Government agencies sometimes need to disclose personal data in the public interest in order to counter inaccuracies brought up by some public complaints.

Senior Minister of State for Communications & Information Janil Puthucheary said this in Parliament on Monday (Feb. 3), noting that this applies especially when a complainant has called public attention to an incident.

"Government agencies have to do so to correct inaccuracies and provide an accurate picture of what occurred, so as to maintain public trust and to serve all citizens effectively," he said.

Otherwise, citizens with the wrong information may make decisions based on incorrect information.

Disclosure of public information is "limited in scope"

Janil was responding to a question from Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Walter Theseira, who asked what considerations government agencies factor in before deciding to reveal personal information about people who make public complaints.

Theseira also asked if there are any safeguards to ensure that only a minimum amount of personal information is revealed to establish the facts of the case.

In response, Janil said such disclosures are limited in scope.

Firstly, personal information is revealed if the agencies' clarification may be disputable or not clear enough without it.

Secondly, personal information is only disclosed if it is specific enough to provide a full picture, and allow the person who made the complaint to challenge the government's account of the case, if necessary.

Thirdly, care is taken not to disclose personal information that is not relevant to the case.

"However on occasion it will be necessary to disclose the identity of the person involved in the case, even when the publicised complaint itself has been anonymised.

This is to remove any ambiguity in the government’s statement of the facts, and settle any doubts of the matter conclusively in the minds of the public."

Government agencies need to respond to inaccuracies or false statements

He also added that there are many channels, both online and offline for the public to submit feedback, and that the government treats all feedback seriously no matter how it is conveyed.

In a follow-up question, Theseira said he was concerned that people may be discouraged from seeking help if their case is publicised for reasons beyond their control.

He asked if the government would consider a protocol where the agency first asks a person if they can agree to a public statement being put up before going ahead with doing so.

In response, Janil said such incidents tend to be unusual in nature, and don't naturally lend themselves to a protocol.

He added that it would be "inappropriate" for the government to constrain the agency's ability to respond to an inaccurate or "outright false" public statement.

Public response to a public complaint

NMP Anthea Ong asked if the public has channels to seek redress if they feel that the disclosure of their personal information was unfair.

Janil responded that the public could submit feedback through "any number" of channels, such as speaking to their Member of Parliament, but stressed that if a complaint occurred in the public space and if the public has been misinformed, then the government has to respond to the inaccuracies in public to unambiguously explain the facts.

CPF Board public disclosure case

Back in December 2019, the CPF Board revealed the name of a woman who claimed that she was suicidal, in a case involving her appeal to withdraw her CPF monies.

The woman had spoken to The Online Citizen, which used a pseudonym, but the CPF Board publicised her real name.

The authorities later said that the release of her personal details was necessary to provide the public with correct and relevant facts.

Related stories

Top image from Gov.sg.