Tuesday, 9 February 2010

Naif Expectations

Federal Court’s decision (as per The Star):

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"?

By who?

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.

Ho hum..

UEA's Ziggurat



izinni said...

i am beyond sad. i am beyond angry. numb!
other means? mind boggling!

izinni said...

what say you on this:

depa kata: "vote of no confidence could be determined by other means other from the Perak Assembly" kan?

tapi dalam waktu yang sama dalam hujah penghakiman depa kata:
"Namun, kami akan menambah bahawa hal ini tidak bererti masalah telah berakhir, seperti selalu bahawa terbuka untuk pemohon [Nizar] untuk membawa usul tidak percaya terhadap responden [Zambry] di LA [DPR] atau membuat representasi untuk Kebawah Duli [Baginda Sultan Perak] bila saja jika ia berfikir bahawa responden tidak menikmati sokongan daripada majoriti ahli LA".

hang belajaq undang2 .. cuba explain kat aku yang dah pening kapla jingga la ni!