SINGAPORE — The Government on Tuesday (Feb 4) explained why it was necessary to make public the name of a 46-year-old woman who complained anonymously that she could not access her Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings on medical grounds.

Dr Janil Puthucheary, Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information, told Parliament that using a pseudonym to refer to the woman could cause more confusion to her account of events, which had been presented in a misleading manner with key facts omitted.

The case of Ms Sua Li Li was first reported on the sociopolitical website The Online Citizen on Dec 17, 2019 in an article which said the CPF Board had rejected the single mother’s request to let her choose to use her CPF savings for medical treatment or to fund her daughter’s education. In the article, she was referred to only as “Ms Soo”.

Two days later, the CPF Board disclosed her full name on Facebook along with some of her medical history, including her hospitalisation for suspected lupus, prompting questions on whether such personal data should have been divulged.

Dr Puthucheary told Parliament that continuing to refer to the woman by the pseudonym Ms Soo instead of her real name “could have done more harm than good, if the public had associated other individuals with the case”.

He was replying to Nominated Member of Parliament Anthea Ong, who asked why it was not possible for the “public interest” to be protected by continuing to use the pseudonym rather than the woman’s name.

On Dec 27, the Smart Nation and Digital Government Office (SNDGO) said that the law permits disclosures such as Ms Sua’s details in public interest. It made a statement clarifying the Government’s policy on disclosing someone’s personal data.

On Tuesday, Dr Puthucheary said that the decision to disclose her name and personal data was “discussed at length” by a number of government agencies before it was made: The CPF Board, the Housing and Development Board, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social and Family Development.

“Government agencies may disclose personal data to counter inaccuracies about the Government's processes or policies contained in publicised complaints or petitions,” he said.

“It's the duty of government agencies to do so in order to maintain the public's trust and to serve citizens effectively.

“If citizens are misled about the governance processes of policies, they may make decisions that are detrimental to themselves, therefore (it is) fully in the public interest to dispel such doubts, clarify the factors.”

In Ms Sua’s case, he said that the public clarification was issued to provide key facts that had been omitted from The Online Citizen's article and to correct the article’s “misleading statements”.

“Such data was included in order to convey verifiable facts and provide the public with a full picture. This is necessary to ensure that the public is not misinformed and the public's trust in the Government is maintained,” Dr Puthucheary added.

In any case, he said that the continued use of the pseudonym, Ms Soo, would not have been meaningful to protect Ms Sua’s identity because she had already divulged it by forwarding her email to Singapore's president, several government agencies and media outlets.

Dr Puthucheary also pointed out that The Online Citizen had initially published a letter issued by a consultant at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital to a Social Service Office at Yishun, which stated Ms Sua’s full name, date of birth, age and gender.

Ms Ong asked whether a correction order under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) was considered, given the claim that the article contained misleading statements.

Dr Puthucheary said that Pofma is only one of several means available to set the record straight. “The Government’s response depends on a sensitive reading of the situation, calibrated according to what is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.” 

In Ms Sua’s case, the agencies had assessed that issuing a public clarification was appropriate.

But regardless of the action taken, Dr Puthucheary reiterated that online publishers “should not make use of pseudonyms in order to hide behind the veil of anonymity so that they can publish unverified facts or misleading statements”.

“This is not in the best interest of sound, public debate,” he added.

When Ms Ong asked for a direct answer as to how public interest was defined in Ms Sua’s case, Dr Puthucheary turned the question back on her.

“I would put it to Ms Ong that there is no public interest served by protecting a falsehood about government processes or policies when it comes to social welfare and medical care,” he said.

“If she can persuade me that that is so, I will be very surprised, and I don’t think she can persuade many people that there is some benefit to be gained about perpetuating disinformation and falsehoods about medical care, welfare benefits, social services processes.”

He then repeated his point that the public interest in this case is for the public to be well-informed about government processes and policies.