Should we welcome the idea of "Goverment of National Unity"?

Is the idea as indicated by Tun Dr. Mahathir (at point 16 in his special message) an idea of "Government of National Unity" as understood by many, and if affirmative, is such an idea of "Government of National Unity" a euphemism to dictatorship and/or against the idea of democracy which we should outrightly reject?

(At point 16, it reads: "Saya berpendapat betul atau tidak, politik dan parti politik perlu diketepikan buat masa sekarang. Jika dibenar saya akan cuba adakan pemerintahan yang tidak memihak kepada mana-mana parti. Hanya kepentingan negara sehaja yang akan diutamakan".)

What is a "government of national unity" or so-called a "Unity Government" as known by the majority of people?

According to the unreliable source but as understood by many, Wikipedia states that "a national unity government ... is a broad coalition government consisting of all parties (or all major parties) in the legislature, usually formed during a time of war or other national emergency".

Similarly, according to the Guardian,

"A government of national unity is a broad coalition of MPs from different parties and none, who come together to form a new cabinet and government behind a prime minister. It is usually formed during a time of national emergency, such as war."

So basically, a unity government (which I prefer calling it a unity cabinet because to me the Government is not merely comprised of the Executive, but also the Legislative and Judiciary) is a Cabinet comprises of a group of members of Parliament (MPs) appointed by the Prime Minister without having regard to the parties of which the MPs are representing which would include independent MPs.

From the definition above, it is pretty much in line with what Tun Dr. Mahathir is proposing viz. to form an apolitical Cabinet which focus is to prioritize Malaysia only without any political deliberation.

Does such a formation of Cabinet contravene the Federal Constitution then? Reference should be made to Article 43 of the Federal Constitution.

The salient provisions (as summarised) are as follows:

Article 43(1): The Agong shall appoint Cabinet of Ministers to advise him. (i.e. YDPA must personally appoint each of every Ministers)

Article 43(2) provides the sequence of appointment:

(a) the Agong shall FIRST appoint a Prime Minister ... who in His Majesty's judgment (that's why interview of every MP on 26th and 27th Feb 2020 had been conducted) is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of Dewan Rakyat;

then

(b) His majesty shall ON THE ADVICE OF THE PM appoint other Ministers from among the members of either House of Parliament (Dewan Rakyat or Dewan Negara).

SO, provided Tun Mahathir has the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat, he as the appointed Prime Minister is not acting unconstitutionally when forming an apolitical Cabinet as Article 43(2)(b) only requires subsequent Ministers to be an MP, from either House, and to be appointed by the Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Now from the discussion above, can we now say that "Unity Government" is a subtle form of Dictatorship?

Again, according to the unreliable Wikipedia which most of us still adhere to, in a simple sense, a dictatorship is "an authoritarian form of government, characterized by a single leader or group of leaders and little or no toleration for political pluralism or independent programs or media".

Placing both the ideas of Dictatorship and Unity Government together, they do seem to have similarities. Dictatorship is of a single leader controlling the whole of the government with no toleration for political pluralism, AND the concept of Unity Government as suggested by Tun Mahathir is of a single leader controlling the whole of the Cabinet without any political affiliation (now you see why a distinction between a Government and a Cabinet being merely the Executive is important as the Cabinet is just a subset of the Government).

In other words, Dictatorship doesn't work within the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, but Unity Government as propounded by Tun M will still be within the control of the Court/Judiciary and the Parliament/Legislative.

Article 43(3) reads: "The Cabinet shall be collectively responsible to Parliament". Hence, though being an apolitical Cabinet, the whole Cabinet is still collectively responsible to the Parliament, thus, is accountable to the people. Should the people are dissatisfied with the Cabinet's performance or is unhappy with the Prime Minister, with or without a cogent ground, a vote of no confidence can be made by the Parliamentarians.

Of course, a PM must be able to command the majority in the Dewan Rakyat in order to be appointed and remained as the PM, and in theory, PM should be able to form an apolitical Cabinet in times of peace. However, Tun M has or maybe had turned the theory into a reality where he has had the majority's confidence despite being supposedly impossible in reality.

Besides, the conduct of the Cabinet (being the Executive) is subject to judicial review which aims to protect individuals from arbitrary and/or unfair action of powerful bodies. Having a Unity Government doesn't oust the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to act as a check and balance in keeping the Cabinet/Executive within the confines of the power conferred.

One last thing I would like to touch on is whether a Unity Cabinet is against the concept of democracy?

To me, the answer is to the negative, reasons are as follows:

1. A Unity Cabinet is still responsible to the Parliament, thus, accountable to the people (though becomes indirectly). Undoubtedly, it would reduce the quality of democracy because our votes will not have a direct effect on the Cabinet, because traditionally, our votes are cast not solely based on who we want to represent us in the Dewan Rakyat, but also as to whom we desire to form the Cabinet i.e. government of the day. Hence, the Cabinet is directly responsible to the Parliament but indirectly accountable to the people.

2. A Unity Cabinet is still subject to Judicial Review. Should a person is adversely affected by a decision made by the Cabinet or any public officers in executing their public functions, matters can be brought before the Court to be reviewed. Of course subject to certain legal requirements. Unity Cabinet doesn't degrade the constitutional status of the Court to act as the guardian to our "Social Contract" viz. Federal Constitution.

3. A Unity Cabinet must act within the power conferred by the existing laws as enacted by the Legislative/Parliament. The people's Parliament has the power to remove and/or to add to the existing powers of the Cabinet. Political deliberations can be made in the Parliament. Hence, the Unity Cabinet is still required to work within the politically-deliberated boundaries set by the Parliament.

In conclusion, I don't see Unity Cabinet as a bad thing provided proper laws and mechanisms are in place to control the limits of the Executive. Other than point (1) which the quality of democracy will be slightly derogated, I think something can be introduced to compensate or remedy the imperfection of the idea.

I'm being neutral here, and after all the considerations, I see no reason to oppose his proposal outrightly. Additional Note: I’m pretty sure nobody would want snakes and frogs to infect the working in the Cabinet or Gov. But the question is, what if there’s this snake🐍who is apparently the best candidate to hold a portfolio in the cabinet, and no other animals could top his account of merits, should we then appoint the snake🐍? If solely based on merit (merit-based appointment), the snake should be appointed, but if based on a wider consideration such as character or integrity, then we could see that merit-based appointment is too simplistic. But if there’s proper law and mechanism in place to curb any possible bad behaviour of a Cabinet minister, then I think the snake can be appointed. So, to ease your concern, what we need is not to filter out the snakes and frogs, but to have a proper mechanism to ensure that the most competent animals don’t and can’t abuse their powers while in power. Sekian.