Statute Details
- Title: Active Mobility (Chye Thiam Maintenance Pte Ltd — Exemption for Esplanade Park and Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park 2) Order 2025
- Act Code: AMA2017-S305-2025
- 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: In force from 15 May 2025 to 30 June 2026 (both dates inclusive)
- Legislation Number: SL 305/2025
- Current Version Status: Current version as at 26 Mar 2026
- Key Provisions: Sections 1–7 (including exemptions under Sections 3–5, common conditions in Section 6, and assessments in Section 7)
- Schedule: “Specified footpaths” (footpaths within the mapped areas for Esplanade Park and Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park 2)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Active Mobility (Chye Thiam Maintenance Pte Ltd — Exemption for Esplanade Park and Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park 2) Order 2025 is a targeted exemption order made under the Active Mobility Act 2017. In plain terms, it allows a specific company, Chye Thiam Maintenance Pte Ltd, to operate a particular autonomous vehicle on specified footpaths in Singapore for a limited trial period, even though the general law would otherwise restrict who may initiate or manually control such vehicles.
The order is not a general authorisation for autonomous vehicles. It is tightly framed: it applies only to a defined “specified vehicle” (the S1 Robosweeper), only on footpaths identified in the Schedule, and only during a defined window (15 May 2025 to 30 June 2026). It also distinguishes between (i) initiating operation, (ii) taking manual control when the vehicle has complied with required assessments, and (iii) taking manual control when the vehicle has not complied with those assessments.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the order is best understood as a compliance mechanism. It creates a legal pathway for trial operations by specifying who may act, under what conditions, and what safety and insurance prerequisites must be met. It also embeds a governance model: the vehicle must have undergone assessments under a framework jointly administered by CETRAN (NTU) and the relevant authority, and insurance must be in place with an insurer lawfully carrying on business in Singapore.
What Are the Key Provisions?
1. Definitions and the scope of the “specified vehicle” (Section 2) are foundational. The order defines an “autonomous system” as one that enables operation without active physical control or monitoring by a human operator. It then defines “Chye Thiam” by reference to the company name and UEN. Most importantly, it defines “specified footpath” by reference to maps in the Schedule (bounded by black-coloured lines). The “specified vehicle” is narrowly identified as an autonomous motor vehicle known as the S1 Robosweeper and only if it has complied with the requirements of the Supervised Trial Readiness Assessment for Autonomous Vehicles on Public Paths jointly administered by CETRAN and the Authority.
This means that the exemption is not “vehicle-type” based; it is “vehicle-identity and compliance” based. If the vehicle has not complied with the relevant readiness assessment requirements, the exemption framework may not be available.
2. Exemption for initiating operation and movement (Section 3) addresses who may start the vehicle. The order provides that Section 16(1)(b) of the Active Mobility Act 2017 does not apply to an individual who initiates operation and movement of the specified vehicle on a specified footpath, provided all conditions are met:
- The individual must be authorised by Chye Thiam to initiate operation.
- Before initiating, the individual must ensure the vehicle is programmed to move at a speed not exceeding 5 km/h.
- The individual must ensure the vehicle’s front and rear lights are programmed to be continuously lit whenever the vehicle is in motion.
- The common conditions in Section 6 must be satisfied.
Practically, this is a “procedural safety” exemption: it requires speed and lighting configuration checks before operation, and it ties legality to insurance and trial purpose requirements.
3. Exemption for manual control when assessments have been complied with (Section 4) is more nuanced. It covers two scenarios, both where the specified vehicle has complied with the assessments in paragraph 7 and is moving on a specified footpath.
Section 4(1) exempts an individual (X) who takes manual control on instruction from another authorised individual (Y). The conditions include:
- X must be authorised by Chye Thiam to take manual control on the instruction of Y.
- Y must be authorised by Chye Thiam to monitor the vehicle’s movements and surroundings from a remote location while it is moving.
- Y must be authorised to instruct X to take manual control when there is a failure of the autonomous system or any other emergency requiring immediate action.
- The manual control must be carried out on Y’s instruction or otherwise necessitated by such failure/emergency.
- The common conditions in Section 6 must be satisfied.
Section 4(2) provides an alternative exemption where the individual taking manual control is also authorised to both monitor remotely and take manual control when failure/emergency occurs. Again, the key is that the manual intervention is linked to failure/emergency and that Section 6 common conditions are met.
4. Exemption for manual control when assessments have not been complied with (Section 5) is a safety-valve provision. It states that Section 16(1)(b) does not apply to an individual who takes manual control of a specified vehicle that has not complied with the paragraph 7 assessments, but is moving on a specified footpath, provided:
- The individual is authorised by Chye Thiam to follow the vehicle to monitor its movements and surroundings and to take manual control when there is a failure of the autonomous system or other emergency requiring immediate action.
