While data from TraceTogether will be deleted at the end of police investigations if it is not of any particular use, such data “will have to be produced in court” when necessary, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam in Parliament on Tuesday (5 January).

Mr Shanmugam was responding to a question from Holland-Bukit Timah GRC Member of Parliament (MP) Christopher de Souza on whether data from TraceTogether will be deleted at the end of police investigations should it not yield anything relevant or significant to the case.

“If the data is of no particular use, yes, it will be deleted. Otherwise, it will have to be produced in court,” said the minister.

Mr Shanmugam added that such data may also be used for trial purposes even if it is not produced in court.

Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh posed a question on under what circumstances will the TraceTogether data be used in police investigations, given that “police investigations would by nature of our legislation comprised of a wide spectrum of offences”.

Mr Shanmugam replied that under Section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), the police are authorised to recover or seek any information within the possession of a person as long as the process is “not excluded by some other written law”.

“There are some provisions in some written laws which circumscribe the exercise of police powers,” said the minister.

Mr Shanmugam cited the example of a murder case in which information that may be related to the victim and the victim’s family is available on the TraceTogether token or app.

“If police chose not to seek that information, you can imagine how the victim’s family, and indeed the rest of Singapore, might react to that situation. You could even argue that there can be a judicial review application in such a situation.

“However, given that the TraceTogether token is necessary for dealing with the pandemic, it is of national importance, and its purposes are to help us deal with the pandemic,” he said.

Thus, the police’s approach “has been, and will be” that the use of TraceTogether data is “pretty much restricted to very serious offences”, said Mr Shanmugam.

While such a requirement is not currently in the legislation, it will be carefully considered within the police, and discretion will be exercised in seeking information from TraceTogether, he added.

Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan told Parliament on Monday that police are empowered to obtain any data under the CPC, including data from TraceTogether.

Mr de Souza raised the question of whether TraceTogether data will be used for criminal investigations and what legal provisions and safeguards are present in using such data.

In response, Mr Tan noted that authorised police officers are allowed to access TraceTogether data for authorised purposes.

“The Government is the custodian of the TT [TraceTogether] data submitted by the individuals and stringent measures are put in place to safeguard this personal data,” said the Minister.

“Examples of these measures include only allowing authorised officers to access the data, using such data only for authorised purposes and storing the data on a secured data platform,” he added.

According to Mr Tan, public officers who disclose such data without authorisation or misuse the data may be fined up to S$5,000 or jailed up to two years or both.

Aljunied GRC MP Gerald Giam asked if the use of such data would violate the TraceTogether privacy statement, raising concern that this may reduce voluntary adoption of the TraceTogether token or app.

Mr Tan answered: “We do not preclude the use of TraceTogether data in circumstances where citizens’ safety and security is or has been affected, and this applies to all other data as well.”

“Authorised police officers may invoke then the Criminal Procedure Code … Powers to obtain this data for the purpose of a criminal investigation, and for the purpose of the safety and security of our citizens.

“Otherwise, TraceTogether data is indeed to be used only for contact tracing and for the purpose of fighting the COVID situation,” he added.

Subscribe
Notify of
20 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Wuhan mayor admits lack of transparency in informing public about the outbreak; partially blames the Beijing government

The mayor of Wuhan, the city that’s at the centre of the…

李显扬:我又能从所谓“精心设计的欺瞒”中得到什么呢?

“我又从所谓“精心设计”的欺骗中得到什么呢?”总理弟弟李显扬不禁叹道。 此前,纪律审裁庭裁定裁定林学芬在处理建国总理李光耀遗嘱上失当,违反律师专业法令。 审裁庭对林学芬妻子措辞严厉的批评,指责后者“不诚实,试图将证据形塑成自己是无辜受害者的形象”,以及“李显扬的行为也同样欺瞒。”甚至指责李显扬与妻子“合谋误导李光耀签署遗嘱”,还公开撒谎和隐瞒证据。 相信对裁决有感而发,今天(26日)傍晚李显扬叹道自己“从所谓的精心设计诈骗中得到了什么?” 总理弟弟李显扬称,其兄长李显龙和总检察长指控,他获得妻子协助下,使得他在父亲的遗嘱中获得更多份额。 “在纪律审裁庭审讯中,无可争议的证据表明,李光耀在与他的律师柯金梨讨论后,决定恢复均等份额。”他强调自己和妻子,在李光耀决定遗嘱恢复均等份额的决定中,未扮演任何角色,且李显龙也获得均等份额。 其二,李玮玲居住在欧思礼故居的权益获得恢复。 他指出,包括父亲李光耀和姐姐李玮玲,都被引导认为欧思礼38号故居已经获政府宪报为文化遗产,故此要保留遗嘱中要求拆除故居的指示是徒劳的。 2013年,李光耀探讨将房子“撤销宪报”,因此于律师柯金梨研究此事。如可撤销宪报,那么他要求拆除故居的遗愿终可实现。“众所周知,这个愿望对他和我的母亲至关重要。” 李显扬也重申,在李光耀去世前,没人对这份已签署的遗嘱有异议。2015年,正是在李显龙和他个人律师黄鲁胜的敦促下,遗嘱在法庭得到认证。 李光耀最后一份遗嘱(第七版本)签订于2013年12月16日至17日,遗嘱中三名子女平分遗产,且李玮玲多出的一份取消;但故居拆除条款恢复,李玮玲可住在欧思礼路38号。 去年初,总检察署投诉李显扬妻子林学芬专业行为失当,向新加坡律师公会提呈逾500页的投诉信。…

Member of public disturbed by alleged double standards of police

Police informs member of public that performance of lion/dragon dance on public road, is not a total obstruction to traffic and not illegal.