Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • Smart Nation: Privacy Protection and Public Trust
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO21018 | Smart Nation: Privacy Protection and Public Trust
    Teo Yi-Ling, Manoj Harjani

    02 February 2021

    download pdf

    SYNOPSIS

    An unexpected U-turn by the Singapore government on its initial undertaking that TraceTogether data would only be used for COVID-19 contact tracing purposes wrought strong reactions from the Singapore public. What does this portend for public trust in future Smart Nation initiatives?


    Source: Unsplash

    COMMENTARY

    IN THE course of implementing TraceTogether  ̶  a digital system to facilitate contact tracing efforts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic ─ assurance had been given at the highest levels that individual privacy would be respected. Accusations have, however, been levelled at the government of breaking trust and leveraging technology for political control. Legitimate questions have been asked about when it knew that existing Criminal Procedure Code provisions covered use of TraceTogether data, and why disclosure of this fact was not made upfront.

    Privacy lacks a clear definition in the Singapore context – does it refer to privacy of the person, their data, or both? There is no black-letter law in Singapore enshrining privacy of the person – it is not a constitutionally-guaranteed right. Where the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) is concerned, it only provides for the obligations of businesses in protecting customers’ personal data and does not cover government use of personal data. What impact will this controversy have on public attitudes towards adopting future data-driven Smart Nation initiatives?

    Respecting Privacy

    The Singapore government’s inexorable march towards a Smart Nation has thus far been presented as a fait accompli. However, there is now a clear and urgent need to reconsider the current approach, particularly given broader shifts that have been unfolding in the public trust environment in Singapore.

    Automation and digitalisation have provided considerable convenience at work and in daily life. The trade-off for accessing this convenience is providing personal data and private information. Yet confidentiality and privacy cannot be guaranteed as companies and government agencies can tap into data repositories for all kinds of reasons. How might individuals safely navigate this trade-off in a digital existence without losing what they hold dear and personal, and who can they trust to guide them?

    The Singapore government has previously acknowledged the negative impact of distrust upon Smart Nation efforts. Before pressing on with more Smart Nation rollouts, it is then crucial to strengthen public trust by addressing two immediate matters.

    The first is creating a clear definition of privacy. The second is publicly clarifying the government’s guiding principles regarding decision-making involving personal data. These will allow the public to understand what is at stake.

    How the government responds to the TraceTogether controversy will determine whether Singapore can manage the growing global concern regarding smart city endeavours – erosion of personal privacy and liberty in the name of public safety and efficient service delivery.

    Coherency, Transparency and Accountability

    The PDPA’s current focus is on how businesses manage personal data – there seems to be an assumption that if businesses are regulated, citizens’ interests will be protected by proxy. This is risky given continuing data breaches and growing concern about misaligned incentives for Internet companies that profit directly from personal data.

    Exacerbating the situation further is the government’s exemption from the PDPA despite it being the most significant user of data in Singapore and occasional lapses in data security management by government agencies.

    An uncomfortable precedent appears to have been set regarding repurposing data gathered ostensibly in the public interest for law enforcement and regulating individual behaviour. To be sure, the issue is far less about data being accessed by law enforcement agencies, than it is about the relative ease with which the original limits on the data’s use were lifted.

    Given the breadth of the multi-agency taskforce leading Singapore’s pandemic response, it is not easy for some citizens to accept the government’s explanation that it did not anticipate potential use of TraceTogether data for investigative purposes, and why it did not proactively address this publicly upon realisation.

    Improving Governance of Data-related Issues

    Nevertheless, there is a clear imperative emerging from this controversy to improve governance of data-related issues. The Government Data Strategy formulated in 2018 already lays out a sound approach for the public sector to better leverage data; the Public Sector Data Security Review in 2019 complemented this with recommendations to improve data security.

    What is missing, however, is clarity on accountability for use of data by the government beyond ensuring its security.

    To address this, the government should consider developing a broader framework for data governance and implement it in a transparent manner so the public is aware of the “who, what, when, where, why and how” when it comes to their personal data.

    This way, the government will by design be able to account for how it collects and uses data – ideally in a manner that the public can digest at every touchpoint where their personal data comes into play.

    Beyond data, the government will also need to address a current lack of regulations governing its development and adoption of digital technologies in an ethical manner and in the public interest. To this end, the government should consider creating an ombudsman for ethical development and deployment of technology, with a complementary audit process subject to transparency in the public domain.

    Road Ahead: Need for National Conversation

    On the broader issues of privacy regulation and rights, change may be on the horizon. In December 2020, the Law Reform Committee issued a report proposing a new law addressing insufficiencies and incoherencies in the current patchwork of privacy legislation.

    To what extent this proposed law impacts Singapore’s Smart Nation agenda is yet to be seen, but it is being surfaced at a time when the national discourse on privacy is sharpening. This is a critical opportunity for a meaningful and open public conversation.

    Singapore has busied itself with the legislative infrastructure to speed up the drive towards Smart Nation-hood, but has spent less effort on the contentious issue of how individual rights will be affected by digitalisation, and what the public really wants – or needs – out of the government’s adoption of technology.

    As we progress towards becoming a Smart Nation, we must now reckon with a renegotiation of the social contract and legitimate expectations on both sides – the more digitally transformed our lives become, the more we must remember our humanity, values, and vulnerabilities.

