Wan Suleiman FJ (delivering the judgment of the Court):

We dismissed this appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge. However an important point of law was raised during the hearing which requires a ruling by this Court.

This appeal has a rather chequered history. Since the original charge preferred against appellant was the object of considerable misgivings on the part of the learned trial Judge we should perhaps set it down in full.

Appellant was charged before the Judge in the High Court, Seremban as follows:

That you on 23 June 1972 between 8.40 p.m. and 9.35 p.m. at the Padang Besar, Tampin, in the District of Tampin, in the State of Negri Sembilan, uttered seditious words in Mandarin (the full translation of the text of which is attached as Sch 'A' to this charge) and that you have thereby committed an offence under s. 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 (Revised 1969) and punishable under s. 4(1) of the said Act.

At the close of the prosecution case on 7 September 1976 he was acquitted and discharged, the learned Judge being of the view that the speech was not seditious. On appeal by the Public Prosecutor this Court set aside the order of acquittal and directed that the appellant be called upon to make his defence.

In his defence, to cite the very words of the trial Judge, "the accused did not seriously deny that he had made the speech which was the subject-matter of the charge. He said that his speech was fair criticism of Government policies, that he had no intention of causing racial trouble and that he never advocated to the people that they should take the law into their own hands." In short he relied on the defence provided by s. 3(2) of the Sedition Act.

At the close of the defence case, Mr. Yeap, Counsel submitted that the charge against the appellant was improper and defective because it did not contain particulars alleging under what category of seditious tendency the accused had contravened the Sedition Act, 1948. He cited the case of Yoh Meng Heng v. PP [1970] 1 MLJ 14 in support.

In that case, which was an appeal from the judgment of the Sessions Court, the second charge (the one alleged to be defective) read:

That you on 18 April 1960 at about 6.30am at an unnumbered hut at Bertam Estate, Kepala Batas, in the District of Butterworth, in the State of Penang, were found, without lawful excuse, to have in your possession a subversive document, to wit a document titled 'Is Malaya a Democratic Country? Is there Freedom of Assembly, Association, Speech, Publication, Strike, Demonstration etc.' and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 29(1) of the Internal Security Act No. 12 of 1960.

The appellant in that appeal was apprehended, while he was with a group of persons painting some writings on the roadside. On the next day, an inspector took him to his house where in a room, which his mother, a prosecution witness, admitted, was occupied by him, the publication entitled "Quotations from Chairman Mao" specified in the first charge and the alleged subversive documents were found. Translations were made of the pamphlets (P2A) and produced in Court. This was the only evidence adduced by the prosecution. It was not stated in the charge just how the pamphlets were classified as coming within the definition of "subversive document" as defined in s. 29 of the ISA.

Ong J (as he then was) went on to set out the definition of subversive document in s. 29(3) of the ISA: it being defined as any document having in part or in whole a tendency -

(a) to excite organised violence against person or property in the Federation; or

(b) to support, propagate or advocate any act prejudicial to the security of the Federation or the maintenance or restoration of public order therein or inciting to violence therein or counselling disobedience to the law thereof or to any lawful order therein; or

(c) to invite, request or demand support for or on account of a