Statute Details
- Title: Commission
- Act Code: CIA1941-N29
- Type: SL (subsidiary legislation / statutory instrument)
- Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026 (per the legislation portal)
- Authorising Act: Inquiry Commissions Ordinance (Chapter 55, 1955 Ed)
- Instrument / Gazette Reference: G.N. No. S 1057/1966
- Revised Edition: Revised Edition 1990 (25th March 1992)
- Date of Appointment (instrument date): 29th April 1966 (as indicated in the extract)
- Commencement Date: Not stated in the extract (instrument takes effect upon issuance/appointment)
- Parts: N/A (instrument is a commission appointment with directions)
- Key Directions / Clauses in the Extract: Chairman appointment; venue; in camera proceedings; Secretary and staffing; police assistance; submission of report
What Is This Legislation About?
The instrument titled “Commission” is not a standalone statute creating a new legal regime. Instead, it is a formal appointment instrument issued by the President of Singapore under the Inquiry Commissions Ordinance (Chapter 55, 1955 Ed). Its function is to establish a specific commission of inquiry, appoint named commissioners, and set the terms and procedural directions for how the inquiry is to be conducted.
In plain language, this instrument authorises a panel of commissioners to investigate matters concerning the Singapore Civil Service—specifically, the principles governing emoluments and conditions of service for monthly-rated officers, and whether changes are needed to salaries and salary scales. It also directs the commission to consider the country’s financial and economic situation and to report to the Government as expeditiously as practicable.
Although the extract includes procedural directions (such as holding sittings at a specified address, conducting proceedings in camera, and providing police assistance), the core legal purpose is to activate the inquiry powers under the authorising ordinance for a particular subject-matter and time-bound task. Practitioners should therefore treat this instrument as a “trigger” document: it operationalises the inquiry mechanism and defines how the inquiry will run.
What Are the Key Provisions?
1. Appointment and terms of reference (substantive scope). The instrument begins by recording the President’s view that an inquiry is in the public welfare and then sets out the terms of reference. The inquiry is directed:
(a) to consider and recommend the principles governing the emoluments and conditions of service of all monthly-rated officers in the Singapore Civil Service;
(b) based on those principles, to consider and recommend whether changes are necessary in salaries and salary scales, including the mode of conversion to any revised scale, with an explicit policy preference for having as few salary scales as possible;
(c) to take into account the financial and economic situation of the country when making recommendations; and
(d) to submit its report to the Government of Singapore as expeditiously as is practicable.
For legal practitioners, these terms are important because they define the boundaries of the commission’s mandate. Recommendations outside these areas would be vulnerable to challenge as ultra vires the appointment terms, while recommendations within them are intended to be comprehensive and policy-relevant.
2. Composition of the commission and leadership. The President appoints three named commissioners: Mr. G. J. Harvey (O.B.E.), Mr. Reginald Quahe, and Mr. M. N. Menon. The instrument further directs that Mr. G. J. Harvey shall be Chairman. This matters because the Chairman is given discretion over certain procedural matters (including venue adjustments). In practice, the Chairman’s role can affect scheduling, the management of evidence, and the overall conduct of hearings.
3. Venue and flexibility for sittings. The instrument directs that the commission shall normally hold its sittings at “No. 6 Nassim Road, Singapore 10.” However, it also grants the Chairman power, in his discretion, to adjourn to any suitable place to hear evidence or for any other purpose connected with the commission’s duties. This provision balances administrative certainty (a normal location) with operational flexibility (ability to move for evidence-taking needs). For counsel appearing before the commission, this means that while there is a default venue, notice and logistics may change depending on the Chairman’s discretion.
4. Confidentiality: proceedings “in camera”. The instrument directs that “the Inquiry shall be held in camera.” “In camera” is a strong confidentiality instruction: it generally means that hearings are not open to the public and that evidence and deliberations are treated as confidential, subject to any further procedural rules under the authorising ordinance. This is a critical provision for practitioners because it affects:
(i) how witnesses and parties communicate with the media or third parties;
(ii) whether documents and submissions may be disclosed outside the commission process; and
(iii) how counsel should frame public-facing communications and confidentiality undertakings.
Even where the authorising ordinance provides broader powers, this instrument’s explicit confidentiality direction signals that the inquiry’s outputs and evidence are intended to be handled discreetly.
