When I finished writing my previous post early this morning, I forgot to mention that in the Stephen Kalong Ningkan case, when he was sacked by the Governor of Sarawak in the 60s, the Dewan was sitting a day before and bills were passed.
What is the significant? Naturally, the question of Vote of No Confidence IN THE DEWAN would be relevant! Why was it not done the day when the Dewan was sitting, would be the question to be asked by the Governor.
In the case of Perak, the Dewan was NOT sitting! Is the power or authority or even the words of the Constitutional Monarch not enough for the Court to consider?
I am now wondering what will happen to the Constitutional Monarchy in the light of the Justice Dato' Abdul Aziz decision. Being part of the Dewan is not enough for the Constitutional Monarch to appoint a Menteri Besar upon His Royal Highness' judgment that the majority support had shifted the other way?
The showing of hands in the Dewan physically is more supreme than the Constitutional Monarch?
I am more convince now that Stephen Kalong Ningkan can be clearly distinguished when deciding Nizar vs Zambry.