Statute Details
- Title: Revised Edition of the Laws (Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992) (Rectification) Order 2023
- Act Code: RELA1983-S784-2023
- Type: Subsidiary legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Revised Edition of the Laws Act 1983
- Enacting Authority: Law Revision Commissioners
- Enacting Formula (key power): Powers under section 23(1)(a) of the Revised Edition of the Laws Act 1983
- Citation: No. S 784
- SL Number: SL 784/2023
- Date made: 1 December 2023
- Commencement: Not stated in the extract (rectification orders typically take effect upon publication, but practitioners should confirm the commencement in the official publication)
- Key amendment/rectification: Amendment to section 18(5) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (2020 Revised Edition)
- Specific textual change: Replace “is not to discharge” with “is to discharge” in section 18(5)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Revised Edition of the Laws (Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992) (Rectification) Order 2023 is a rectification order. In plain terms, it corrects a drafting error in the published “2020 Revised Edition” of a principal statute: the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (often referred to as the “Confiscation of Benefits Act”).
Rectification orders are part of Singapore’s legislative housekeeping framework. They are used to fix mistakes that appear in the revised text of an Act—typically errors in wording that could affect interpretation. This order does not create new legal policy or introduce a new regulatory scheme. Instead, it ensures that the revised edition accurately reflects the intended legal effect of the underlying legislation.
Although the extract is brief, the practical significance can be substantial. The single change made by this order reverses a key phrase in section 18(5) from “is not to discharge” to “is to discharge”. That kind of change can alter the outcome of a legal process, especially where discharge relates to procedural or substantive consequences in confiscation proceedings.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) provides the formal title and citation of the rectification order. This is standard in subsidiary legislation and is mainly relevant for referencing the instrument in legal arguments, filings, and compliance documentation.
Section 2 (Rectification of error) is the substantive provision. It directs that, in the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (2020 Revised Edition), in section 18(5), replace “is not to discharge” with “is to discharge”.
In practical terms, this means that the legal text governing the effect of section 18(5) has been corrected to state that the relevant authority or mechanism is to discharge rather than is not to discharge. The corrected wording suggests a mandatory direction (using “is to”), not a prohibition (using “is not to”). For practitioners, the distinction between “to discharge” and “not to discharge” is often determinative: it can affect whether a person, order, or procedural step must be discharged, and at what stage.
Because the extract does not reproduce the full content of section 18(5), a lawyer should treat this as a targeted textual correction and then review the surrounding provisions in section 18 to understand the exact legal context. Typically, in confiscation regimes, “discharge” can relate to whether an order is lifted, whether a person is released from a restriction, or whether a procedural consequence is triggered after certain conditions are met. The corrected phrase indicates that the intended legal outcome is discharge rather than non-discharge.
Made on 1 December 2023 and presented to Parliament under section 23(2) of the Revised Edition of the Laws Act 1983. This procedural note confirms that the rectification order follows the constitutional and statutory process for law revision corrections.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This rectification order is extremely concise and consists of two operative parts:
(1) Section 1 (Citation) — identifies the instrument.
(2) Section 2 (Rectification of error) — specifies the precise amendment to the revised edition of the principal Act.
There are no schedules, no additional amendments, and no new definitions. The structure reflects the narrow purpose of rectification: to correct a specific textual error in a specific provision of the revised edition.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
Although the rectification order is directed at the text of the Confiscation of Benefits Act, its legal effects apply to all persons and proceedings that rely on the corrected version of section 18(5). This includes parties to confiscation-related proceedings, counsel advising them, and the authorities administering the Act.
In practice, the corrected wording will matter wherever section 18(5) is invoked—whether in court applications, enforcement actions, or procedural determinations connected to confiscation of benefits arising from corruption, drug trafficking, and other serious crimes. Even though the rectification order itself is not a “substantive” law, it can influence substantive outcomes because it changes the operative legal language.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Rectification orders are sometimes overlooked because they appear to do “only” minor textual work. However, this order illustrates why such instruments can be legally significant. The change from “is not to discharge” to “is to discharge” is not cosmetic; it reverses the direction of the rule. In legal interpretation, a single negation can flip the meaning of a provision and lead to materially different results.
For practitioners, the importance lies in accuracy of the governing text. Lawyers typically rely on the revised edition for citations and for interpreting the current law. If a drafting error exists in the revised edition, it may be cited in submissions, relied upon by parties, or used by decision-makers. This rectification order corrects that risk by aligning the revised text with the intended legal effect.
From an enforcement and compliance perspective, the corrected wording may affect how authorities apply procedural steps in confiscation matters. Where discharge is involved, the timing and conditions for discharge can influence a person’s legal position, including whether restrictions or orders continue or are lifted. Accordingly, counsel should ensure that any reliance on section 18(5) reflects the rectified wording.
Finally, this order underscores a broader point for legal research: always check whether a revised edition has been rectified by subsequent instruments. The status “current version” as at 27 March 2026 indicates that the corrected text is now part of the operative legal record for the revised edition.
Related Legislation
- Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (including the 2020 Revised Edition and subsequent amendments/rectifications)
- Revised Edition of the Laws Act 1983 (including section 23, which empowers the Law Revision Commissioners to make rectification orders)
- Revised Edition of the Laws Act 1983 — Timeline / legislative history (for version control and determining the correct text applicable at relevant dates)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Revised Edition of the Laws (Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992) (Rectification) Order 2023 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.