DNC Registry’s exemption order undermines data law

I refer to the report, “Do Not Call Registry: Firms can send text, fax” (Dec 27).

The exemption order issued by the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) allows businesses, in effect, to continue sending text and fax messages to existing customers, even those whose numbers are listed in the Do Not Call (DNC) Registry.

Like many others, I am disappointed by this order, which appears to be incongruous with the Personal Data Protection Act.

Section 43(1) provides that specified messages to Singapore telephone numbers can be sent only after two conditions are met: The sender must apply to check whether that number is listed in the register; and the number is indeed not listed.

This provision appears to be comprehensive and does not suggest that the PDPC has the discretion to exclude certain classes of organisations from these requirements. Did it consider whether its exemption order is compatible with this provision?

More fundamentally, does the PDPC have the power to issue an order that alters the administration and effect of the Act, whose policy objectives appear to be negated and undermined by the exemption?

The DNC Registry was set up to prevent unsolicited calls and protect consumer privacy. The definition of “ongoing relationship”, which includes holding a credit card or insurance policy, is too broad in the exemption order.

For instance, I regard messages from a credit card company that are unrelated to my personal transactions as being unsolicited. The Act, which was intended to cover such circumstances, would now be ineffective.

The PDPC should reconsider its stance.