Statute Details
- Title: Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Quota System) (Exemption) Order 2006
- Act Code: RTA1961-S438-2006
- Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Road Traffic Act (Cap. 276), section 142
- Enacting instrument number: S 438/2006
- Date made: 21 July 2006
- Deemed commencement: 12 July 2006
- Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026 (per the legislation portal)
- Key provisions (from extract):
- Section 1: Citation and commencement
- Section 2: Exemption (specific vehicle and specific renewal prohibition)
- Primary legal rules referenced:
- Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Quota System) Rules (R 31), including rule 24(2)
- Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Quota System) Rules (R 31), including rule 24A
- Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) Rules (R 5), including rules 33A and 38A
What Is This Legislation About?
The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Quota System) (Exemption) Order 2006 is a narrow, vehicle-specific exemption made under the Road Traffic Act. In plain terms, it allows a particular motor vehicle—identified by its registration number and its chassis and engine numbers—to be treated differently from the general rule that would otherwise prevent the further renewal of a Certificate of Entitlement (COE) once it expires.
Singapore’s COE system is designed to manage the number of motor vehicles on the road. The “quota system” rules generally impose conditions on renewal and continuation of COE entitlements. This Order does not redesign the quota system; instead, it creates an exception for one identified vehicle, subject to specified payments and fees.
Practitioners should note that this is not a broad policy instrument. It is effectively an administrative/legal “carve-out” that applies only to the vehicle described in the Order. As such, its legal effect is highly targeted: it modifies the operation of a specific prohibition in the quota rules for the specified vehicle, and it does so only on the conditions stated.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation and commencement) provides the formal identity of the instrument and its effective date. The Order may be cited as the “Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Quota System) (Exemption) Order 2006” and is deemed to have come into operation on 12 July 2006. The “deemed” commencement language matters in practice because it can affect whether actions taken between the date made and the deemed date are treated as having been authorised from the earlier date.
Section 2 (Exemption) is the operative provision. It states that the vehicle bearing registration number EC5386D, with chassis and engine number B9117857RR0, and belonging to Mr Butt Mohammed Naeem, shall be exempted from rule 24(2) of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Quota System) Rules (R 31).
In substance, the exemption is “in so far as it prohibits a further renewal of a certificate of entitlement on its expiry.” That phrase is crucial. It indicates that rule 24(2) contains a prohibition that would otherwise block renewal after expiry. The exemption removes that barrier for the specified vehicle, but only to the extent of the prohibition described. This is a common drafting technique in subsidiary legislation: the exemption is limited to the particular part of the rule that would otherwise apply.
Section 2 also imposes conditions that must be satisfied for the exemption to operate. The Order requires, among other things:
(a) Payment of a special levy of $3,136.
This is a fixed monetary amount stated in the Order itself. For practitioners, this is the clearest “hard” condition: the exemption is not discretionary; it is tied to payment of the specified levy.
(b) Payment of the levy and fee payable under rule 24A of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Quota System) Rules (R 31).
This condition incorporates by reference the amounts and obligations under rule 24A. While the extract does not reproduce rule 24A’s content, the legal effect is that the vehicle owner must comply with the rule 24A payment regime in addition to the special levy.
(c) Payment of fees payable under rules 33A and 38A of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) Rules (R 5).
Again, the Order incorporates by reference other fee provisions. The practical implication is that the exemption does not eliminate the standard administrative costs associated with renewal/processing; it only removes the specific prohibition in rule 24(2), while preserving other financial and procedural requirements.
Finally, Section 2 concludes with the making clause: the Order was made on 21 July 2006 by Choi Shing Kwok, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Transport. The enacting formula indicates that the Minister for Transport acted under the statutory power in section 142 of the Road Traffic Act.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This instrument is extremely short and consists of an enacting formula and two substantive sections:
Section 1 sets out citation and commencement.
Section 2 provides the exemption, identifies the specific vehicle and owner, specifies the rule from which the exemption applies (rule 24(2) of the quota rules), and lists the conditions (payments/fees) that must be met.
There are no schedules in the extract and no additional parts. The structure reflects the Order’s function as a targeted legal mechanism rather than a comprehensive legislative framework.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The exemption applies only to the vehicle described with precision: registration number EC5386D and chassis/engine number B9117857RR0, belonging to Mr Butt Mohammed Naeem. As a result, the Order is not generally applicable to all vehicle owners or all COE holders. It is a person-and-vehicle-specific instrument.
In practical terms, the “who” question is answered by the combination of (i) the vehicle identifiers and (ii) the named owner. If the vehicle is transferred to another person, or if the identifiers do not match, the exemption’s legal basis may not be engaged. For counsel advising on compliance, this means the exemption should be treated as a narrow authority that must be verified against the vehicle’s particulars and the relevant COE renewal event.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is brief, it is legally significant because it demonstrates how Singapore’s COE quota system can be adjusted through subsidiary legislation. The COE rules are generally strict; exemptions are therefore meaningful. This Order shows that where a specific case warrants relief, the Minister can use statutory powers under the Road Traffic Act to carve out exceptions—while still requiring payment of specified levies and fees.
From an enforcement and compliance perspective, the Order matters because it directly addresses a prohibition on renewal. Without the exemption, rule 24(2) would prevent further renewal of a COE certificate upon expiry. With the exemption, the vehicle can proceed with renewal, but only after satisfying the financial conditions. This structure helps balance policy goals (managing vehicle population) with case-specific fairness or administrative resolution.
For practitioners, the key practical takeaway is that the exemption is conditional and incorporated by reference. Even after removing the rule 24(2) prohibition, the owner must still pay: (i) the special levy of $3,136; (ii) the levy and fee under rule 24A; and (iii) the fees under rules 33A and 38A. Advising a client would therefore require checking the current versions of those referenced rules to determine the exact amounts and procedural steps applicable at the time of renewal.
Related Legislation
- Road Traffic Act (Cap. 276) — in particular section 142 (power to make subsidiary legislation/orders)
- Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Quota System) Rules (R 31) — in particular rule 24(2) (prohibition on further renewal on expiry) and rule 24A (levy and fee regime)
- Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) Rules (R 5) — in particular rules 33A and 38A (fees relevant to registration/licensing processes associated with renewal)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Quota System) (Exemption) Order 2006 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.