SUFFIAN LP (delivering the judgment of the Court): These three appeals were heard together and raise the question whether a person suspected of being engaged in drug trafficking may lawfully be detained under section 4(1) of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance, 1969 ("the Ordinance") published as P.U.(A) 187/69.

The preamble of the Ordinance reads:

"AND WHEREAS the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied that immediate

action is required for securing public order, the suppression of

violence and the prevention of crimes involving violence."

Section 4(1) of the Ordinance reads:

"4. (1) 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 the 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."

Appeal No. 24

As regards Appeal No. 24, the facts were that on December 4, 1975, the applicant in the lower court and the appellant before us ("the appellant") was arrested and detained and on January 26, 1976, he was served with a detention order made by the Minister under section 4(1) of the Ordinance. As required by section 5(2)(b) of the Ordinance, he was also supplied with the grounds and the allegations of fact on which the order was made, as follows:

"GROUNDS ON WHICH THE DETENTION ORDER IS MADE.

That you are an active local infra-structure member of an

international drug distribution syndicate. Your activities have not

only damaged the international image of Malaysia but have also caused

an increase in criminal activities involving violence connected with

drugs and you have thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to public

order.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT.

1. That you have since the month of October 1975 been an active

local infra-structure member of an international drug

distribution syndicate.

2. That you have since October 1975 up to the time of your arrest on

December 4, 1975 actively assisted members of the syndicate in

obtaining a supply of drugs from Kuala Lumpur, Penang and Kedah

for smuggling overseas."

The appellant challenged the validity of the order of detention solely on the contention that the grounds on which the order was made are outside the scope and ambit of the Ordinance.

The learned judge held that they were not, see his judgment reported at [1976] 2 MLJ 83, and the appellant has appealed to us.

The issue before us is the same, namely, were those grounds outside the scope and ambit of the Ordinance?

The learned judge stated the arguments thus at page 85:

"The crunch of the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant is that

the scope of the Ordinance is limited and that it applies and is

intended to apply only for the purposes of suppressing activities

involving violence and preventing crimes of violence. Mr. Karpal Singh

for the applicant submits that the allegation that the applicant is an

active member of an international drug distribution syndicate (which is

covered by the generic term trafficking in drugs as defined in

section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, 1952 and this counsel

accepts) which is the basis for the detention order made against him is

neither within the scope of the Ordinance nor contemplated by it. In

support of this contention, he has devoted a considerable part of his

argument to a consideration of the preamble to the Ordinance and has

asked me to consider the preamble and mo