Statute Details
- Title: Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 6) Order 2008
- Act Code: TSFA2002-S297-2008
- Legislation Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Chapter 325)
- Enacting Authority: Minister for Home Affairs (exercising powers under section 7(1) of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act)
- Citation: SL 297/2008
- Commencement: 10 June 2008
- Status: Current version as at 27 March 2026
- Key Provisions: Section 1 (Citation and commencement); Section 2 (Exemption)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 6) Order 2008 is a targeted exemption order made under Singapore’s terrorism financing framework. In plain terms, it temporarily carves out a specific allowance from a general legal prohibition on “dealing” with certain funds that are subject to restrictions under the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (the “TSF Act”).
Orders of this kind are not “new offences” or broad policy reforms. Instead, they address a practical problem that can arise when a person’s funds are caught by the TSF Act’s restrictions: everyday or necessary payments may need to be made even though the funds are otherwise subject to a dealing prohibition. This Order authorises limited withdrawals and uses of specified money for specified purposes, while keeping the overall regulatory objective intact.
Although the Order is short, it is legally significant because it demonstrates how the TSF Act’s strict controls can be managed through narrowly tailored exemptions. For practitioners, the key is understanding the legal mechanism: the Minister’s power to exempt particular persons and particular transactions from the operation of section 6 of the TSF Act.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1: Citation and commencement provides the formal identity and effective date of the Order. The Order may be cited as the “Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 6) Order 2008” and comes into operation on 10 June 2008. For compliance and evidential purposes, this commencement date matters because it determines when the exemption becomes legally effective.
Section 2: Exemption is the operative provision. It contains two linked exemptions: one concerning the withdrawal of money from a particular account, and the other concerning the use of that money for specified purposes. The Order is expressly directed at the Central Provident Fund Board and at Mohamed Yassin s/o O P Mohamed Nooh (NRIC No. S1345373Z).
Under section 2(1), the Central Provident Fund Board is exempted from the application of section 6 of the TSF Act in respect of the withdrawal by the named individual of any money standing to his credit in his ordinary account with the Central Provident Fund (“CPF”). The exemption is not open-ended; it is limited to withdrawals for two specific categories of payments:
- (a) Housing loan instalments: payment of any outstanding monthly instalment of a housing loan for the leasehold interest in a specified flat (Apartment Block 9, Marsiling Drive #12-38, Singapore 730009) due to the Housing and Development Board (“HDB”).
- (b) Flat upgrading: payment for the upgrading of the flat.
Practically, this means that where the TSF Act would otherwise prohibit dealing with restricted funds, the CPF Board may process withdrawals from the individual’s CPF ordinary account for the purpose of meeting HDB-related financial obligations—specifically, arrears monthly instalments and upgrading costs for the identified flat.
Section 2(2) then extends the exemption to the recipient’s use of the money withdrawn. Mohamed Yassin is exempted from the application of section 6 of the TSF Act in respect of the use of any money referred to in section 2(1) for the purposes described in that subsection. This is an important drafting point: the exemption is not merely about enabling withdrawal; it also authorises the downstream use of the withdrawn funds for the same limited purposes.
In other words, the Order creates a controlled “closed loop” exemption: withdrawal from the CPF ordinary account is permitted only for the specified HDB instalments and upgrading, and the individual’s subsequent use of those funds is likewise permitted only for those purposes. This reduces the risk that the exemption could be interpreted as a general permission to deal with restricted funds.
Making and signature: The Order is made on 9 June 2008 by Benny Lim, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. The enacting formula indicates it is made in exercise of powers under section 7(1) of the TSF Act. For legal practitioners, the signature and date are relevant for understanding the administrative process and for verifying the instrument’s authenticity.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This Order is structured in a minimal, instrument-style format typical of subsidiary legislation. It contains:
- Section 1 (Citation and commencement): identifies the instrument and sets the effective date.
- Section 2 (Exemption): sets out the scope of the exemption, including who is exempted (CPF Board and the named individual), what is exempted (application of section 6 of the TSF Act), and the precise transactions and purposes covered (withdrawal and use for specified HDB housing loan instalments and flat upgrading).
There are no additional parts, schedules, or complex procedural provisions in the extract provided. The legal effect is therefore concentrated entirely in section 2.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies in a highly specific manner. It is directed at two categories of persons/entities:
- The Central Provident Fund Board, which is the statutory body holding the relevant CPF account and is responsible for processing withdrawals.
- Mohamed Yassin s/o O P Mohamed Nooh (NRIC S1345373Z), the individual whose CPF ordinary account funds are the subject of the exemption.
Importantly, the exemption is not general. It is tied to the named individual and to the particular CPF account (“ordinary account”) and to the particular purposes (HDB housing loan instalments for a specified flat and upgrading of that flat). As a result, the Order should be read as a narrow authorisation for a defined set of transactions rather than as a precedent for broader dealing permissions.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is brief, it is important because it illustrates how Singapore manages the tension between (i) strong counter-terrorism financing controls and (ii) the need for limited, practical financial flexibility in exceptional circumstances. The TSF Act’s dealing prohibition is designed to prevent funds from being used to support terrorism. However, strict prohibitions can unintentionally disrupt ordinary obligations—such as housing-related payments—if no exemption mechanism exists.
This Order demonstrates the exemption mechanism in action. By authorising withdrawals and use for specific HDB-related purposes, it supports continuity of essential obligations (e.g., avoiding default on housing loan instalments and enabling upgrading payments) while maintaining the overall protective framework. For practitioners advising affected persons or institutions, it provides a concrete example of how exemptions can be structured to be purpose-bound and transaction-specific.
From an enforcement and compliance perspective, the Order also provides clarity on what is permitted. Institutions such as the CPF Board must ensure that any processing of withdrawals falls strictly within the exemption’s parameters. Similarly, the individual must ensure that the withdrawn funds are used only for the specified purposes. Any deviation could risk falling back within the prohibition under section 6 of the TSF Act, potentially exposing the relevant parties to legal consequences.
Finally, the Order is a reminder that subsidiary legislation can have real operational effects. Lawyers should therefore treat these exemption orders as legally operative instruments requiring careful reading, not as administrative formalities. In practice, counsel may need to verify the exact scope of the exemption, the commencement date, the identity of the person, the account type, and the listed purposes—because these details determine whether a particular transaction is lawful.
Related Legislation
- Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act (Chapter 325) — in particular, section 6 (prohibition against dealing) and section 7(1) (power to make exemption orders)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) (Exemption from Prohibition against Dealing) (No. 6) Order 2008 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.