The Apex court ruled that if a Mentri Besar refused to resign, his office was deemed to have been vacated.
The bench ruled that the vote of no confidence could be determined by other means than from the Perak Assembly.
Now let’s have some dissenting notes, shall we?
This one is way out of my bounds, but I’m betting some legal scholars can do justice with a detail discussion on the above two items.
Let’s talk layman like, though:
1. Who “deems” a Menteri Besar office is vacated? The courts? The Rulers? The State Assembly?
2. “Other means” – legal “other means”? Ruler's exercise of discretions “other means”? Any other means as practicable “other means”?
Going the logical route would mean that a Menteri Besar is thus supposed to resign when he no longer commands a majority in the State Assembly.
(This is from my reading somewhere that once appointed he can't be sacked. I stand to be corrected.)
As such, the second reasoning comes into play, doesn't it?
But when is this point of "losing a majority" reached? How is this read? A show of hands? Newspaper reports? The Blogs (kidding, of course.)
What of "Vote of No Confidence"?
The State Assembly, shouldn't it?
This mess is such a Chicken and Egg that it boggles the mind.
Curious to see how the Federal Court debunks the initial High Court’s reasoning, too.