitutional and has it been done before in a Westminster parliamentary system?
Nat’s argument was that long tenure in high office lends substance to the old political adage that power corrupts, especially long term power.
In his letter to MKINI, he cherry-picked dictators to support his silly arguments, examples of long serving world leaders but who were (very naughty of his very shameful crafty cunning biased selection) only those from draconian dictatorships and fascist states, people like Kim Il-sung (N. Korea), Muammar Gaddafi (Libya), Francisco Franco (Spain), Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Mao Zedong (China), Hun Sen (Cambodia or Khmer Republic), and Josef Stalin (USSR).
Nat’s argument was that long tenure in high office lends substance to the old political adage that power corrupts, especially long term power.
In his letter to MKINI, he cherry-picked dictators to support his silly arguments, examples of long serving world leaders but who were (very naughty of his very shameful crafty cunning biased selection) only those from draconian dictatorships and fascist states, people like Kim Il-sung (N. Korea), Muammar Gaddafi (Libya), Francisco Franco (Spain), Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Mao Zedong (China), Hun Sen (Cambodia or Khmer Republic), and Josef Stalin (USSR).
 |
Nat's uncle? |
He even made factual errors relating to long serving equivalents of PMs, or were those 'errors' his sinisterly contrived misinformation?
Nat asked us what countries impose time limits, which he answered himself as the nations of France, Germany, the UK and the US.
In that (I suspect deliberately) vague sentence I have to say this again in this post, Nat was very naughty to the extent of misleading us. And I’ll explain how and why.
At this point we must distinguish prime ministers (and chief ministers) from the republican head of states or presidents. By the by, France has both.
Since we have been talking about the term limit of the chief minister of Penang (or for that matter, the prime minister of Malaysia), we should note there has never been a set term limit for the PM pf Malaya/Malaysia nor one for the CM or MB of any Malaysian state.
At this point we must distinguish prime ministers (and chief ministers) from the republican head of states or presidents. By the by, France has both.
Since we have been talking about the term limit of the chief minister of Penang (or for that matter, the prime minister of Malaysia), we should note there has never been a set term limit for the PM pf Malaya/Malaysia nor one for the CM or MB of any Malaysian state.
As per the Westminster system which does not have CEO-President of a nation like the USA, the prime minister of Britain (or even his PM counterpart in France) also does not have any term limit to his prime ministerial office, contrary to what Nat informed or misinformed us (as to be expected of a PKR-ista, wakakaka).
![]()
![]()
Anyway, Nat's pathetically poor examples were, I presume, to suggest long tenures bred dictators, instead of telling the truth that it would actually be the other way around, where dictators bred such long tenures.
Of course his rather wicked labelling of Lim Guan Eng as a ‘Dear Leader’ has made clear his prejudice against Guan Eng, associating the Penang CM by that sinister title to Kim Jong-il, the former and late president of North Korea.
Have you heard of any Westminster-styled parliamentary practice or procedure which limits PM or CM/MB to a certain number of terms, say 2 or even 3?
Was Mahathir limited to only two (2) terms?
If Mahathir was not, why didn't clever-by-half Nat Tan object then? Shall we now change the Constitution of Penang and Malaysia to please Nat's wish?
Of course his rather wicked labelling of Lim Guan Eng as a ‘Dear Leader’ has made clear his prejudice against Guan Eng, associating the Penang CM by that sinister title to Kim Jong-il, the former and late president of North Korea.
Have you heard of any Westminster-styled parliamentary practice or procedure which limits PM or CM/MB to a certain number of terms, say 2 or even 3?
Was Mahathir limited to only two (2) terms?
If Mahathir was not, why didn't clever-by-half Nat Tan object then? Shall we now change the Constitution of Penang and Malaysia to please Nat's wish?
Oh, BTW, instead of Nat's examples of North Korea, the former USSR, etc, what about the terms of Oz's PM John Howard, Britain's PM Margaret Thatcher or PM Tony Blair? Or Germany's Angela Merkel (Chancellor or its equivalent, a PM), etc.
Now, FMT informs us that (extracts):
Last week, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM) pro tem Vice-President Mukhriz Mahathir proposed limiting the PM’s service to two terms, which is not more than 10 years.
Mukhriz, who was formerly Kedah menteri besar, claimed that the proposal was to counter crisis management and the abuse of power allegedly seen in the Barisan Nasional (BN) administration.
Ahmad Ghazali said the plan had its pros and cons.
“The good thing is that the democratic process of check and balance will be there. The bad thing, however, is the issue of no continuity in leadership.”
Political Analyst Dr Jeniri Amir deemed Mukhriz’s proposal “inappropriate and impractical” as political leaders would not want to step down once they have reached the top.
“Why is it that only now Mukhriz wants to have that proposal when there were calls for his father, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, to step down as PM back then?
“Supporters did not want him to step down and urged him to stay in his seat,” he said, noting that Mahathir held the post for 22 years.
Last week, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM) pro tem Vice-President Mukhriz Mahathir proposed limiting the PM’s service to two terms, which is not more than 10 years.
Mukhriz, who was formerly Kedah menteri besar, claimed that the proposal was to counter crisis management and the abuse of power allegedly seen in the Barisan Nasional (BN) administration.
Ahmad Ghazali said the plan had its pros and cons.
“The good thing is that the democratic process of check and balance will be there. The bad thing, however, is the issue of no continuity in leadership.”
Political Analyst Dr Jeniri Amir deemed Mukhriz’s proposal “inappropriate and impractical” as political leaders would not want to step down once they have reached the top.
“Why is it that only now Mukhriz wants to have that proposal when there were calls for his father, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, to step down as PM back then?
“Supporters did not want him to step down and urged him to stay in his seat,” he said, noting that Mahathir held the post for 22 years.
Hmmm, shall we change the Constitution, once again, but this time as advocated by the Son, not the Father?
Looks like Mukhriz and Nat Tan think alike, wakakaka.