Statute Details
- Title: Revised Edition of the Laws (Evidence Act) (Rectification) Order 2016
- Act Code: RELA1983-S210-2016
- Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Enacting Authority: Law Revision Commissioners
- Authorising Act: Revised Edition of the Laws Act (specifically section 23(1))
- Key Instrument Number: S 210/2016
- Date Made: 4 May 2016
- Citation: “Revised Edition of the Laws (Evidence Act) (Rectification) Order 2016”
- Commencement Date: Not stated in the extract (as a rectification order, it operates to correct specified textual errors in the Evidence Act editions)
- Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026
- Primary Target Provision: Section 94 of the Evidence Act (Cap. 97) across specified revised editions
What Is This Legislation About?
The Revised Edition of the Laws (Evidence Act) (Rectification) Order 2016 is a narrow, technical legislative instrument. Its purpose is not to change the substance of the law on evidence in Singapore, but to correct a textual error that appears in the Evidence Act across multiple revised editions.
In plain language, the Order identifies a specific word used in an illustration to section 94 of the Evidence Act. It then directs that the incorrect word be deleted and replaced with the correct word. This kind of “rectification” order is part of Singapore’s law revision and consolidation process, ensuring that published editions of legislation remain accurate and consistent.
Because the instrument is limited to a single provision (section 94) and a single word change (“performed” to “reformed”), it is best understood as a drafting correction with potential interpretive consequences. Even small wording differences can matter in legal reasoning, particularly where the Evidence Act’s illustrations are used to explain how rules apply in practice.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) provides the formal name of the instrument. This is standard in subsidiary legislation and is mainly for identification and referencing in legal materials.
Section 2 (Rectification of error) is the substantive provision. It instructs that, in section 94 of the Evidence Act, the word “performed” should be deleted wherever it appears in the specified illustration (indicated in the extract as “Illustration (e)”) and replaced with “reformed”. The Order applies this correction to three different published editions of the Evidence Act: the 1985 Edition, the 1990 Edition, and the 1997 Edition.
More specifically, the Order states that in section 94 of the Evidence Act (Cap. 97, 1985 Ed.), the Evidence Act (Cap. 97, 1990 Ed.), and the Evidence Act (Cap. 97, 1997 Ed.), the word “performed” is to be deleted wherever it appears in Illustration (e), and substituted with “reformed” in each case. This indicates that the error was consistently carried across those editions, and the rectification order seeks to align the text.
Practical legal effect: Although the Order is brief, it can affect how practitioners and courts read the illustration to section 94. Illustrations in the Evidence Act are not merely decorative; they are intended to clarify the application of evidential rules. If an illustration uses the wrong word, it may mislead about the nature of the example or the legal concept being illustrated. The replacement of “performed” with “reformed” suggests a change in meaning—likely shifting the illustration from something done or carried out (“performed”) to something corrected or made right (“reformed”). In evidence law, such distinctions can influence how a party argues that a particular fact pattern falls within the intended evidential category.
Scope limitation: The Order does not amend section 94 itself in its operative text beyond the illustration. It does not create new offences, procedures, or evidential presumptions. It is a targeted correction to the published wording of the illustration.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This instrument is structured in a very simple two-part format typical of rectification orders:
(1) Section 1: Citation—sets out the short title of the Order.
(2) Section 2: Rectification of error—specifies the exact location of the error (section 94, Illustration (e) of the Evidence Act) and the exact textual change (delete “performed” and substitute “reformed”). It also identifies the specific Evidence Act editions to which the correction applies.
Notably, the extract does not show any “Parts” or extensive schedules. The absence of additional sections reinforces that the Order is meant to be read as a precise instruction to correct a defined textual defect.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The rectification order applies to the text of the Evidence Act as published in specified revised editions. In that sense, it affects all persons who rely on those editions—courts, lawyers, litigants, and legal publishers—because they must use the corrected wording when interpreting and applying section 94 and its illustration.
While the Order does not directly impose obligations on individuals or institutions, its corrected wording becomes part of the legal materials used in evidence disputes. Therefore, its practical applicability is universal within the evidential context: any case in which section 94 (and particularly Illustration (e)) is relevant may be affected by the corrected wording.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is small, it is important for legal accuracy and consistency. Singapore’s Evidence Act is a foundational statute governing admissibility and the treatment of evidence. The reliability of statutory text is essential to fair adjudication. Rectification orders help ensure that the published law reflects the intended meaning.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the significance lies in interpretive clarity. Illustrations can be used by counsel to support submissions about how a rule should operate. If an illustration contains an incorrect word, it may create avoidable ambiguity or even lead to an argument based on the wrong factual or conceptual premise. Correcting “performed” to “reformed” can therefore influence how the illustration is understood and how it is deployed in argument.
Enforcement in the usual sense (e.g., penalties or procedural steps) is not the point of this Order. Instead, its “enforcement” is through the legal system’s reliance on accurate statutory text. Courts and practitioners are expected to apply the corrected wording when interpreting section 94. In addition, the Order’s existence signals that the Law Revision Commission identified a drafting error that warranted formal correction—an assurance that the legal record is being maintained with care.
Finally, because the Order targets multiple editions (1985, 1990, 1997), it reduces the risk that different versions of the Evidence Act might be cited with inconsistent wording. This is particularly relevant for litigation where older materials may be referenced, or where practitioners consult archived editions for historical context.
Related Legislation
- Evidence Act (Cap. 97): The primary statute whose section 94 and illustration (e) are rectified.
- Revised Edition of the Laws Act: The authorising statute empowering the Law Revision Commissioners to make rectification orders (notably section 23(1) and related provisions).
- Timeline (Legislation timeline): Used to confirm the correct version of the instrument as at a given date (e.g., current version as at 27 Mar 2026).
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Revised Edition of the Laws (Evidence Act) (Rectification) Order 2016 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.