by Parliament to replace the “existing law”. In the circumstances, it is inevitable that all laws then in operation will have to be continued until they are repealed. This is provided in Art. 162 which is a transitional provision intended to ensure the continuance of all existing laws after Merdeka Day with such modifications as may be made under the said Article and subject to any amendment as may be made by Federal or State law. Under Art.162 (6), the court or tribunal are given further powers to make any necessary modification to any such law to bring it into accord with the Constitution. This was in fact done in the case of Assa Singh v Mentri Besar, Johore [1969] 2 MLJ 30. In that case, the applicant was arrested and detained under the Restricted Residence Enactment (Enactment). It was argued in that case that the Enactment has no provision: (i) for informing the person concerned of the grounds of his arrest and detention; (ii) for presenting him before a magistrate or for an enquiry at which the detained person could answer the allegations made against him; (iii) for review and (iv) for limitation of the period of detention. Because of these reasons, it was submitted that the provisions of the Enactment were inconsistent with the provisions of Arts. 5 and 9 of the Constitution. In that case, it was held, inter alia, that even though the Enactment did not have provisions similar to those of clauses (3) and (4) of Art. 5 of the Constitution, this does not render it unconstitutional despite such difference. However, it must be applied with such adaptations as may be necessary to bring it into accord with the Constitution. In the circumstances, the court held that the provisions of clauses (3) and (4) of Art. 5 of the Constitution must therefore be read into the provisions of the Restricted Residence Enactment. [19] Following the above authorities, we agree with the submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the term “Parliament may by law” as appearing in Art.10 (2) should not be read restrictively but must be read harmoniously with the other provisions of the Constitution such as Art. 162. To say that the Act does not come within the ambit of Art. 10(2) of the Constitution as it was not made by Parliament would give it a highly restrictive and rigid interpretation to the phrase “Parliament may by law” as appearing in the said Article. We are of the view that the framers of the Constitution in drafting Art 162 would have in their contemplation the provision of Art. 10(2), and had they indeed intended that the phrase “the existing laws” in Art. 162 is not to include the Act they could have done so in no uncertain term. [23] – [24] 5