On 27 December (Friday), the Smart Nation and Digital Government Office (SNDGO) under the Prime Minister’s Office, released a statement saying that it disclosed the personal details of a sick and depressed woman who attempted suicide multiple times to obtain her Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings for her family because it wanted to provide the public with correct and relevant facts in the case.
It also added that disclosing such information is permitted under the law.
Two weeks ago, TOC reported on the case of Ms Soo (not her real name), a single parent who is suffering from Systemic Lupus Erythemathosus (SLE), or better known as lupus since 2011. Due to her health issues, she has been out of job since June 2016.
Ms Soo had sought President Halimah’s help to release her CPF Funds from Medisave and Special Accounts so that it can be used to help her financially. This is because she had exhausted all her savings as she was unemployed for the last three years. When asked for her CPF monies, CPF Board requested for a medical certificate from her doctor to say that she is permanently unfit to work but her doctor only gave her a temporary notice for 6 months.
Following TOC’s report on 17 Dec, the government publicly named Ms Soo’s real name on CPF Board’s Facebook page in a joint statement of various ministries on 19 Dec and disclosed additional personal details of her family. It also included Ms Soo’s admission to the National University Hospital in 2011 for her lupus condition, her recent visits to Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, as well as her application for financial aid.

Disclosing personal details is allowed by the law

Following this, SNDGO said in its statement that public agencies disclosed personal details to give public with the correct and relevant facts. “Some specific personal information was disclosed in order to convey verifiable facts and to enable the individual to challenge the Government’s account of the case, if need be.”
It also stated that the “law permits such disclosure”, and that “public agencies have a duty to preserve the public trust reposed in them and to ensure that citizens are not misled.”
Additionally, SNDGO also noted that under the Personal Data Protection Commission, companies are allowed to reveal certain relevant information about a person in a public forum in order to counter false or misleading allegations from that individual. “This gives the companies an opportunity to clear the air for themselves, and convey the fact of the case to the public.”
It went on to say that such lawful disclosure of information should not be conflated with unauthorised breaches of citizens’ data, which all public agencies including the CPF Board are committed to guard against.
“Public agencies abide by the data protection regulations under the Public Sector (Governance) Act and in the Government Instruction Manuals,” said the SNDGO spokesman.
“These are no less stringent than the requirements of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) which apply to the private sector.”
Upon reading this, online users slammed the government’s move of revealing the woman’s personal details online. Commenting in the Facebook pages of Smart Nation Singapore and CPF Board, many of them said that the government’s act of naming and shaming the sick woman publicly is a very “shameful” and “below the belt” move.
One user Rafizah AR said that just using initials would do, and requested the government to have a heart” and “think of how it would affect the person and his/her family members”.



Separately, Rey Ong said that although the government has the legal right to name the woman in order to defend its position, but it failed to realise that its action could lead to bullying. “But did anyone realise that the act of naming her may result in cyber or real life bullying or harassment of this person by some people who disagree with her? The fact this this disclosure is legal does not mean it is in good taste or good judgement or ethical.” he wrote.

Others questioned the relevance of disclosing the woman’s information to the case. They said that they “could have simply stated your case without naming the person” or use a “pseudonym”. One user even suggested that it’s better for CPF Board to approach the woman personally and resolve the issue.
Ammar Lulla said that it’s clear to him that the they want “to name and shame them for ‘daring’ to challenge a government body on its decision-making”.



Andrew Fann opined that the “government should apologise to the public and reassure us that our personal details are not at risk of being revealed to the public if we decide to go to social media to voice up out displeasure on the government agencies”.

On the other hand, CL Cheong pointed out that “it is an abuse of authority without due consideration of consequence which may arise to the concern person”. He suggested that CPF Board could have gave the woman a different name, just like what TOC did, instead of disclosing her real name. “You never think twice to cause harm than protection and you ended up telling half truths. People are not stupid don’t know how to connect it. You have failed your judiciary duty in this case to protect her personal data”.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

ST Forum Editor was right after all

Leong Sze Hian/ I refer to the article “Straits Times! Why you…

Appeal for information on Ms Erna Manisha’s whereabouts

The Singapore Police Force (SPF) appeals for information on the whereabouts of…

“东西并不便宜” 《海时》读者批职总偏离初衷

名为Sam Yeow的读者,投函《海峡时报》直言批评,今日的全国职工总会(NTUC)已乖离当初成立宗旨,其所提供的食物、必需品、保险和教育等,已不再让普通百姓负担得起。 他指出,职总当初成立,原是为了服务民众,协助解决就业问题,并确保工友门获得可负担的饮食、保险、受教育机会等等。 “但是,这些年来,职总管理层似乎已偏离了初衷。并不难听见民众投诉在职总经营的商场,租金越来越贵。在职总富食客的饮食中心,食物也不便宜。” 职总的保险费节节上升,其连锁超市的物价也没有比较低廉。 他举例,自己在市中心超市买Sunsilk洗发液,价格为4元7角,但是在职总平价超市价格高达12.95元。 “近期,我获悉若有公司要在职总平价卖产品,还得每年支付高达12万元的上市费用。” 他很遗憾,原本为纾民困而设立,如今职总平价已成为获利至上的企业,反而使生活成本高涨问题加剧。 “我呼吁管理层应重新审视职总的经营理念,正视民间面对的生活成本困境。” Sam Yeow是撰文回应另一读者李秀萍博士的文章《职总企业可协助脱贫》。 李秀萍的文章则指出,许多小贩苦心经营,用正当手法摆脱贫穷、供孩子成为专业人士。故此她提醒,职总收购KOPITIAM集团,不要增加小贩的负担。…