Teo Soh Lung v Minister of Home Affairs and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 02 August 1988
• Neutral Citation: [1988] SGHC 60
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 46 of 1988
• Date: 02 August 1988
• Year: 1988
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Anthony Paul Lester QC and Roslina Baba (Teo Lai & Lee)
• Citation: [1988] SGHC 60
• Defendant Counsel: S Tiwari, Soh Tze Bian and Joyce Huen (Attorney General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether detention and re-arrest illegal or improper,Habeas corpus,Detention without warrant under Internal Security Act,National security exceptions,Detention under Internal Security Act Act,Administrative detention,Constitutional Law,Administrative Law,ss 8(1), 10 & 11 Internal Security Act (Cap 143),Fundamental liberties,Judicial review of procedure,Minister revoking suspension order

Cur Adv Vult

This application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum by Teo Soh Lung, who is detained under the Internal Security Act (Cap 143) (the Act), raises questions about the construction of ss 8 and 10 of the Act and about the precise basis, nature and extent of judicial review in cases of preventive detention which deeply concern the security of the state and the liberty of the subject.

For the purposes of examining the proper construction of ss 8 and 10 of the Act and the extensive case law, I need only give a brief introduction of the relevant facts. I shall have to return to the facts in greater detail since such a recall is necessitated by the submissions of counsel for the applicant. In May 1987 the Internal Security Department (the ISD) of the government launched a security operation. One of those arrested was the applicant. She was arrested on 21 May 1987 and interrogated. On 19 June 1987, the Minister for Home Affairs (the minister) made a detention order pursuant to powers contained in s 8(1)(a) of the Act. The minister directed that she be detained for one year with effect from 20 June 1987.

Section 8, so far as is material, provides:

(1) If the President is satisfied with respect to any person that, with a view to preventing that person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Singapore or any part thereof ..., it is necessary to do so, the Minister shall make an order -

(a) directing that such person be detained for any period not exceeding two years;

...

It is relevant to refer to the constitutional provision as to how the President shall act. The relevant parts of art 21(1) of our Constitution read as follows:

In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any law, the President shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet,

In effect, therefore, the discretionary powers of ordering a detention is vested in the Cabinet.

Every person detained under the Act is entitled to make representations against a detention order to an advisory board constituted under the Act. Section 11 of the Act, so far as is material, reads:

(2) For the purpose of enabling a person to make representations under subsection (1) he shall, within 14 days of the service on him of the order -

(a) be informed of his right to make representations to an advisory board ... 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 in order to make his representations against the order to the advisory board.

The grounds on which the detention order of the applicant was made stated that:

Between 1984 and May 1987, you acted in a manner prejudicial to the security of Singapore by being involved in a Marxist conspiracy to subvert the existing social and political system in Singapore, using communist united front tactics, with a view to establishing a Marxist state.

The allegations of fact on which the detention order of the applicant was based were:

(1) That you facilitated the infiltration of the Workers` Party in 1984 by a group of Marxists after discussions with Paul Lim Huat Chye, Tan Wah Piow`s fellow Marxist, and other activists. You also actively assisted them in their efforts to make use of the Workers` Party as a vehicle to further the Marxist cause.

(2) That you and Tang Fong Har made use of the Law Society of Singapore as a political pressure group at the suggestion of Paul Lim Huat Chye.

On 15 August 1987, the applicant submitted written representations to the advisory board. They were lengthy. She denied all complicity - in the Marxist plot, protested her innocence, claimed that she was legitimately exercising her civil and political rights and she expressed her belief that her arrest and detention `(might) be intended to prevent (her) from participating in politics`. As for her links with one Paul Lim Huat Chye, who is a key figure in the Marxist conspiracy, the applicant told the advisory board in August 1987 that on the third day of her arrest she had in a written statement to ISD admitted that in 1984 she had called for a tea gathering at her office and that Paul Lim Huat Chye at that meeting had suggested that the applicant and her friends help the Workers` Party, a political party in opposition to the party in government. However, in later paragraphs of her representations the applicant went on to state, if not she certainly implied, that her written admission , on about Paul Lim Huat Chye`s initiative was either mistaken or that it was made as a result of repeated suggestions by ISD officers in the course of and at the end of what she claimed to be an oppressive interrogation. She then concluded by asserting that, at any rate, Paul Lim Huat Chye had no influence over her.

