<P> The validity of the 1989 ISA amendments was challenged unsuccessfully before the High Court and Court of Appeal in 1989 and 1990 respectively in Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs . The High Court held that the 1989 amendments had merely reaffirmed the legal principles laid down in Lee Mau Seng and thus could not be characterized as being contrary to the rule of law or having usurped judicial power: </P> <P> There is no abrogation of judicial power . It is erroneous to contend that the rule of law has been abolished by legislation and that Parliament has stated its absolute and conclusive judgment in applications for judicial review or other actions . Parliament has done no more than to enact the rule of law relating to the law applicable to judicial review . The </P> <P> legislation does not direct the court to enter a particular judgment or dismiss a particular case . The court is left to deal with the case on the basis of the amendments . Legislation designed against subversion must necessarily include provisions to ensure the effectiveness of preventive detention . The amendments are intended to do just that . </P> <P> On appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed that it had to decide the case in accordance with the legal principles laid down in Lee Mau Seng as the effect of section 8B (1) of the ISA was clear . Applying those legal principles, the Court held that the appellant had failed to prove that her detention had been made for reasons unrelated to national security . </P>

What is the doctrine for land in singapore