Hj. Abdul Malik Hj. Ishak J:

The applicant was detained for a period of two years commencing from 16 April 1992 ("the first detention order") under s. 8(1) of the Internal Security Act 1960 (Act 82) ("ISA") . In compliance with s. 11(2)(b) of the ISA , the applicant was on the same day served with a copy of the order furnished with a written statement of the grounds and allegations of fact. Suffice for me to say, for the purpose of this exercise, that the grounds and allegations of fact portrayed, inter alia , the applicant to be responsible for forging Malaysian identity cards and expediting the flow of illegal immigrants into Malaysia - nefarious activities prejudicial to the security of Malaysia. On expiry of the first detention order, the Timbalan Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri saw it fit to extend it for a further period of two years ("the second detention order") under s. 8(7) of the ISA . The second detention order under s. 8(7) of the ISA reads thus (the relevant portions only):

Dan bahawasanya saya adalah berpuashati bahawa dengan tujuan hendak mencegah orang yang tersebut di atas dari bertindak dengan apa-apa cara yang memudaratkan:

(a) keselamatan Malaysia (b) (deleted) (c) (deleted)

adalah perlu bahawa tempoh Perintah Tahanan itu dilanjutkan.

Maka, oleh yang demikian, pada menjalankan kuasa yang diberi kepada saya oleh seksyen 8(7) Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri 1960, saya, Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia, dengan ini Mengarahkan bahawa orang tersebut di atas itu hendaklah ditahan selama tempoh dua tahun selanjutnya mulai dari tarikh tamat tempoh Perintah Tahanan itu, iaitu dari 16 haribulan ...... 1994 di Tempat tahanan Kamunting,Taiping atau di mana-mana tempat lain yang diarahkan oleh saya dari semasa ke semasa.

Diperbuat pada 11 haribulan April 1994.

(Tandatangan) (Dato' Megat Junid bin Megat Ayob) Timbalan Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri Malaysia

In signing the second detention order under s. 8(7) of the ISA , the Timbalan Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia was exercising the delegated powers of the Minister under Article 43A of the Federal Constitution.

Mr. Karpal Singh argued on behalf of the applicant that the second detention order under s. 8(7) of the ISA was bad in law because itdid not specify the month when the extension should proceed from and there was also failure to specify on what grounds the second detention order was made. These defects would, it was submitted, render the second detention order to be null and void and consequently, the applicant was entitled to his liberty.

Encik Mahmud bin Hj. Abdullah, the learned Federal Counsel for the defendants, argued that the Court should look at these two orders cummulatively and not separately and in so doing the whole scenario of the facts would be presented cohesively as to render the second detention order to be valid in law.

At the outset, it is pertinent to point out that at the reverse portion of the second detention order, Encik Mohd. Khairy bin Haji Said, the Penguasa Penjara, Tempat Tahanan Perundangan, Taiping affirmed and signed a short declaration that he had served the second detention order to the application on 15 April 1994. The applicant also signed at the bottom portion of the same page wherein he admitted receiving the second detention order and below it, written by hand, were written the date and time to be 15 April 1994 @ 15.35 hrs. Encik Mahmud bin Hj. Abdullah took upon himself the date 15 April 1994 to be the relevant date wherein the first detention order had expired and argued by necessary inference that the month that was left blank in the second detention order should rightly be the month of April.