Abdul Hamid CJ (Malaya):

[1] This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against sentence. The four respondents were convicted in the High Court at Kuala Trengganu on February 21, 1984. The first and fourth respondents were charged with the following charge:

"That you on June 10, 1983 at about between 1.20 pm and 1.55 pm at an unnumbered building, Kampung Kerandang, Besut, in the District of Besut, in the State of Trengganu, not being a person appointed under the Administration of Islamic Law Enactment (Trengganu No 4 of 1955) as a Bilal, acted in a manner likely to prejudice the maintenance of unity on grounds of religion between persons professing the Islamic Religion in Kampung Kerandang by acting as a Bilal during the performance of Friday Prayers in the said building, and that you thereby committed an offence under sub-section 1 of s 298A punishable under sub-section 2 of the said section of the Penal Code."

[2] The second respondent was charged under the same section but as an Imam and the third respondent as a Khatib.

[3] The learned Judge bound them over for a period of 3 years to keep the peace and be of good behaviour in one surety in the sum of $1,000 and to appear and receive judgment if and when called upon to do so under s 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

[4] Against this decision the Public Prosecutor now appeals on the ground that the learned Judge had failed to impose deterrent sentence. As there were two main grounds and for convenience we set them out hereunder:

"The Learned Judge, after having properly observed that the new s 298A of the Penal Code has been enacted by Parliament "to preserve law and order by maintaining a state of harmony, unity and goodwill between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions by preventing such persons from causing or attempting to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will or from prejudicing the maintenance of harmony or unity" erred in law

(a) in allowing the personal considerations of the Respondents to far outweigh the paramount consideration of public interest as a whole and the interest of the Muslim Community in particular.

(b) in failing to consider the national interest and the will of Parliament in imposing the non-deterrent sentence of mere binding over on the Respondents."

[5]Section 298A of the Penal Code is a new provision, the relevant part of which reads:

"298A.(1) Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or by any act, activity or conduct, or by organising, promoting or arranging, or assisting in organising, promoting or arranging, any activity, or otherwise in any other manner -

(a) causes, or attempts to cause, or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will; or

(b) prejudices, or attempts to prejudice, or is likely to prejudice, the maintenance of harmony or unity,

on grounds of religion, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

[6] We refer to the section specifically to show the object and purpose of the legislation which we consider relevant to the determination of a proper sentence.

[7] In the light of the object of the legislation it is necessary for the trial Court to have regard to it before a sentence is imposed.

[8] In the instant case the learned Judge recognised that this section is designed to preserve law and order to maintain a state of harmony, unity and goodwill between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions that are being practiced in this country by preventing such persons from causing or attempting to cause disharmony or disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, and that the offences of the nature committed by the four respondents will have the effect of jeopardising Islamic unity, in the result, prejudicing the mai