them. The interest of justice is as important as the interest of arrested persons and it is well-known that criminal elements are deterred most of all by the certainty of detection, arrest and punishment.” [38] The learned Judge in Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim relying on the above statement by Suffian LP opined that:“So, although the Constitution did not have any words postponing the right to counsel, the Federal Court read those words into the article. So too here. We can read the word “reasonable” before the word “restriction” in art. 10(2)(c).” [39] With respect, the reasoning of the learned Judge cited in Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim in our view is flawed since in Ooi Ah Phua the Court was concerned with the interpretation of the words “… as soon as may be…” which relates to the time within which a person arrested is to be allowed to consult his lawyer and the court opined that in the circumstances a balance need to be drawn between the interest of the accused and the interest of justice. Therefore the words “… as soon as may be…” cannot be construed to mean “immediately” upon arrest. That interpretation arose from the special wordings of Art. 5(3). It is, in our view, fallacious to use the reasoning in Ooi Ah Phua as warranting us to insert the word “reasonable” before the word “restriction” in Art. 10(2). That would be rewriting the provisions of Art.10 (2). For those reasons we depart from the view of the Court of Appeal in Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim as affirmed by this Court in Sivarasa Rasiah. [40] The proportionality test This Court in Sivarasa Rasiah also alluded to the proportionality test in determining whether a given law is consistent with the Constitution. This test emanates from the equality clause housed in Art. 8 (1). The learned Judge in Sivarasa Rasiah considered the statement of Gubbay CJ in Nyambirai v National Social Security Authority [1996] 1 LRC 64, the leading authority on the matter, which was approved by the Privy Council in Elloy de Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing & Ors [1998] UKPC 30. [41] The proportionality principle/test was explained by the Court of Appeal in Dr. Mohd Nasir Hashim in the passage we earlier quoted at para 33. In short, the learned judge 9