Statute Details
- Title: Active Mobility (Chye Thiam Maintenance Pte Ltd — Exemption for Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park 1 and Sengkang Riverside Park) Order 2025
- Act Code: AMA2017-S572-2025
- Legislation Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Active Mobility Act 2017
- Enacting Power: Section 66 of the Active Mobility Act 2017
- Commencement / Period in Force: 1 September 2025 to 31 August 2026 (both inclusive)
- Current Version (as stated): Current version as at 26 March 2026
- SL Number: SL 572/2025
- Made Date: 25 August 2025
- Key Provisions: Sections 1–7; Schedule (specified areas)
- Key Definitions: “autonomous system”, “specified area”, “specified vehicle”, “Chye Thiam”
What Is This Legislation About?
The Active Mobility (Chye Thiam Maintenance Pte Ltd — Exemption for Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park 1 and Sengkang Riverside Park) Order 2025 is a targeted exemption order under Singapore’s Active Mobility Act 2017. In plain terms, it allows a specific company, Chye Thiam Maintenance Pte Ltd, to deploy a particular autonomous vehicle (a “S1 Robosweeper”) in two defined public park areas—Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park 1 and Sengkang Riverside Park—without certain restrictions that would otherwise apply to the operation of autonomous vehicles on footpaths or shared paths.
The Order does not create a general permission for autonomous vehicles. Instead, it is tightly scoped by (i) the identity of the operator (authorised by Chye Thiam), (ii) the identity and compliance status of the vehicle (the S1 Robosweeper and its supervised trial readiness assessment), (iii) the geographic footprint (areas bounded by black-coloured lines in the Schedule), and (iv) the operational purpose (sweeping a footpath or shared path). It also imposes conditions relating to speed, lighting, insurance, and the circumstances in which human intervention is permitted.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the Order is best understood as a compliance “bridge” between (a) the general regulatory framework for autonomous motor vehicles on public paths under the Active Mobility Act 2017 and (b) the practical need to allow controlled, purpose-limited autonomous operations in specific locations for a defined period.
What Are the Key Provisions?
1. Citation and time-limited effect (Section 1)
Section 1 provides the formal citation and states that the Order is in force from 1 September 2025 to 31 August 2026 (inclusive). This matters for legal certainty: any reliance on the exemption must fall within this window. If operations occur outside the period, the exemption would not apply (unless a new order is in force).
2. Definitions that control scope (Section 2)
Section 2 defines key terms that determine whether the exemption applies. The definitions include:
- “Autonomous system”: a system enabling operation without active physical control or monitoring by a human operator.
- “Chye Thiam”: the company identified by name and UEN.
- “Specified area”: any area bounded by black-coloured lines in the Schedule map.
- “Specified vehicle”: an autonomous motor vehicle known as the S1 Robosweeper that has complied with the Supervised Trial Readiness Assessment for Autonomous Vehicles on Public Paths, jointly administered by CETRAN (NTU) and the Authority.
These definitions are critical because the exemption is vehicle- and area-specific. Even if a different autonomous vehicle is used, or the vehicle operates outside the mapped boundaries, the exemption may not apply.
3. Exemption for the “initiator” of operation and movement (Section 3)
Section 3 addresses the scenario where an individual initiates the operation and movement of the specified vehicle on a footpath or shared path within a specified area. It provides that Sections 16(1)(b) or 17(1) of the Act do not apply to such an individual, provided all conditions are met:
- The individual is authorised by Chye Thiam to initiate operation and movement.
- Before initiating, the individual ensures:
- the vehicle is programmed to move at a speed not exceeding 6 km/h; and
- the vehicle’s front and rear lights are programmed to be continuously lit whenever the vehicle is in motion.
- The common conditions in Section 7 are satisfied.
This provision is particularly relevant to operational compliance: it effectively requires that the vehicle’s configuration (speed and lighting) be verified prior to deployment by authorised personnel.
4. Exemptions involving manual control and remote monitoring (Sections 4–6)
Sections 4, 5, and 6 create a structured set of exemptions depending on how human control is exercised and who is involved. The Act’s restrictions in Sections 16(1)(b) or 17(1) are again disapplied, but only under defined circumstances.
Section 4 (manual control on instruction of another individual) covers an individual X who takes manual control while the vehicle is moving within a specified area. The exemption applies if:
- X is authorised by Chye Thiam to take manual control on instruction of another authorised individual Y.
- Y is authorised to:
- monitor the vehicle’s movements and surroundings from a remote location while it is moving; and
- instruct X remotely to take manual control when there is a failure of the autonomous system or any other emergency requiring immediate action.
- The manual control is carried out on Y’s instruction or is necessitated by such failure/emergency.
- Section 7 common conditions are satisfied.
This is a “division of roles” model: remote monitoring and decision-making by Y, with manual intervention by X.
