Abdoolcader J:

Yeap Hock Seng who rejoices in the euphonious hypocorism of Ah Seng on a motion returnable and heard 5 days ago seeks redress in this Court for what he alleges to be illegal restraint of his person and unlawful deprivation of his liberty by way of a writ of habeas corpus (obviously the highest species of this historic constitutional remedy - ad subjiciendum et recipiendum) under the provisions of Article 5(2) of the Federal Constitution which writes the already existing remedy of habeas corpus into the Constitution and s. 365 of the Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap. 6), naming as respondents the Minister for Home Affairs Malaysia, (the detaining authority), the Senior Superintendent, Detention Camp, Pulau Jerejak, Penang, (the officer in charge of the detention centre where he is now detained) and the Chief Police Officer, Perak, (the arresting authority).

The affidavits filed disclose that the applicant, a Malaysian citizen, was arrested on 27 March 1975, at Kuala Kurau, Perak, together with five other persons on a suspicion of having committed murder, and on 16 April 1975, the six of them, apparently together with another male Chinese who had been arrested on 2 April 1975, on suspicion of the same murder, were produced before the Magistrate's Court, Parit Buntar, Perak, and tentatively charged with committing murder on 27 March 1975, by intentionally causing the death of two male Chinese, an offence punishable under s. 302 read together with s. 34 of the Penal Code.

The preliminary enquiry into this charge was fixed for 23 June 1975, but on that date the prosecution sought an adjournment on the ground that investigations had not been completed. The enquiry was accordingly adjourned to 13 August 1975, when the prosecution again sought an adjournment for a further week. On 20 August 1975, the prosecuting officer informed the presiding magistrate that the case was a complicated one and needed further investigation and that he was directed by the Deputy Public Prosecutor to request the Court (obviously for lack of evidence) to grant a discharge to the applicant and the other six accused persons, whereupon the magistrate discharged all the seven of them.

It would then appear that as the applicant walked out of the Court-house he was immediately apprehended (and indeed so were the other six) and taken to the Parit Buntar Police Station where Inspector v. Doraisamy read and explained to him through an interpreter in the Hokkien dialect the order of detention made against him by the Minister under s. 4(1) of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance, 1969 ("the Ordinance"), the requisite statement under s. 5(2)(b) of the grounds on which the order was made and the allegations of fact on which the order was based, the notification of his right of representation to an Advisory Board under s. 5(2)(a) and a form for making representations under s. 5(1), and gave him copies of the order, the statement, two notifications of his right of representation and the requisite form for making such representations, which the applicant acknowledged receiving and confirmed understanding the contents thereof. The applicant was then taken to Pulau Jerejak, Penang, and detained at the Detention Camp there.

The detention order under the hand of the Minister is dated 12 August 1975, and recites that whereas he is satisfied that it is necessary to make the order in respect of the applicant for the purpose of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order or for the suppression of violence or the prevention of crimes involving violence, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by s. 4(1) of the Ordinance he thereby directs that by the order the applicant be detained for a period of two years from 13 August 1975, at the Detention Camp, Pulau Jerejak, or any other centre as directed by him from time to time.

The statement under s. 5(2)(b) is dated 13 August 1975, and reveals the grou