    About the Author

    Teo Yi-Ling is a Senior Fellow and Manoj Harjani is a Research Fellow with the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS) and Future Issues and Technology (FIT) Cluster, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Country and Region Studies / Cybersecurity, Biosecurity and Nuclear Safety / International Political Economy / International Politics and Security / Singapore and Homeland Security / East Asia and Asia Pacific / South Asia / Southeast Asia and ASEAN / Global
    comments powered by Disqus

    SYNOPSIS

    An unexpected U-turn by the Singapore government on its initial undertaking that TraceTogether data would only be used for COVID-19 contact tracing purposes wrought strong reactions from the Singapore public. What does this portend for public trust in future Smart Nation initiatives?


    Source: Unsplash

    COMMENTARY

    IN THE course of implementing TraceTogether  ̶  a digital system to facilitate contact tracing efforts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic ─ assurance had been given at the highest levels that individual privacy would be respected. Accusations have, however, been levelled at the government of breaking trust and leveraging technology for political control. Legitimate questions have been asked about when it knew that existing Criminal Procedure Code provisions covered use of TraceTogether data, and why disclosure of this fact was not made upfront.

    Privacy lacks a clear definition in the Singapore context – does it refer to privacy of the person, their data, or both? There is no black-letter law in Singapore enshrining privacy of the person – it is not a constitutionally-guaranteed right. Where the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) is concerned, it only provides for the obligations of businesses in protecting customers’ personal data and does not cover government use of personal data. What impact will this controversy have on public attitudes towards adopting future data-driven Smart Nation initiatives?

    Respecting Privacy

    The Singapore government’s inexorable march towards a Smart Nation has thus far been presented as a fait accompli. However, there is now a clear and urgent need to reconsider the current approach, particularly given broader shifts that have been unfolding in the public trust environment in Singapore.

    Automation and digitalisation have provided considerable convenience at work and in daily life. The trade-off for accessing this convenience is providing personal data and private information. Yet confidentiality and privacy cannot be guaranteed as companies and government agencies can tap into data repositories for all kinds of reasons. How might individuals safely navigate this trade-off in a digital existence without losing what they hold dear and personal, and who can they trust to guide them?

    The Singapore government has previously acknowledged the negative impact of distrust upon Smart Nation efforts. Before pressing on with more Smart Nation rollouts, it is then crucial to strengthen public trust by addressing two immediate matters.

    The first is creating a clear definition of privacy. The second is publicly clarifying the government’s guiding principles regarding decision-making involving personal data. These will allow the public to understand what is at stake.

    How the government responds to the TraceTogether controversy will determine whether Singapore can manage the growing global concern regarding smart city endeavours – erosion of personal privacy and liberty in the name of public safety and efficient service delivery.

    Coherency, Transparency and Accountability

    The PDPA’s current focus is on how businesses manage personal data – there seems to be an assumption that if businesses are regulated, citizens’ interests will be protected by proxy. This is risky given continuing data breaches and growing concern about misaligned incentives for Internet companies that profit directly from personal data.

    Exacerbating the situation further is the government’s exemption from the PDPA despite it being the most significant user of data in Singapore and occasional lapses in data security management by government agencies.

    An uncomfortable precedent appears to have been set regarding repurposing data gathered ostensibly in the public interest for law enforcement and regulating individual behaviour. To be sure, the issue is far less about data being accessed by law enforcement agencies, than it is about the relative ease with which the original limits on the data’s use were lifted.

    Given the breadth of the multi-agency taskforce leading Singapore’s pandemic response, it is not easy for some citizens to accept the government’s explanation that it did not anticipate potential use of TraceTogether data for investigative purposes, and why it did not proactively address this publicly upon realisation.

    Improving Governance of Data-related Issues

    Nevertheless, there is a clear imperative emerging from this controversy to improve governance of data-related issues. The Government Data Strategy formulated in 2018 already lays out a sound approach for the public sector to better leverage data; the Public Sector Data Security Review in 2019 complemented this with recommendations to improve data security.

    What is missing, however, is clarity on accountability for use of data by the government beyond ensuring its security.

    To address this, the government should consider developing a broader framework for data governance and implement it in a transparent manner so the public is aware of the “who, what, when, where, why and how” when it comes to their personal data.

    This way, the government will by design be able to account for how it collects and uses data – ideally in a manner that the public can digest at every touchpoint where their personal data comes into play.

    Beyond data, the government will also need to address a current lack of regulations governing its development and adoption of digital technologies in an ethical manner and in the public interest. To this end, the government should consider creating an ombudsman for ethical development and deployment of technology, with a complementary audit process subject to transparency in the public domain.

    Road Ahead: Need for National Conversation

    On the broader issues of privacy regulation and rights, change may be on the horizon. In December 2020, the Law Reform Committee issued a report proposing a new law addressing insufficiencies and incoherencies in the current patchwork of privacy legislation.

    To what extent this proposed law impacts Singapore’s Smart Nation agenda is yet to be seen, but it is being surfaced at a time when the national discourse on privacy is sharpening. This is a critical opportunity for a meaningful and open public conversation.

    Singapore has busied itself with the legislative infrastructure to speed up the drive towards Smart Nation-hood, but has spent less effort on the contentious issue of how individual rights will be affected by digitalisation, and what the public really wants – or needs – out of the government’s adoption of technology.

    As we progress towards becoming a Smart Nation, we must now reckon with a renegotiation of the social contract and legitimate expectations on both sides – the more digitally transformed our lives become, the more we must remember our humanity, values, and vulnerabilities.

    About the Author

    Teo Yi-Ling is a Senior Fellow and Manoj Harjani is a Research Fellow with the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS) and Future Issues and Technology (FIT) Cluster, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Country and Region Studies / Cybersecurity, Biosecurity and Nuclear Safety / International Political Economy / International Politics and Security / Singapore and Homeland Security

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info