Thank You!

Join our community for free to access exclusive whitepapers, reports, and regulatory information.

By signing up you agree to OneTrust DataGuidance's Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Already have an account? Log in

Singapore - Data Protection Overview

March 2024

1. Governing Texts

The Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (No. 26 of 2012) ('PDPA') governs the collection, use, and disclosure of individuals' personal data by organizations in a manner that recognizes both the right of individuals to protect their personal data, and the need of organizations to collect, use, and disclose personal data for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances.

Apart from the obligations imposed on organizations under the PDPA, there has been a general push towards a culture of accountability by the Personal Data Protection Commission ('PDPC'), the regulator for data protection. For example, the PDPC implemented the Data Protection Trustmark Certification in 2019, which is a voluntary enterprise-wide certification program for organizations to demonstrate accountable data protection practices.

The PDPA has undergone its first comprehensive revision since its enactment in 2012 under the Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Bill 2020 ('the Amendment Bill') which was passed on November 2, 2020 and formally enacted as the Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Act 2020 ('the Amendment Act').

1.1. Key acts, regulations, directives, bills

The PDPA is the principal data protection legislation in Singapore governing the collection, use, and disclosure of individuals' personal data by organizations. Prior to the enactment of the PDPA, Singapore did not have an overarching law governing the protection of personal data. Rather, the processing of personal data in Singapore was regulated to a certain extent by a patchwork of laws including common law, sector-specific legislation, and various self-regulatory or co-regulatory codes. These existing sector-specific data protection frameworks will continue to operate alongside the PDPA.

The PDPA was passed by the Parliament of Singapore ('the Parliament') on October 15, 2012, and was implemented in three phases. The first phase of general provisions came into effect on January 2, 2013. These provisions relate to: the scope and interpretation of the PDPA; the establishment of the PDPC, the authority that administers and enforces the PDPA; the establishment of the Data Protection Advisory Committee; the establishment of the Do-Not-Call ('DNC') Registers by the PDPC; and other general provisions of the PDPA. The second phase, on January 2, 2014, saw the provisions relating to the DNC Registry come into force. The third and final phase saw the main provisions relating to the protection of personal data ('the Data Protection Provisions') – specifically Parts 3 to 4 of the PDPA – come into effect on July 2, 2014.

On November 2, 2020, the Parliament passed the Amendment Bill, which is the culmination of the first comprehensive review of the PDPA since its enactment in 2012. The majority of the changes under the Amendment Act came into effect on February 1, 2021, including provisions mandating data breach notification. The amendments to Section 48J of the PDPA providing for an increased maximum financial penalty (i.e. up to 10% of an organization's annual turnover in Singapore (if the organization's annual turnover in Singapore exceeds SGD 10 million (approx. $7,41 million), or SGD 1 million (approx. $747,090), whichever is higher) came into effect on October 1, 2022.

The provisions on the new data portability obligation will take effect at a later date.

In addition to the PDPA, the following subsidiary legislation has been issued to date:

The PDPA sets a baseline standard for personal data protection across the private sector and will operate alongside (and not override) other existing laws and regulations. The PDPA specifically provides that the data protection framework under the PDPA does not affect any right or obligation under the law, and that in the event of any inconsistency, the provisions of other written laws will prevail. For example, the banking secrecy laws under the Banking Act 1970 govern customer information obtained by banks and will prevail over the PDPA in the event of any inconsistency with the PDPA.

1.2. Guidelines

The PDPC has issued several advisory guidelines which, while not legally binding on any party, provide greater clarity on how the PDPC may interpret the provisions of the PDPA. Some examples include:

All advisory guidelines and guides are accessible via the PDPC's website.

1.3. Case law

In addition to enforcement decisions issued by the PDPC (see section on enforcement decisions below), the PDPA has also been considered by the Singapore courts. On February 19, 2019, the State Courts of Singapore dismissed a claim brought against the Singapore Swimming Club for defamation and breach of the PDPA. Although written grounds of judgment are not available, this case is significant as it appears to be the first time where the Singapore courts were asked to consider whether there was a breach of the PDPA, even though the PDPC had not made any decision in respect of any purported contravention of the PDPA.

Additionally, in IP Investment Management Pte Ltd and others v Alex Bellingham [2019] SGDC 207, a judgment of the District Court delivered on October 3, 2019, the District Court had to decide on a claim pursuant to the right of private action available to individuals under the previous Section 32 of the PDPA (now Section 48O of the PDPA). The District Court found that there had been a breach of certain Data Protection Provisions and that the third plaintiff had suffered loss and damage through the defendant's misuse of their personal information. Accordingly, the District Court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from using, disclosing, or communicating any personal data of the third plaintiff and ordered the defendant to undertake the destruction of all personal data of the third plaintiff.

The above decision was subsequently appealed against before the High Court in Bellingham, Alex v. Reed, Michael [2021] SGHC 125. It was held that there was no right of private action because the respondent had not suffered any 'loss or damage' within the meaning of the previous Section 32 of the PDPA. The High Court held that a loss of control over personal data does not constitute 'loss or damage' for an actionable claim under the previous Section 32 of the PDPA. It also opined on the limitations of the 'publicly available information' exception. Pursuant to Section 17 read with Part 2(1) of the First Schedule to the PDPA, organizations are not required to obtain consent for the collection, use, and disclosure of publicly available personal data under the PDPA. However, the High Court clarified that organizations cannot rely on Section 17 of the PDPA where personal data that is publicly available is obtained only through the unlawful use of other personal data.

