Statute Details
- Title: Exemption
- Act Code: MVTPRCA1960-N1
- Type: Subsidiary legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap. 189)
- Legislative Instrument: Exemption made by the Minister for Communications
- Key Subject Matter: Exemption of certain government-owned motor vehicles from the Act
- Current Version Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026 (per the legislation portal extract)
- Original/Revision Reference: 15 May 1996 (1996 RevEd)
- Instrument Date (as shown): [27th January 1995]
- Gazette Reference: G.N. No. S 33/1995
- Relevant Act Provisions Not Exempted: Sections 6 and 18 of the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act
What Is This Legislation About?
This subsidiary legislation is an exemption order issued under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (the “Act”). In plain terms, it allows certain motor vehicles to operate without being subject to most of the statutory requirements and restrictions in the Act.
The exemption is narrowly targeted. It applies to all motor vehicles that are the property of any government of any State in the Federation of Malaysia. The order exempts those vehicles from all provisions of the Act, except for two specific sections: section 6 and section 18.
Practically, this means that for the exempt vehicles, the usual third-party risks and compensation framework in the Act is largely displaced—while still preserving two important safeguards relating to (i) compensation payment mechanics and (ii) restrictions on solicitation of claims.
What Are the Key Provisions?
1. Scope of the exemption (the “who” and “what”). The exemption is granted to all motor vehicles that are owned by any government of any State in the Federation of Malaysia. The wording is broad as to vehicle coverage (“all motor vehicles”) and broad as to ownership (“any government of any State”). This suggests the exemption is not limited to particular vehicle types (e.g., official cars, trucks, or service vehicles) and not limited to a particular Malaysian state.
2. Extent of exemption (the “from what”). The order exempts the specified vehicles from “all the provisions of the Act”. In statutory interpretation terms, this is a comprehensive disapplication of the Act’s requirements for the exempt vehicles, subject only to the explicit carve-outs.
3. Carve-outs: sections 6 and 18 remain applicable. The exemption is not absolute. It expressly excludes sections 6 and 18 from the exemption. The extract indicates that these sections relate to:
- Section 6: “payment of compensation exceeding $5,000 to the Public Trustee”
- Section 18: “prohibition of solicitation by any person in respect of claims”
This is the most legally significant feature of the instrument. Even though the vehicles are exempt from most Act provisions, the Act’s compensation payment procedure (for higher compensation amounts) and the anti-solicitation rule continue to apply. For practitioners, this means that disputes or claims involving these vehicles may still trigger section 6’s procedural requirements and section 18’s conduct restrictions.
4. Authority and form of the instrument. The exemption is made by “The Minister for Communications” and is identified with a Gazette notification reference: G.N. No. S 33/1995. The enacting formula and the legislative history indicate it was issued on 27 January 1995 and later reproduced in the 1996 Revised Edition (15 May 1996). For legal work, the Gazette reference is important for confirming the instrument’s authenticity and original commencement context.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
Although presented as a short extract, the instrument is structured as a standard exemption notification:
(a) Heading/title: “Exemption”.
(b) Status and versioning: The portal indicates it is the “current version” as at 27 Mar 2026, with a timeline showing the 1996 Revised Edition and the underlying Gazette instrument.
(c) Enacting formula: The Minister for Communications is the issuing authority.
(d) Operative provision: The operative clause grants the exemption to the specified class of vehicles from all provisions of the Act, except sections 6 and 18.
(e) Citation and Gazette reference: The instrument is tied to the Act (Cap. 189, section 22) and includes the Gazette notification number.
Notably, the extract does not show multiple sections or detailed sub-clauses. The legal effect is therefore concentrated in a single operative statement.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The exemption applies to motor vehicles owned by governments of any State in the Federation of Malaysia. This is a cross-border, government-owned category. It is not framed as an exemption for private owners, insurers, or claimants generally; rather, it is tied to the vehicle’s ownership and the governmental character of that ownership.
In practice, the exemption will matter to parties involved in accidents, claims, and enforcement actions where the vehicle involved is within the exempt category. For example, if a third party suffers loss or injury due to an accident involving such a government-owned Malaysian vehicle, the question becomes which statutory requirements under the Act are displaced and which remain (notably sections 6 and 18).
Why Is This Legislation Important?
This exemption is important because it affects the availability and operation of the statutory third-party risks and compensation regime under the Act for a specific class of vehicles. For practitioners, the key point is that the exemption is not merely procedural; it is a broad disapplication of “all provisions” of the Act, subject to two carve-outs.
1. Impact on claims and compensation administration. Because section 6 is carved out, compensation payment mechanics for amounts exceeding $5,000 to the Public Trustee remain relevant. This can affect how compensation is handled, where funds are directed, and the procedural steps required in higher-value claims. Even where most Act provisions are exempted, section 6 can still govern the payment pathway.
2. Impact on conduct: anti-solicitation remains. Section 18’s carve-out means that the prohibition on solicitation of claims continues to apply. This is significant for law firms, claims handlers, and intermediaries who may otherwise assume that an exemption from the Act’s broader framework also removes related restrictions. The instrument indicates that Parliament (through the Act’s structure and the exemption’s drafting) intended to preserve at least this consumer-protection and integrity safeguard.
3. Enforcement and litigation strategy. In litigation involving an accident with an exempt vehicle, counsel should carefully identify whether the relevant statutory obligations are among those “all provisions” that are exempted, or whether they fall within the carve-outs. The exemption can influence pleadings, the choice of statutory causes of action or statutory procedural steps, and the arguments about which statutory requirements apply to the parties.
4. Government-to-government considerations. The exemption’s focus on Malaysian state governments suggests a policy rationale linked to diplomatic or administrative arrangements. While the extract does not provide explanatory notes, the drafting indicates a deliberate legislative decision to treat these vehicles differently from ordinary vehicles subject to the Act’s full regime.
Related Legislation
- Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Chapter 189) — particularly section 22 (authorising the exemption) and the carve-out provisions sections 6 and 18.
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Exemption for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.