Section 5 (remote monitor who takes manual control) addresses a different operational arrangement: an individual who both monitors remotely and takes manual control when needed. The exemption applies if:
- the individual is authorised by Chye Thiam to monitor remotely and take manual control in the event of autonomous system failure or other immediate emergency;
- manual control is necessitated by such failure/emergency; and
- common conditions are satisfied.
Notably, Section 5 does not require a separate “instruction-giver” role; it contemplates that the same authorised person may monitor and intervene.
Section 6 (following and taking manual control when assessments are not complied with) is the most legally nuanced. It provides an exemption for an individual who takes manual control of a specified vehicle that has not complied with the specified assessments and is moving on a footpath or shared path within a specified area. The individual is authorised by Chye Thiam to follow the vehicle to monitor and take manual control when required by failure/emergency. However, the exemption is conditioned on the vehicle’s non-compliance with assessments and the individual’s authorised following role.
Section 6(2) clarifies which assessments are meant: the Deployment Readiness Assessment and any other assessment required by the Authority under the revised Autonomous Vehicles on Public Paths assessment framework jointly administered by CETRAN and the Authority. Practically, this provision suggests a regulatory pathway for exceptional circumstances where the vehicle may be operating despite not meeting certain assessment requirements—still under controlled conditions and with human follow-and-intervene capability.
5. Common conditions (Section 7)
Section 7 sets out the baseline conditions that must be satisfied for all exemptions in Sections 3–6. The common conditions are:
- Purpose limitation: the specified vehicle is only operated for the purpose of sweeping a footpath or shared path within a specified area.
- Insurance requirement: there must be in force, at all times the vehicle is used for the sweeping purpose, a policy of insurance insuring against:caused by or arising out of the use of the specified vehicle.
- death or bodily injury to any person (including exempt individuals under Sections 3–6); and
- property damage suffered by any person (including exempt individuals under Sections 3–6),
- Insurer eligibility: the risk under the insurance policy must be assumed by an insurer lawfully carrying on an insurance business in Singapore at the time the policy is issued.
These conditions are the backbone of risk management. For legal practitioners, they are also the likely focal point in any incident investigation: whether the vehicle was operating for the permitted purpose and whether valid insurance was in place.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Order is structured in a straightforward, practitioner-friendly format:
- Section 1 sets out citation and the period in force.
- Section 2 provides definitions that determine eligibility (vehicle, area, autonomous system, operator identity).
- Sections 3–6 create four categories of exemption linked to different human roles in relation to the autonomous vehicle:
- initiating operation (Section 3);
- manual control on instruction (Section 4);
- remote monitoring and manual control (Section 5);
- following and manual control where specified assessments are not complied with (Section 6).
- Section 7 lists common conditions applicable to all exemptions.
- The Schedule identifies the specified areas by reference to a map with black-coloured boundary lines.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The exemptions apply to individuals who perform specific functions in relation to the specified vehicle within the specified areas. However, the exemptions are not open-ended: individuals must be authorised by Chye Thiam to carry out the relevant role (initiating, remote monitoring, manual control, or following).
Operationally, this means that Chye Thiam must manage authorisation and ensure that the vehicle is configured and operated within the legal parameters. The Order also indirectly affects other stakeholders—such as insurers—because Section 7 requires an insurance policy with specified coverage and an eligible insurer in Singapore.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
This Order is important because it enables a controlled deployment of an autonomous vehicle for a practical public-facing purpose (sweeping) while maintaining legal safeguards. By disapplying specific provisions of the Active Mobility Act 2017 for defined roles and circumstances, it reduces regulatory friction for day-to-day operations—without removing safety and accountability requirements.
From an enforcement and risk perspective, the most significant practical impact lies in the common conditions and the operational triggers for human intervention. The speed cap (≤ 6 km/h), continuous lighting requirement, purpose limitation to sweeping, and insurance coverage are all concrete compliance points. In the event of an accident or malfunction, investigators and counsel will likely examine whether the vehicle was within the mapped boundaries, whether the operational purpose was complied with, whether the relevant person was properly authorised, and whether insurance coverage was valid at the time.
Finally, the inclusion of Section 6 (where specified assessments are not complied with) signals that the regulatory framework anticipates transitional or exceptional operational states. For practitioners, this underscores the need for careful documentation: authorisation records, assessment status, and the factual basis for any “failure of autonomous system” or “other emergency requiring immediate action” will be central to determining whether the exemption applies.
Related Legislation
- Active Mobility Act 2017 (including Sections 16 and 17 referenced by this Order)
- Active Mobility Act 2017 (Section 66 — the authorising provision for exemption orders)
- Autonomous Vehicles on Public Paths assessment framework (as administered jointly by CETRAN and the Authority, referenced through the Supervised Trial Readiness Assessment and Deployment Readiness Assessment)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Active Mobility (Chye Thiam Maintenance Pte Ltd — Exemption for Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park 1 and Sengkang Riverside Park) Order 2025 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.