|
Prof Dr Andrew Harding on Crises of Confidence and Perak’s Constitutional Impasse |
|
|
|
Posted by admin
|
|
Tuesday, 16 June 2009 02:24 |
|
In 1966 it was Sarawak, in 1985 it was Sabah, and in 2009 it is Perak. But the issue in these times of crisis in state governments has been essentially the same: how are the so-called ‘Westminster-type constitutional conventions’ relating to the appointment and tenure of chief ministers, and written into both federal and state constitutions in Malaysia, supposed to operate?
Crucially, in the present and intensely litigated impasse, are matters arising outside the legislature relevant in assessing whether a Menteri Besar (MB) still commands the confidence of a majority in the State Legislative Assembly, and can the head of state appoint a new MB if he judges that the existing MB has lost that confidence and does not resign? Malaysians will recall that similar issues were raised hypothetically at the federal level not long ago. The High Court Ruling Nizar v Zambry Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim J in the High Court of Malaya sitting in Kuala Lumpur has ruled in Datuk Seri Mohamed Nizar Jamaluddin v Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir (11th May 2009) that under Perak’s Constitution a vote of no confidence must be passed in the assembly before an MB is obliged to resign. According to this decision Nizar remained MB of Perak. The High Court’s decision was then overruled by the Court of Appeal on 22nd June in a decision in favour of Zambry. However, the grounds for the Court of Appeal’s decision have not yet been released and the case is on appeal by Nizar to the Federal Court. READ MORE HERE
 |
The Blogs 
Why not take all the documents and burn it! It's just useless pieces of paper! 
Prof Dr harding has written his opinion. Am i to conclude that, first is binding judgement then became obiter dicta and then the possible emergence of res ipsa loguitor?