The High Court decision was partially reversed by the Court of Appeal in Reed, Michael v. Bellingham, Alex (Attorney-General, intervener) [2022] SGCA 60. The Court of Appeal found that 'loss or damage' includes emotional distress but does not include loss of control over personal data. On the facts, the Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff had suffered emotional distress that was significant enough to be actionable. Separately, in respect of Section 4(1)(b) of the PDPA, which provides that the data protection obligations in the PDPA do not impose obligations on an employee, the Court of Appeal clarified that this section serves as a defense for employees and that the burden lies on a defendant to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was 'an employee acting in the course of employment.'

2. Scope of Application

2.1. Personal scope

The PDPA generally applies to all private organizations in respect of the personal data of individuals that they collect, use, and/or disclose. However, the following categories of organizations are excluded from the application of the PDPA:

Government agencies are not subject to the requirements of the PDPA, as they have their own set of data protection rules that all public officers must comply with. That said, this exclusion does not extend to private sector organizations working on behalf of government agencies.

'Data intermediaries' are partially excluded from the application of the Data Protection Provisions if they are processing personal data on behalf of and for the purposes of another organization pursuant to a contract that is evidenced or made in writing, and only have obligations under the PDPA in relation to:

2.2. Territorial scope

The PDPA also applies to organizations with no physical presence in Singapore, as long as these organizations collect, use, or disclose data within Singapore. For example, organizations located overseas that collect data from individuals in Singapore via online channels or platforms will be subject to the Data Protection Provisions under the PDPA.

It is worth noting that organizations involved in the cross-border transfer of personal data from Singapore to locations overseas are also subject to the Data Protection Provisions.

2.3. Material scope

The PDPA regulates the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data by organizations and expressly excludes the following categories of personal data from its application:

3. Data Protection Authority | Regulatory Authority

3.1. Main regulator for data protection

The PDPC is the regulatory authority that is responsible for administering and enforcing the PDPA. It is part of the converged telecommunications and media regulator, the Info-communications Media Development Authority ('IMDA'), which is a statutory board under the purview of the Ministry of Communications and Information.

3.2. Main powers, duties and responsibilities

The main powers, duties, and responsibilities of the PDPC are as follows:

4. Key Definitions

Data controller: The PDPA does not use the term 'data controller.' Instead, it uses the more general term 'organization' to refer to the entities that are required to comply with the obligations prescribed under the PDPA. The term 'organization' broadly covers natural persons, corporate bodies (such as companies), and unincorporated bodies of persons (such as associations), regardless of whether they are formed or recognized under the law of Singapore, or are residents or have an office or place of business in Singapore.

Data processor: The term 'data processor' is not used in the PDPA, but an equivalent term 'data intermediary' is used. A 'data intermediary' is defined as an organization that processes personal data on behalf of another organization but does not include an employee of that other organization. For more information on the obligations of data intermediaries, see also the section on personal scope above.

Personal data: 'Personal data' under the PDPA refers to all 'data, whether true or not, about an individual who can be identified from that data, or from that data and other information to which the organization has or is likely to have access.' This applies regardless of whether such data is in electronic or another form, and regardless of the degree of sensitivity. However, the PDPA expressly excludes the following categories of personal data from its application:

Sensitive data: Even though there is no special category for sensitive personal data in the PDPA, the PDPC takes the view that personal data of a more sensitive nature should be safeguarded by a higher level of protection. The types of personal data that would typically be more sensitive in nature include:

Health data: The term 'health data' is not used in the PDPA. Rather, health data would be considered a type of personal data and therefore be covered under the PDPA. Depending on the particular factual context, the handling of health data could also be covered under other laws such as the Health Products (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2016, or the Medicines (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2016 in Singapore.

Biometric data: The term 'biometric data' is not used in the PDPA. Rather, similar to health data, biometric data would be considered a type of personal data and therefore would be covered under the PDPA.

Pseudonymization: There is no specific reference to pseudonymization in the PDPA. However, in the Selected Topics Guidelines, the PDPC describes pseudonymization as an anonymization technique involving 'replacing personal identifiers with other references,' and has also stated that the anonymization of personal data may be carried out to render the anonymized data suitable for more uses than its original state (i.e. the original personal data) would permit under data protection regimes, since anonymized data would not allow the identification of an individual and is thus not personal data.

Additionally, in its Guide to Basic Data Anonymisation, the PDPC has also set out recommended best practices for pseudonymization and has recognized the distinction between irreversible pseudonymization (i.e. where the original values are properly disposed of and the pseudonymization was done in a non-repeatable fashion) and reversible pseudonymization (i.e. where the original values are securely kept but can be retrieved and linked back to the pseudonym).

Processing: The term 'processing' is defined as the carrying out of any operations or set of operations in relation to the personal data, and includes any of the following:

Data protection officer: In relation to an organization, an individual designated by the organization under Section 11(3) of the PDPA or an individual to whom the responsibility of the data protection officer ('DPO') has been delegated under Section 11(4) of the PDPA. In this regard, Section 11(3) of the PDPA outlines that an organization must designate one or more individuals to be responsible for ensuring that the organization complies with the PDPA.

Privacy Impact Assessment | Data Protection Impact Assessment: There is no definition of 'Data Protection Impact Assessment' ('DPIA') in the PDPA. However, the PDPC provides that a DPIA involves identifying, assessing, and addressing personal data protection risks based on an organization's functions, needs, and processes (page 5 of the DPIA Guide).

5. Legal Bases

5.1. Consent

Under the Consent Obligation, organizations are required to obtain individuals' consent to collect, use, or disclose their personal data unless such collection, use, or disclosure is required or authorized under the PDPA or any other written law (Sections 13 to 17 of the PDPA).

Consent is not required for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data where the specific exceptions in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the PDPA apply, for example where the collection, use, or disclosure of personal data about an individual is: