TEO SOH LUNG (Reasons for continued detention)

Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the reasons for Teo Soh Lung's continued detention when the others have been released.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Government has explained on many occasions, a decision on whether a detainee should be released earlier than the expiry of the detention order or be in continued detention depends on the assessment of the Internal Security Department on whether the detainee has responded positively to rehabilitation and whether he is likely to reinvolve himself in subversive activities and pose a security threat upon release. ISD's current assessment is that Teo Soh Lung is not suitable for early release.

In considering whether to release a detainee, the Government also takes into consideration reports of the Advisory Board constituted under the Internal Security Act. Teo, together with three other detainees, namely, Chng Suan Tze, Kevin De Souza and Wong Souk Yee, had made representations to the Advisory Board on 20th January 1989. While the Board recommended that consideration can be given for the early release of Chng Suan Tze, Kevin De Souza and Wong Souk Yee, it made no recommendation for Teo's early release. Chng Suan Tze, Kevin De Souza and Wong Souk Yee were thus released on 11th March 1989.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Does the Minister agree that in the first statement the ISD issued when Teo Soh Lung was released, it was said that she would no longer pose a threat to the security of Singapore?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the statement with me but she was arrested in May 1987 and released on certain conditions and a press statement was issued. Her present detention order is the result of her rearrest in 1988.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Was it not said that she was rearrested because of her public statement?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would urge the Member to carefully read the statements which have been issued by the Government. When she was rearrested together with the others, it was pointed out that the contents of her press statement gave rise to the conclusion that she and the others were likely to resume their subversive activities.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Is it not true, Sir, that when the other three were released they had forgone the application for the habeas corpus and that Teo Soh Lung had not?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, the Member is repeating claims of others that Teo Soh Lung is in continued detention because she pressed on with her habeas corpus case whilst the other three, Wong Souk Yee, Kevin De Souza and Chng Suan Tze, were released because they dropped their habaes corpus cases. This is totally untrue. In the first case, the three of them withdrew their cases on 3rd March. But the Advisory Board had submitted its report recommending their early release before they withdrew their cases. In other words, the Government's decision was based on the Advisory Board's recommendation which had recommended theirearly release before they withdrew their cases.

Secondly, let me also point out the fallacy of that view because Vincent Cheng who never brought any habeas corpus proceedings is still in detention. Thirdly, Patrick Seong was released in May 1988 even though his case was still before the courts.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: How does the Minister distinghish Teo Soh Lung's case from the case of the other three who were released?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, it must be obvious from my answer that it depended on the security assessment by the Internal Security Department.