Statute Details
- Title: Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) (Exemption) (No. 4) Order 2011
- Act Code: RTA1961-S388-2011
- Legislation Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276), specifically section 142
- Legislative Instrument Number: SL 388/2011
- Citation: Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) (Exemption) (No. 4) Order 2011
- Commencement: 8 July 2011
- Key Provisions: Section 1 (Citation and commencement); Section 2 (Exemption)
- Related Rules: Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) Rules (R 5), specifically rule 5(1)
- Status: Current version as at 27 March 2026
What Is This Legislation About?
The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) (Exemption) (No. 4) Order 2011 is a narrow, targeted exemption order made under the Road Traffic Act. In plain terms, it allows a specific vehicle—identified by its engine and chassis numbers—to be treated differently from the general rule set out in the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) Rules.
Exemption orders of this kind are typically used where the general regulatory requirement would be impractical, unnecessary, or otherwise inappropriate for a particular vehicle or circumstance. Rather than changing the general law for everyone, the Order carves out a limited exception for a named vehicle owner and a precisely identified vehicle.
Although the Order is short (it contains only two provisions), it is legally significant because it modifies the application of rule 5(1) of the relevant subsidiary rules. For practitioners, the key is to understand what rule 5(1) generally requires, and how the exemption affects compliance, enforcement, and any related administrative processes (such as licensing, registration, or documentation obligations).
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation and commencement) provides the formal legal identity of the instrument and states when it takes effect. The Order may be cited as the “Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) (Exemption) (No. 4) Order 2011” and it came into operation on 8 July 2011. For legal work, commencement matters because it determines the period during which the exemption applies and whether any acts taken before that date would be governed by the general rule rather than the exemption.
Section 2 (Exemption) is the operative provision. It states that rule 5(1) of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) Rules “shall not apply” to a particular vehicle. The exemption is not general; it is tied to a specific person and vehicle identification details.
Specifically, the exemption applies to the vehicle belonging to Kan Fook Sing and bearing the following identifiers:
- Engine number: A5371144N46B20BD
- Chassis number: WBAWA52000PG06312
This drafting approach—using both engine and chassis numbers—serves two legal purposes. First, it reduces ambiguity by ensuring that the exemption attaches to a uniquely identifiable vehicle. Second, it limits the risk of overbreadth: even if another vehicle belongs to the same person, the exemption would not automatically extend to it unless the identifiers match.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the most important interpretive question is: what does rule 5(1) require in the first place? The Order does not reproduce rule 5(1) in the extract provided, but the legal effect is clear: whatever rule 5(1) mandates (or prohibits) is suspended for the specified vehicle. In practice, this can affect whether the vehicle must meet a particular registration/licensing condition, whether a procedural step is required, or whether a particular category of vehicles is normally subject to rule 5(1). The exemption’s “shall not apply” language indicates a full disapplication of the rule, not a partial modification.
It is also relevant that the exemption is made by the Minister for Transport (as shown in the making clause). The authority comes from section 142 of the Road Traffic Act, which empowers the Minister to make exemptions in appropriate circumstances. This matters for validity and for any challenge: the exemption is not merely administrative; it is a legally authorised modification of subsidiary rules.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Order is structured in a conventional format for subsidiary legislation that grants a specific exemption. It contains:
- Enacting Formula: states that the Minister makes the Order in exercise of powers conferred by section 142 of the Road Traffic Act.
- Section 1: citation and commencement.
- Section 2: the exemption clause disapplying rule 5(1) to a named vehicle owner and a vehicle identified by engine and chassis numbers.
Notably, there are no schedules, no conditions, and no procedural steps described in the extract. The exemption is therefore best understood as a direct legal carve-out: once the Order is in force, rule 5(1) does not apply to the specified vehicle.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
This exemption applies to Kan Fook Sing in respect of the specific vehicle identified by the engine number A5371144N46B20BD and chassis number WBAWA52000PG06312. It does not apply to all vehicles owned by Kan Fook Sing, and it does not apply to other persons’ vehicles, even if they are similar.
More broadly, the Order affects the regulatory obligations that would otherwise arise under rule 5(1) of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) Rules. Therefore, it is relevant not only to the vehicle owner but also to any authority or officer responsible for applying the Rules in licensing/registration contexts. Where an officer would ordinarily apply rule 5(1), the exemption requires them to treat the specified vehicle as outside the scope of that rule.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Even though the Order is brief, it is important because it demonstrates how Singapore’s road traffic regulatory framework is implemented through a combination of an Act, subsidiary rules, and targeted exemption orders. For practitioners, this layered structure means that compliance analysis often requires cross-referencing: the exemption order disapplies a particular rule, but the rest of the regulatory regime may still apply.
In practical terms, the Order can be crucial in disputes or compliance reviews. For example, if a licensing or registration requirement under rule 5(1) was not satisfied for the specified vehicle, the exemption may provide a legal basis to explain why the requirement did not apply. Conversely, if the exemption is invoked incorrectly (e.g., for a different vehicle with different identifiers), the disapplication would not apply and the general rule could still be enforced.
The specificity of the vehicle identifiers also has evidentiary implications. In any legal or administrative proceeding, the owner or counsel would typically need to establish that the vehicle in question matches the engine and chassis numbers stated in the Order. This can affect how documents are reviewed (such as vehicle particulars, registration records, or inspection reports) and how factual findings are made.
Finally, the Order highlights the continuing relevance of ministerial exemption powers under section 142 of the Road Traffic Act. Such powers allow the regulatory system to accommodate exceptional circumstances without undermining the general rule for the broader public. For lawyers advising clients, it is a reminder to check whether a seemingly applicable rule has been disapplied by an exemption order—especially where the client’s vehicle is unusual, imported, modified, or subject to special administrative handling.
Related Legislation
- Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276) — in particular, section 142 (power to make exemptions)
- Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) Rules — in particular, rule 5(1) (disapplied by this Order)
- Road Traffic Act timeline / legislation timeline (for version control and confirming the correct instrument date and status)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) (Exemption) (No. 4) Order 2011 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.