Detention orders under the Internal Security Act can be extended on the same grounds without restatement of those grounds, distinguishing between stated grounds and purposes.

NH Chan JCA:

I have had the advantage of reading the judgment in draft of My Lord Mokhtar Sidin JCA and I agree with him that the appeal of the plaintiff should be dismissed and the appeal of the defendants allowed.

Gurcharan Singh (the plaintiff) was a detainee under the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA). He was an airman in the Royal Malaysian Air Force where he served as an aircraft technician. He was cashiered from the air force before he became a detainee under the ISA. He was detained for two years by a detention order dated 3 November 1989 made by the Minister for Home Affairs under s. 8(1) of the Act. Section 8(1) reads:

8(1) If the Minister is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof, he may make an order (hereinafter referred to as a detention order) directing that that person be detained for any period not exceeding two years. (emphasis supplied)

Under s. 8(1) there are three grounds or reasons for which a person can be detained under the ISA. These grounds or reasons for detaining a person are necessary, according to the ISA, to prevent such a person from acting in a manner that would be prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or to the maintenance of essential services in the country or to the economic life of the country. So that, if the Minister thinks that the detention of the person is necessary for any one of those three grounds or reasons, he can make an order for that person's detention for up to two years under the ISA. Thus, one ground or reason for a person's detention by the Minister is to prevent him from acting in a manner that would be prejudicial to the security of Malaysia. Another ground or reason for his detention is to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of essential services in the country. And the third ground or reason for the Minister to detain a person under the ISA is to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the economic life of the country.

The material part of the detention order (as translated) that affects the plaintiff in the present case reads:

WHEREAS I am satisfied that this Order is necessary to be issued against the person named below with a view of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to:

(a) the security of Malaysia,

(b) the maintenance of essential services in Malaysia,

(c) the economic life of Malaysia.

As can be seen from this document, grounds (b) and (c) in the text of the order have been deleted. This clearly shows that the detention order was made against the plaintiff solely on ground (a) which was that the Minister was satisfied that his detention was necessary for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia.

Following his detention, a detainee is entitled to make representations against the detention order to an advisory board under s. 11 of the Act. Section 11(1) and (2) provide:

11(1) A copy of every order made by the Minister under section 8(1) shall as soon as may be after the making thereof be served on the person to whom it relates, and every such person shall be entitled to make representations against the order to an Advisory Board.

(2) For the purpose of enabling a person to make representations under subsection (1) he shall, at the time of the service on him of the order -

(a) be informed of his right to make representations to an Advisory Board under sub-section (1); and

(b) be furnished by the Minister with a statement in writing -

(i) of the grounds on which the order is made;

(ii) of the allegations of fact on which the order is based; and

(iii) of such other particulars, if any, as he may in the opinion of the Minister reasonably require i