precedent facts
... that in a 1998 case the Singapore Court of Appeal held the Internal Security Act contained no precedent facts as Parliament clearly intended that detention decisions were to be made by the Government?
... that in a <a class="mw-redirect" href="./Chng_Suan_Tze_v._Minister_for_Home_Affairs" id="mwCts" rel="mw:WikiLink" title="Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs">1998 case</a> the <a href="./Singapore" id="mwCtw" rel="mw:WikiLink" title="Singapore">Singapore</a> <a href="./Court_of_Appeal_of_Singapore" id="mwCt0" rel="mw:WikiLink" title="Court of Appeal of Singapore">Court of Appeal</a> held the <a href="./Internal_Security_Act_(Singapore)" id="mwCt4" rel="mw:WikiLink" title="Internal Security Act (Singapore)">Internal Security Act</a> contained no <b id="mwCt8"><a class="mw-redirect" href="./Errors_as_to_precedent_facts_in_Singapore_law" id="mwCuA" rel="mw:WikiLink" title="Errors as to precedent facts in Singapore law">precedent facts</a></b> as <a href="./Parliament_of_Singapore" id="mwCuE" rel="mw:WikiLink" title="Parliament of Singapore">Parliament</a> clearly intended that <a href="./Internment" id="mwCuI" rel="mw:WikiLink" title="Internment">detention</a> decisions were to be made by the <a href="./Government_of_Singapore" id="mwCuM" rel="mw:WikiLink" title="Government of Singapore">Government</a>?