NG SOOK ZHEN
Second Year NUS Law, Juris Editor, SLR

The right to privacy has often been regarded as insubstantial in the face of economic growth and communitarian values. In his 1986 National Day Rally speech, the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew commented: “I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yet, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress.”

Fast-forward to 2008.

We articulate our thoughts via  the keyboard, publish our photo albums to the world, and display our databases in places far-removed from the dusty dossiers they were once relegated to. .

New technologies have emerged and some have the ability to invade an individual’s privacy. Espial of communications like email, surveillance at the workplace and public spaces, and information systems such as biometrics and identity cards are now readily available avenues which one may use to access and interfere into the private life of another. Technology has changed the way we can define our private lives as citizens of an island that is wired up in every aspect of its public and private sectors.

And the law has changed too.

Privacy is now protected in e-commerce, through legislation such as Electronic Transactions Act, National Computer Board Act and the Computer Misuse Act. The Banking Act also prohibits disclosure of financial information without the permission of the customer.

Judicially, the modern case of Malcomson v. Mehta, [2001] 4 Sing. L.R. 454 (Malcomson), most noted for creating the local tort of harrassment, is a healthy indication that the courts are beginning to recognise privacy as a right.  As tangential to privacy as Malcomson may sound, the case signifies the empowerment of the individual (through the tort of harassment) to restrain others from interference of one’s personal space. Quoting International Privacy, Publicity and Personality Laws (2001) in the judgment, the court noted: “If and when this(the development in Singapore of a common law tort of intentional harassment) takes place, there would be much scope for the protection of privacy, since the tort may, if fully developed, protect against ‘distress, inconvenience and discomfort’.”

But the dearth of legislation or judicial decisions relating to privacy law remains startling.

Beyond the fact that the Constitution does not contain any explicit right to privacy, there is also little legislation that deals with the right to privacy.  Little has been done to cope with the rapid advancement of technology.

For instance, employer monitoring of employee phone calls, e-mails, and Internet usage is permissible under Singapore law. Under local property law, workplace e-mail, telephone and computer contents are the property of the employer. If, for example, an employee loses his job because of the contents of his communications technology, he has no grounds for defense based on an invasion of privacy.

There has been clear recognition in various jurisdictions that enshrining privacy rights in law yields economic benefit.  Experience in Europe and the United States has shown that such legislation is a pre-condition to increasing consumer trust, especially in online commerce. Further, many large multinational companies are hesitant about locating large-scale outsourcing operations in countries where there is no legal framework for publishing breaches of data security and data privacy.

Given that there is a pragmatic, facilitative role for privacy laws, and that the experience of such laws have been largely positive in foreign jurisdictions such as the United States, it may well be time that Singapore fills the lacuna that presently exist in her laws in order to deal effectively with the various privacy issues.

If we do not, and will not do that, we may not be here tomorrow.