5. Appointment of the Secretary and administrative powers. The President appoints Mr. Chas. W. Meyer as Secretary to the Commission and authorises the Secretary to exercise powers and carry out duties referred to in section 6 of the Inquiry Commissions Ordinance. The Secretary is also authorised to employ clerical or other assistance as the commission may require. Additionally, the President authorises the commission, in case of necessity, to appoint any suitable person temporarily to act as Secretary.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the Secretary’s role is often central to the practical administration of an inquiry: arranging hearings, managing correspondence, handling summonses, and ensuring procedural compliance. Knowing that the Secretary has statutory powers (by reference to section 6 of the authorising ordinance) can be relevant when dealing with requests for documents, scheduling, and procedural directions.
6. Police assistance for order and service of process. The instrument directs the Commissioner of Police to detail police constables to attend upon the commission to preserve order during proceedings, serve summonses on witnesses, and perform such duties as the commission directs. This provision underscores the formal character of the inquiry and the expectation that evidence-taking may require enforcement of attendance and maintenance of order.
For lawyers, this is relevant when advising witnesses: summonses are to be served with police assistance, and the commission’s proceedings are supported by state enforcement capacity. It also indicates that the commission may operate with a level of procedural formality comparable to other quasi-judicial or statutory inquiry processes.
7. Reporting obligation. Finally, the instrument directs that the commissioners, after completing the inquiry, shall submit their report and recommendations to the President. The terms of reference also require submission to the Government of Singapore as expeditiously as practicable. Together, these provisions establish a clear end-point: the commission’s work culminates in a report that informs governmental policy on civil service remuneration and related conditions.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This instrument is structured as a presidential appointment order rather than a multi-part statute. In the extract, the document follows a typical pattern for commission appointment instruments:
(1) Enacting narrative and public welfare rationale: It records that the President may issue commissions whenever advisable for public welfare.
(2) Terms of reference: It sets out the substantive scope of the inquiry (emoluments principles, salary scale changes, economic considerations, and reporting timeline).
(3) Appointment and procedural directions: It appoints named commissioners, designates the Chairman, sets normal venue and discretion to move, directs in camera proceedings, appoints the Secretary and authorises staffing, and provides for police assistance.
(4) Reporting direction: It requires submission of the final report and recommendations.
Because the extract does not show “sections” in the usual legislative sense, practitioners should read it as a set of binding directions issued under the authorising ordinance. The operative legal effect comes from the appointment and the directions, while the procedural mechanics are supplemented by the Inquiry Commissions Ordinance (not reproduced in the extract).
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The instrument applies directly to the commissioners appointed under it, the Secretary and administrative staff supporting the commission, and the Commissioner of Police (through the direction to detail police constables). It also affects witnesses who may be summoned to give evidence, because police assistance is directed for serving summonses and preserving order.
More broadly, the instrument is relevant to monthly-rated officers in the Singapore Civil Service and to any stakeholders whose remuneration and conditions of service may be considered by the commission. While the instrument does not itself change salaries, it establishes the inquiry that may lead to governmental recommendations and subsequent policy or administrative action.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
This commission appointment is important because it demonstrates how Singapore’s statutory inquiry framework is used to shape public sector remuneration policy. The terms of reference are carefully drafted to connect principles (how emoluments and conditions should be governed) with specific outcomes (whether salary scales and conversion modes should change), while also requiring consideration of macroeconomic constraints. This is a classic policy-inquiry design: it seeks both normative guidance and practical recommendations.
From an enforcement and procedural standpoint, the instrument’s directions—particularly in camera hearings, police support for summonses and order, and the Secretary’s statutory powers—signal a formal process with confidentiality and state-backed procedural capacity. Lawyers advising witnesses or civil service stakeholders should treat the commission as a serious statutory process where attendance and compliance with summonses are supported by law enforcement.
Finally, the reporting obligation ensures that the inquiry’s work is not open-ended. The commission is required to submit recommendations to the President/Government as expeditiously as practicable. In practice, such reports can influence subsequent legislation, administrative circulars, or salary scheme revisions. Understanding the commission’s mandate helps practitioners anticipate the scope of evidence that may be sought and the types of submissions likely to be relevant.
Related Legislation
- Inquiry Commissions Ordinance (Chapter 55, 1955 Ed) — the authorising legislation referenced in the instrument, including section 6 (Secretary’s powers/duties).
- Timeline / Legislative history references (as indicated on the portal): Inquiry Commissions Ordinance (CHAPTER 55, 1955 ED); Revised Edition 1990 (25th March 1992); Gazette Notification G.N. No. S 1057/1966.
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Commission for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.