Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

DNC Registry exemption was ‘pragmatic, reasonable’

SINGAPORE — After facing a barrage of criticism from consumers, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) yesterday had to come out and defend its decision to allow businesses to continue sending text and fax messages to existing customers even if their numbers are listed on the Do Not Call (DNC) Registry, which takes effect on Thursday.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — After facing a barrage of criticism from consumers, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) yesterday had to come out and defend its decision to allow businesses to continue sending text and fax messages to existing customers even if their numbers are listed on the Do Not Call (DNC) Registry, which takes effect on Thursday.

Members of the advisory committee for the PDPC whom TODAY spoke to also explained the rationale for the exemption order, which some consumers had described as a U-turn coming only one week before the DNC Registry takes effect.

Singapore Business Federation Chief Executive Officer Ho Meng Kit said the exemption order — under which customers can opt out of receiving the messages by contacting the companies — was “pragmatic” and “reasonable”.

“It’s a good balance if it applies only for existing customers and not new customers,” he said. “We will still need to balance the interests of some businesses as well. If you take everyone out, (companies) have to start all over again (to build their customer database). Small businesses need to face more costs, for instance.”

Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) President Lim Biow Chuan, who also sits on the eight-member advisory committee, said in considering requests from businesses, the key factor was whether these would be fair. The committee felt that it was fair to exempt ongoing relationships because updates on promotions, for instance, may not be unwelcomed by customers, he said.

CASE Executive Director Seah Seng Choon had earlier slammed the move, calling it a “sad day” for consumers and saying that the exemption “means that PDPC has back-pedalled and diluted the intention of the DNC Registry”. But Mr Lim, who is also a Member of Parliament for Mountbatten, said: “I wore my consumer hat and asked myself if ... I’m a (customer) and they want to tell me there’s a sale in two to three days. I think that’s not news I wouldn’t welcome. However, if it was a business that has no relationship with you, making cold calls, then that is different.”

Mr Lim felt that the public backlash was “due to many people not being clear of what it really means by an ongoing relationship”.

“Once it is clear ... people will know this is certainly not a backdoor for companies,” he said, adding that firms are still required to inform customers on how they can unsubscribe to messages and stop sending texts or faxes within 30 days to those who have opted out.

Mr Lim stressed that CASE will continue to monitor if businesses can get around the regime by finding loopholes, and will work with PDPC if this is the case.

When contacted, Mr Seah said that Mr Lim was in a “delicate situation”. “He needs to explain the PDPC’s position. I acknowledge that some consumers still want some information (relating to promotions) but there are others who do not want,” he said.

PDPC responds to criticism

Addressing criticism levelled at the exemption, a PDPC spokesman rejected suggestions that it had “back-pedalled” and that it has forsaken consumer interest for the benefit of businesses.

Noting that the registry is “still effective”, he stressed that the intent of the exemption order was to enable consumers to receive messages from merchants they are customers of. “Some consumers may find such messages useful and informational,” he said, citing the example of credit card holders who may wish to continue receiving telemarketing messages about a rewards programme from their bank.

The spokesman added that the PDPC is “mindful of consumers’ interests and expectations even as it develops a balanced approach in administering” the Personal Data Protection Act.

The exemption order was made to “develop a more nuanced treatment of ‘in service’ messages that better balances the interests and needs of both businesses and consumers”, he said.

He reiterated that feedback received on this aspect was minimal during the earlier public consultation phase. But since September, as businesses started to prepare for compliance, the amount of feedback and queries increased. The PDPC took all these into consideration, he added.

Adding that the commission “understands the reactions from consumers”, he pointed out that for those who do not wish to receive telemarketing messages at all, the PDPC has mandated “an easy way” to unsubscribe to the messages by requiring companies to provide an opt-out facility within the exempted messages.

Consumers who continue to receive messages from the organisation after they have opted out may lodge a complaint with the PDPC.

The spokesman added that organisations must check the registry or obtain clear consent from individuals before sending messages that do not provide an opt-out facility. Failure to do so would constitute a breach of the Personal Data Protection Act.

Separately, the PDPC issued a media statement to clarify the “scope of the exemption order”. It reiterated that individuals “can still block unsolicited telemarketing calls/messages by registering their Singapore telephone numbers on the DNC Registry”.

The intent behind the registry remains unchanged with the Exemption Order, it said. “When the Exemption Order comes into effect, individuals will be able to receive a subset of messages ... that they may otherwise not receive if their Singapore telephone numbers are on the DNC Registry,” the PDPC said.

Emphasising that several conditions must be fulfilled for the organisations to send exempt messages, the PDPC reiterated that organisations “can only send exempt messages to an individual when the messages are related to the subject of the ongoing relationship with the individual”.

Organisations “must not rely on the exemption to market all other aspects of their business indiscriminately without considering the subject of the ongoing relationship”, it said. Also, a one-off transaction is not sufficient to constitute an ongoing relationship, it reiterated.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.