Statute Details
- Title: Fees (Ministry of Defence) Order
- Act Code: FeA1920-OR1
- Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Fees Act (Chapter 106, Section 2)
- Citation: Fees (Ministry of Defence) Order (G.N. No. S 193/2010)
- Revised Edition: 2010 RevEd (31 May 2010), commenced 1 April 2010
- Current version: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026
- Key Provisions: Section 2 (fees payable for replacements of specified items); Section 3 (remission of fees)
- Schedule: “Fees” (lists items in the first column and corresponding fees in the second column)
- Legislative History (selected): Amended by S 281/2011; S 250/2014; S 673/2023; S 640/2024 (effective 1 Aug 2024); S 968/2024 (effective 16 Dec 2024)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Fees (Ministry of Defence) Order is a Singapore subsidiary legal instrument made under the Fees Act. In practical terms, it authorises the Ministry of Defence (“MINDEF”) to charge and collect specific fees when it carries out replacements of certain items that are listed in the Order’s Schedule.
Although the extract provided shows only the operative provisions (Sections 1 to 3) and indicates that the Schedule contains the fee table, the legal structure is clear: the Order sets out (i) what the Order is called, (ii) the fees that become payable for replacements of specified items, and (iii) a discretionary mechanism allowing the Permanent Secretary of MINDEF to remit (wholly or partly cancel) those fees in appropriate cases.
For practitioners, the Order is best understood as an administrative charging instrument. It does not create a general “tax” or broad regulatory regime; rather, it specifies a fee schedule tied to a defined administrative/operational event—replacement of specified items—together with a limited remission power.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) provides the short title: the instrument may be cited as the “Fees (Ministry of Defence) Order”. While this appears procedural, citation matters for legal certainty in charging disputes, correspondence, and judicial review contexts where the precise legal basis for a fee must be identified.
Section 2 (Fees payable for replacements) is the core charging provision. It states that there shall be payable to MINDEF, in respect of replacements of the items specified in the first column of the Schedule, the fees specified opposite thereto in the second column. In other words, the Schedule functions like a tariff: each item has a corresponding fee amount.
From a legal standpoint, Section 2 establishes three important elements that practitioners should focus on when advising clients or assessing liability:
- Trigger event: “replacements” of the specified items. The fee is not payable for all MINDEF interactions, but for replacements of items enumerated in the Schedule.
- Specified items: the items are defined by the Schedule’s first column. Any dispute about whether a particular item falls within the Schedule is likely to be determinative.
- Fee amount: the fee is the amount “specified opposite thereto” in the Schedule’s second column. This implies that the fee is fixed by reference to the table, rather than being set case-by-case by MINDEF.
Practically, this means that if MINDEF replaces an item that is within the Schedule, the fee is payable according to the Schedule. Conversely, if the item is not within the Schedule, Section 2 does not provide a charging basis (subject to any other legal instrument or separate charging regime that may apply).
Section 3 (Remission of fees) provides a discretionary relief mechanism. It empowers the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence to remit wholly or in part any fee payable under the Order. The provision is framed broadly: it does not specify criteria (such as hardship, administrative error, or public interest), leaving the decision to the Permanent Secretary’s discretion.
For practitioners, Section 3 is significant in two ways:
- Administrative discretion: remission is not automatic. A client seeking relief would typically need to make a request and provide reasons that align with MINDEF’s internal policies or the general principles governing discretionary remission.
- Scope of relief: remission may be total or partial. This can be used to mitigate the financial impact of a fee, even where the fee is otherwise properly chargeable under Section 2.
In fee disputes, Section 3 may be relevant both as a practical remedy (seeking remission rather than contesting the charge) and as a potential ground for administrative law considerations if remission decisions are challenged (for example, where a refusal is alleged to be irrational, procedurally unfair, or based on irrelevant considerations). However, the extract does not provide further procedural safeguards or appeal mechanisms; those would need to be found in MINDEF’s administrative processes or other legislation/regulations.
The Schedule (Fees table) is referenced but not reproduced in the extract. Legally, the Schedule is essential because it contains the list of items and the corresponding fees. The Schedule’s structure—items in the first column and fees opposite in the second—means that the Schedule is not merely illustrative; it is the definitive source for the amounts payable.
Accordingly, any practitioner reviewing a MINDEF replacement fee should obtain and cite the relevant version of the Schedule applicable at the time the replacement occurred, particularly given the Order’s amendment history.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Order is structured in a short, functional format typical of fee orders under the Fees Act. It contains:
- Section 1 (Citation): identifies the instrument.
- Section 2 (Fees): sets out the legal basis for charging fees for replacements of specified items, by reference to the Schedule.
- Section 3 (Remission): provides a discretionary remission power to the Permanent Secretary.
- The Schedule: the fee table listing the relevant items and the corresponding fee amounts.
Notably, the extract indicates that the Order has been amended multiple times over the years (2011, 2014, 2023, 2024). This suggests that the Schedule’s item list and/or fee amounts may change. For legal work, the structure implies that the operative law is compact, but the Schedule is where the substantive economic content lies.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to persons who are subject to MINDEF’s replacement processes for items specified in the Schedule. While the extract does not specify categories such as service members, contractors, or members of the public, the charging mechanism is triggered by MINDEF’s act of replacing a specified item. Therefore, the practical scope is determined by the operational context in which MINDEF replaces those items.
In advising clients, practitioners should focus on whether the client’s situation involves a “replacement” of an item that appears in the Schedule. If it does, Section 2 provides the basis for the fee. If it does not, the fee may lack a proper statutory basis under this Order. Separately, regardless of whether the fee is properly chargeable, Section 3 provides a potential avenue for relief through remission by the Permanent Secretary.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
This Order is important because it provides the legal authority for MINDEF to charge fees for replacements of specified items. In Singapore’s administrative law environment, fee collection by a government ministry typically requires a clear statutory or subsidiary legal basis. Section 2 supplies that basis by tying the fee to the Schedule and to the replacement event.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the Order’s significance lies in its precision and reference mechanism. The fee is not set by broad discretion; it is fixed by the Schedule. This can be advantageous in disputes because it allows a structured analysis: identify the item, confirm whether it is listed, confirm the applicable fee amount, and then assess whether any remission is available under Section 3.
The remission power is also practically significant. Even where a fee is properly chargeable, Section 3 allows the Permanent Secretary to remit wholly or partly. This can be crucial in cases involving administrative hardship, exceptional circumstances, or where the replacement was necessitated by factors that make full payment inequitable. For legal counsel, remission may be a faster and more constructive route than formal contestation, depending on the facts and the client’s objectives.
Finally, the amendment history underscores the need for version control. The Order has been amended by multiple subsidiary instruments, including amendments effective in 2023 and 2024. In fee disputes, the applicable version at the time of the replacement may determine the item list and fee amounts. Practitioners should therefore verify the “current version as at” date and, where relevant, the version in force at the material time.
Related Legislation
- Fees Act (Chapter 106), Section 2 (authorising provision for making fee orders)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Fees (Ministry of Defence) Order for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.