- The manual control is necessitated by such failure/emergency.
- The common conditions in Section 6 are satisfied.
This provision is significant because it recognises that operational realities may require immediate human intervention even where assessment compliance is lacking. However, it imposes a stricter operational posture: the person must follow the vehicle (rather than rely solely on remote monitoring) and manual control must be triggered by failure/emergency.
5. Common conditions: trial purpose, insurance, and insurer eligibility (Section 6) apply across Sections 3–5. The common conditions are threefold:
- Trial purpose and time window: the specified vehicle is only operated for the purpose of a trial along a specified footpath and only during 15 May 2025 to 30 June 2026 (inclusive).
- Insurance policy in force: there must be in force an insurance policy insuring against liability for:
- death or bodily injury to any person (excluding individuals exempt under paragraphs 3, 4 or 5, as applicable); and
- property damage suffered by any person (excluding those exempt individuals).
- Insurer must be lawfully carrying on insurance business in Singapore: the risk under the policy must be assumed by an insurer lawfully carrying on an insurance business in Singapore at the time the policy is issued.
For legal practice, Section 6 is the compliance “gatekeeper.” Even if the operational conditions in Sections 3–5 are met, failure to maintain the required insurance and trial/time constraints could undermine reliance on the exemption.
6. Assessments required under paragraph 7 (Section 7) define what “complied with the assessments” means for the vehicle. The assessments in paragraphs 4 and 5 are:
- the Deployment Readiness Assessment; and
- any other assessment required by the Authority and made known to Chye Thiam, under the revised Autonomous Vehicles on Public Paths assessment framework jointly administered by CETRAN and the Authority.
This creates a dynamic compliance element: beyond the named Deployment Readiness Assessment, additional assessments may be required and communicated by the Authority. Practitioners should therefore treat “compliance” as a moving target tied to what the Authority has made known to Chye Thiam under the framework.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Order is structured as a short, functional instrument with:
- Section 1 (Citation and period in force) setting the name and the operative timeframe.
- Section 2 (Definitions) defining key terms: autonomous system, Chye Thiam, specified footpath, and specified vehicle.
- Sections 3–5 (Exemptions) providing three distinct exemption scenarios:
- initiating operation and movement (Section 3);
- manual control with assessment compliance (Section 4); and
- manual control without assessment compliance (Section 5).
- Section 6 (Common conditions) imposing trial purpose, insurance, and insurer eligibility requirements across all exemptions.
- Section 7 (Assessments) specifying the assessments that determine whether the vehicle has “complied” for the purposes of Sections 4 and 5.
- The Schedule listing the “Specified footpaths” by reference to mapped boundaries.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to individuals who perform specific actions in relation to the specified vehicle on specified footpaths during the trial period. While the legal exemptions are framed as “does not apply to an individual” under Section 16(1)(b) of the Active Mobility Act 2017, the exemptions are conditioned on the individual being authorised by Chye Thiam and on the vehicle meeting the relevant assessment and operational requirements.
Accordingly, the practical compliance audience includes: (i) Chye Thiam’s operational staff who initiate movement; (ii) authorised remote monitors and manual controllers; (iii) authorised individuals who may follow the vehicle in the “not complied with assessments” scenario; and (iv) Chye Thiam’s compliance and risk teams responsible for ensuring insurance and trial/time constraints are met.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
This Order is important because it operationalises the Active Mobility Act’s regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles by carving out a controlled exemption. It allows a real-world trial to proceed on public footpaths while maintaining legal safeguards: limited speed, mandatory lighting configuration for initiation, structured manual control protocols, and strict insurance requirements.
From an enforcement and litigation risk perspective, the Order’s conditional drafting means that compliance is not optional. If an individual initiates operation without authorisation, if the vehicle exceeds 5 km/h, if lights are not continuously lit while moving, if the trial is conducted outside the specified dates, or if the required insurance is not in force, the exemption may not apply—potentially exposing individuals and the operator to liability under the underlying Act.
Finally, the inclusion of a scenario where the vehicle has not complied with paragraph 7 assessments (Section 5) demonstrates a pragmatic approach: it does not ignore the possibility of failure in assessment compliance, but it mitigates risk by requiring immediate, proximate human intervention (following the vehicle) and limiting manual control to failure/emergency circumstances. For counsel advising operators, this highlights the need for robust internal governance to ensure that “assessment compliance” status is accurately tracked and documented.
Related Legislation
- Active Mobility Act 2017 (including Section 16(1)(b) and the exemption-making power in Section 66)
- Autonomous Vehicles on Public Paths assessment framework (revised framework jointly administered by CETRAN and the Authority, referenced in Section 7)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Active Mobility (Chye Thiam Maintenance Pte Ltd — Exemption for Esplanade Park and Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park 2) Order 2025 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.