Statute Details
- Title: Estate Duty (Lem Chu Kem also known as Lem Chu Kem Theresa, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2000
- Act Code: EDA1929-S355-2000
- Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Estate Duty Act (Cap. 96)
- Authorising Power: Section 50 of the Estate Duty Act
- Enacting Formula: “In exercise of the powers conferred by section 50 of the Estate Duty Act, the Minister for Finance hereby makes the following Order.”
- Citation: SL 355/2000
- Date Made: 31 July 2000
- Commencement: Not expressly stated in the extract (orders of this type typically operate from the date of making unless otherwise provided)
- Key Provisions: Section 1 (Citation); Section 2 (Remission of estate duty)
- Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026
What Is This Legislation About?
The Estate Duty (Lem Chu Kem also known as Lem Chu Kem Theresa, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2000 is a narrowly targeted remission order issued under Singapore’s Estate Duty framework. In plain terms, it provides that a specific amount of estate duty—payable under the Estate Duty Act in respect of a particular deceased person—is remitted (i.e., forgiven) by the Government.
Unlike general legislation that sets out broad rules for all estates, this Order applies to one identifiable estate matter. The Order names the deceased (Lem Chu Kem, also known as Lem Chu Kem Theresa) and specifies the death date (19 December 1997). It then identifies the exact sum of estate duty that would otherwise be payable and remits that sum.
For practitioners, the practical significance is that remission orders are often used to address exceptional circumstances—such as administrative errors, hardship considerations, or adjustments arising from the review of duty calculations. This Order does not create new estate duty rules; rather, it exercises a statutory discretion to cancel a particular liability.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) is a standard provision confirming the short title of the instrument. It allows the Order to be cited as the “Estate Duty (Lem Chu Kem also known as Lem Chu Kem Theresa, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2000”. While not substantive, citation provisions are important for legal referencing in correspondence, submissions, and court or tribunal filings.
Section 2 (Remission of estate duty) is the operative clause. It states that “the sum of $29,756.48 payable under the Act on the share in the Estate of Soo Ha Robert @ Soo Ha, Deceased” is remitted. The wording is technical and requires careful reading: the remission is not described as a remission of “all estate duty” in the abstract, but rather of a specific sum “payable under the Act” on a particular “share in the Estate” of the named deceased (Soo Ha Robert @ Soo Ha, Deceased), connected to the passing on the death of Lem Chu Kem (also known as Lem Chu Kem Theresa) on 19 December 1997.
In practical terms, the Order is effectively a targeted forgiveness of a quantified estate duty liability. The amount—$29,756.48—is fixed and not expressed as a percentage or as a range. This means that, for the relevant estate duty assessment, the remission should result in the duty being treated as no longer payable to the extent of that sum.
Enacting power and ministerial discretion. The Order is made by the Minister for Finance under section 50 of the Estate Duty Act. Even though the extract does not reproduce section 50, the reference is legally important: it anchors the remission in an express statutory power. For practitioners, this matters because remission orders must be supported by the enabling provision; the citation to section 50 indicates that the Minister is exercising a discretion conferred by Parliament.
Formalities and making date. The Order is “Made this 31st day of July 2000” and is signed by LIM SIONG GUAN, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance. The making date can be relevant when determining administrative timelines (for example, whether remission is applied retroactively to an assessment already raised, or whether it affects payment schedules). Although the extract does not specify commencement, the instrument’s status as a remission order suggests it is intended to operate in relation to the duty liability already determined under the Estate Duty Act.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This instrument is extremely short and consists of a simple structure typical of remission orders:
(1) Citation — Section 1 provides the short title.
(2) Substantive remission — Section 2 provides the remission of a specified sum of estate duty.
There are no schedules, definitions, or procedural provisions in the extract. The legal effect is therefore concentrated entirely in Section 2. For practitioners, this means there is little interpretive complexity beyond the identification of the parties, the death date, and the quantified amount remitted.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to a specific estate duty matter rather than to a class of taxpayers. It identifies the deceased person whose death triggered the relevant estate duty context: Lem Chu Kem, also known as Lem Chu Kem Theresa, who died on 19 December 1997.
It also refers to “the share in the Estate of Soo Ha Robert @ Soo Ha, Deceased.” This indicates that the remission is tied to a particular share or interest within the estate of Soo Ha Robert @ Soo Ha, with the duty being payable “on the share” in connection with the passing of Lem Chu Kem. The remission therefore benefits the estate (or the relevant persons liable for that duty) to the extent of the specified sum.
Because the Order is named and quantified, it does not generally apply to other estates. Practitioners should not treat it as establishing a general remission principle; it is best understood as an administrative/legal resolution for one identified duty liability.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is brief, it is legally significant because it demonstrates how Singapore’s estate duty system can be adjusted through statutory remission. Estate duty is a tax on the estate of a deceased person, and once an assessment is made, the liability can be difficult to alter without a statutory basis. Remission orders provide that basis where the Minister determines that remission is appropriate under the enabling provision.
For practitioners advising executors, administrators, beneficiaries, or estate duty agents, the key value of this Order is its certainty: it remits a fixed amount of $29,756.48. This can affect estate accounts, distributions, and the final settlement of estate duty obligations. If estate duty has already been paid, remission may also have implications for refunds or adjustments—though the extract does not address refunds explicitly, the remission itself is the legal foundation for any consequential administrative action.
From an enforcement perspective, the Order reduces the Government’s claim for that specified sum. It also provides documentary support for any correspondence with the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (or the relevant authority handling estate duty administration at the time), particularly where the estate is seeking confirmation that a duty assessment has been partially or fully relieved.
Finally, the Order is a useful example of how subsidiary legislation can be used to implement targeted relief. In practice, lawyers often need to locate and interpret such instruments when reconciling estate duty computations, responding to queries from tax authorities, or preparing closing accounts for estates.
Related Legislation
- Estate Duty Act (Cap. 96) — in particular, section 50 (the enabling provision for remission orders)
- Estate Duty Act (timeline / versions) — for contextual understanding of the statutory framework applicable to the 1997 death and the 2000 remission order
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Estate Duty (Lem Chu Kem also known as Lem Chu Kem Theresa, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2000 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.