I should also refer to her allegations that she was slapped and threatened in the first three days of her arrest. On 21 April this year, a police report was lodged about these complaints. These complaints are not relevant for the purposes of these proceedings.

On 26 September 1987, the minister in exercise of the powers contained in s 10 of the Act directed that the operation of the detention order should be immediately suspended. The government in a press release stated that it was satisfied that the applicant was `unlikely to resume subversive activities and no longer posed a security threat`. The applicant executed a bond and had to comply with three conditions against travelling and being involved with certain organizations as described.

Section 10 of the Act, so far as is material, reads:

At any time after an order has been made in respect of any person under s 8(1)(a) the Minister may direct that the operation of such order be suspended subject to the execution of a bond and to such conditions ... as the Minister sees fit.

On 18 April 1988, the applicant and eight other former detainees issued a joint press statement in which they denied that they had been involved in a Marxist conspiracy. They also alleged that they were assaulted and oppressively treated during their interrogation. On the following day the minister in exercise of his powers under s 10 of the Act revoked the suspension direction dated 26 September 1987 with immediate effect and the applicant was re-arrested. Six other detainees were also re-arrested.

The relevant part of s 10 reads:

... and the Minister may revoke any such direction if he is satisfied that the person against whom the order was made has failed to observe any condition so imposed or that it is necessary in the public interest that such direction should be revoked.

The revocation of the minister reads:

The Internal Security Act (Cap 143)

Revocation Under Section 10 Of Suspension Direction

Whereas by an order made by the minister for Home Affairs on 19 June 1987, under s 8(1)(a) of the Internal Security Act, Teo Soh Lung, NRIC No: 0008353-D of Blk 140, Jalan Bukit Merah, #22-1150, Singapore 0316, was detained for a period of one year, with effect from 20 June 1987:

And whereas on 26 September 1987, the Minister for Home Affairs in exercise of the powers conferred on him by s 10 of the said Act directed that the operation of the said order be suspended, with effect from 26 September 1987, subject to the execution of a bond and compliance with certain conditions.

And whereas on 18 April 1988, the said Teo Soh Lung issued a joint statement, inter alia, denying any involvement in a Marxist conspiracy.

And whereas the Minister for Home Affairs is satisfied that in view of the statement it is necessary in the public interest that the direction dated 26 September 1987 should be revoked.

Now therefore, the Minister for Home Affairs in exercise of the powers conferred on him by s 10 of the said Act hereby revokes the direction dated 26 September 1987, with effect from 19 April 1988.

Made 19 April 1988

Sgd: BG (Res) Tan Chin Tiong

Permanent Secretary

Ministry of Home Affairs

Singapore

It will be seen that the minister had stated that in view of the statement `it (was) necessary in the public interest` that the suspension direction should be revoked. There was therefore no suggestion that the applicant had breached any of the conditions attached to the suspension direction.

On 18 June 1988, the applicant`s original detention was extended for one year from that day pursuant to powers contained in s 8(2) of the Act which provides as follows:

The President may direct that the period of any order made under subsection (1) be extended for a further period or periods not exceeding two years at a time.

I come now to consider the judicial reviewability of decisions made by the Cabinet or the minister under ss 8 and 10 of the Act. Such a consideration also requires references to certain other relevant provisions in the Constitution and the Act in addition to ss 8 and 10 of the Act.

Article 149(1) of the Constitution reads:

If an Act recites that action has been taken or threatened by any substantial body of persons, whether inside or outside Singapore -

(a) to cause, or to cause a substantial number of citizens to fear, organized violence against persons or property;

(b) to excite disaffection against the President or the government;

(c) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or other classes of the population likely to cause violence;

(d) to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of anything by law established; or

(e) which is prejudicial to the security of Singapore, any provision of that law designed to stop or prevent that action is valid notwithstanding that it is inconsistent...