Who's speaking?

Pritam Singh, Leader of the Opposition, Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC and Workers' Party (WP) chief.

Why he's speaking?

Singh was speaking after Minister Vivian Balakrishnan's statement on the TraceTogether bill that restricts the collection and use of data under the Criminal Procedure Code to serious offences only.

Both speeches took place in Parliament on Feb. 2, 2021.

What happened previously?

It was revealed in Parliament that the data from the TraceTogether programme, intended for contact tracing to fight the Covid-19 pandemic, was also subject to the Criminal Procedure Code.

This meant that the police could access the data for purposes unrelated to contact-tracing, if they deem it necessary.

Ministers then clarified that the data will only be accessed in cases of serious offences, and a bill was introduced to codify that into law.

What did Singh say?

Singh divided his speech into three topics.

First, the government's "error" in "not realising" that the Code applied to TraceTogether data.

Second, the seven categories of "serious offences" that will be relevant to the use of such data by the police, and the WP's position on the Bill.

Third, a long-term look at the balance of the privacy rights of citizens, and the "growing power" of the state and private companies in collecting and using personal data.

1. Government's "error"

Singh said Singaporeans are willing to take necessary action to fight Covid-19, if the government asks.

Singaporeans have told him that if the government had been "upfront" about the use of TraceTogether data for serious crimes, they would have been assuaged, provided the government detailed the processes and accountability regime.

But what caused disquiet and cynicism in some quarters was the "belated acknowledgement" of the Code's applicability. Singh said:

"It comes down to a question of trust, the perceived lack of empathy over the public's privacy concerns and discomfort with sharing mobile phone data with the authorities, without sufficient assurances."

Singh said that as late as November 2020, the multi ministerial task force was linking the transition to Phase 3 to the take-up of the TraceTogether program.

He then addressed Vivian's overlooking of the Code when saying that TraceTogether would only be used for contact tracing:

"There are Singaporeans who opined that this was not fathomable, or even believable, for an largely efficient government machinery that has consistently approached COVID-19 as a whole of government endeavour."

He added that these Singaporeans said that if not ministers, then the civil servants involved would have known of the privacy concerns.

"They believe the government did not do its homework. While there was no dishonesty, or malice, there was a lack of care or diligence in accurately communicating the potential use of data collected by TraceTogether.

Whatever the case, Singh said the episode had eroded some trust in the government. He then asked two questions.

Firstly, what was the exact date that Vivian knew about the applicability of the Code to TraceTogether data?

Secondly, was MP Christopher de Souza's Parliamentary question TraceTogether, answered in the House on Jan. 4, submitted before or after Vivian learned about the aforementioned link between the Code and the data.

Singh said these questions are important to understand at what point did the government determine its representations on the use of TraceTogether was misleading, and whether it could have updated the public on its own initiative.

2. WP's position on the bill

Singh likened the current pandemic to a "wartime" scenario and its scale and complexity exceeded SARS in 2003. As such, the question is whether allowing the use of TraceTogether data for police work could jeopardise contact-tracing and compromise the Covid-19.

While TraceTogether is critical for contact-tracing, Singh asked whether the data is vital in solving crimes in the serious offences categories.

He pointed out that the police already had an abundance of investigate tools like CCTV or mobile phone data, in addition to "old-fashioned police work."

Singh said, "There is a legitimate view that these tools should be more than sufficient in detecting crime and securing convictions."

To know whether the other tools are sufficient, he asked Vivian two questions about the use of TraceTogether data in criminal investigations.

1. For the one known case in which the data was used, how critical was the data in solving the case?
2. For the seven categories of serious crimes, how often has TraceTogether data been used so far?

Singh said that despite a high take-up rate of the programme, the numbers could be misleading. People could have taken the token but not use it, or downloaded the app but not turn on Bluetooth to make it functional.

Singh also asked if the government could determine how many people have downloaded the app but are not using properly, or people who turn off the app after checking into a building. This would measure the programme's effectiveness.

Nevertheless, the Workers' Party would support the bill, as the seven categories of serious offences represent a reduction of the wide scope of the Code. Explained Singh, "In other words, a Singaporean's right to privacy is better protected with this bill than without it."

3. Long-term concerns over data privacy

Singh said that when the crisis passes, the government should review the lessons from the rollout of TraceTogether, specifically whether the balance between policing and citizen privacy should be appraised.

He cited the immense backlash against WhatsApp after it announced new terms of service with a short deadline for acceptance.

Singh said that WhatsApp's experience showed that TraceTogether is not unique, and added, "Confidence in technological tools and the institutions that control them can be lost overnight."

Singh said in the battle against future pandemics, medical preparedness is only part of the fight, along with winning the trust and cooperation of the people.

He called upon the government to initiate an "immediate conversation" on the balance between the state's use and collection of data and an individual's right to privacy.

Singh cited government financial statements, which showed that intrusive technology is spreading among Singapore's ministries. The Ministry of Social and Family Development implemented video analytics, behavioural analytics technology and facial recognition at a children's home.

Asked Singh, "Let that sink in for a moment, behavioural analytics technology at a children's home. What impact could befall a child if such data is hacked in a cybersecurity breach many years later?

To counter skepticism and replace it with trust and cooperation, Singh said, the government could be forthcoming about informing the public about the data it collects, and for what purposes.

The government could also pass laws to ensure that data collection is used for legitimate purposes and are subjected to rigorous checks to prevent abuse of power.

Measures could include appointing a neutral commissioner or ombudsman to monitor the use of the government's powers to collect data for investigations, in light of new advances in technology.

Conversation on privacy vs state use of data should be held

Singh repeated that the Workers' Party "is prepared to support" the bill.

However, he looks forward to the Minister's answers on his specific queries, and also urged the government to start a national conversation on privacy, not just to present an erosion of trust today, but to strengthen it for tomorrow.

He said that privacy concerns are not just from a small segment of Singaporeans, and that difficult conversations are being held in other countries over the collection and use of data.

The absence of such a conversation in Singapore, and the assumption that going down tried and tested routes would suffice, could result in an even worse outcome here.

Singh urged the government not to dismiss the lessons from this episode, and to try finding a better balance between privacy and policy.

Top image from CNA video.