L C Vohrah J:

[1] These were two identical appeals against the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner Vincent Ng Kim Khoay in allowing the respondents' applications for habeas corpus on the common ground that the respective orders issued by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs for the detention of the respondents were defective due to non-compliance with the provisions of s 4(1) of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969.

[2] The order in respect of each of the respondents was made by the Deputy Minister on the same day in identical terms on almost similar facts. Each of the two orders was in the following terms:

BAHAWASANYA saya, Menteri Dalam Negeri berpuashati yang Perintah ini adalah perlu dibuat ke atas orang yang namanya tersebut di bawah ini dengan tujuan hendak mencegah beliau daripada melakukan perbuatan dengan apa-apa cara yang memudaratkan ketenteraman awam atau untuk menghapuskan kekerasan atau mencegah jenayah yang melibatkan kekerasan.

Nama	Nombor Kad Pengenalan
[x]	[x]

Oleh yang demikian, pada menjalankan kuasa yang diberi kepada saya di bawah s 4(1) Ordinan Darurat (Ketenteraman Awam dan Mencegah Jenayah) 1969, maka saya mengarahkan dengan perintah ini supaya orang yang namanya tersebut di atas ditahan selama dua tahun mulai dari 22 April 1992, di Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak, Pulau Jerejak, Pulau Pinang atau di mana-mana tempat lain sebagaimana yang diarah dari semasa ke semasa.

Ditandatangani pada 22 April 1992

t.t.

(Dato' Megat Junid Bin Megat Ayob)

Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia

[3] Section 4(1) of the Ordinance is worded as follows:

If the Minister is satisfied that with a view to preventing any person from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order it is necessary that that person should be detained, or that it is necessary for the suppression of violence or the prevention of crimes involving violence that that person should be detained, the Minister shall make an order (hereinafter referred to as a "detention order") directing that that person be detained for any period not exceeding two years.

... it seems quite clear to me that what is intended in s 4(1) of the Ordinance is to confer on the Minister the power to issue a detention order based on any one of two grounds which, by its very nature of expression, should be read disjunctively.

The first limb of the section seeks to allow the Minister to detain:

(a) a person who has acted in any manner prejudicial to public order (or, presumably social order in our society), which encompasses a whole gamut of variegated offences such as smuggling, running illegal lotteries, preaching religious heresy, or advocating communist or racist ideology, all of which do not necessarily involve violence; and

The second limb allows the Minister to detain:

(b) a person, if it is necessary for the suppression of violence or the prevention of crimes involving violence, obviously an appropriate provision for curbing gangsterism, gangland warfare and gang violence - which necessarily involve violence or the use of violence, as emphasised in the second limb.

Furthermore, the interpolation in s 4(1) of the Ordinance, of the following words (underscored by me) "... it is necessary that that person should be detained or that it is necessary for... that that person should be detained..." (seemingly repetitive) shows a clear recognition by the legislature of the distinction between the first and second limb of the said section.

The two above grounds for detention in (a) and (b) are so distinct and different in specie one to the other, that reading them conjunctively does not make for grammatical sense or consistency in the flow of