The Singapore Personal Data Protection Act and an assessment of future trends in data privacy reform

In the first part of this paper, I will present and explain the Singapore Personal Data Protection Act (“PDPA”) in the context of legislative developments in the Asian region and against the well-established international baseline privacy standards. In the course of the above evaluation, reference will be made to the national laws and policy on data privacy prior to the enactment of the PDPA as well as current social and market practices in relation to personal data. In the second part of this paper, I will decipher and assess the future trends in data privacy reform and the future development of the privacy regime in Singapore and beyond. In the course of this analysis, international standards, technological trends and recent legal developments in other jurisdictions will be considered.     

Five years of the APEC Privacy Framework: Failure or promise?

The APEC Privacy Framework was developed from 2003, adopted by APEC in 2004 and finalised in 2005. It was intended as a means of improving the standard of information privacy protection throughout the APEC countries of the Asia–Pacific, and of facilitating the trans-border flow of personal information between those countries. In 2007 a number of ‘Pathfinder’ projects for cross-border data transfers were launched under the Framework. In the five years since the process commenced, what has it achieved, and what is it likely to achieve? This paper argues that the APEC Privacy Framework has had many flaws from its inception, including Privacy Principles that are unnecessarily weak, and no meaningful enforcement requirements. Since its adoption in 2004, little attempt has been made to encourage its use as a minimal standard for privacy legislation in developing countries (which might have been useful), and it is having little impact on the significant number of legislative developments now taking place.     

Counterinsurgency Principles for the Diplomat

The recent resurgence of interest in insurgency and counterinsurgency has revealed a deficit in material written by and for the diplomat, the actor ostensibly responsible for the political component of a counterinsurgency campaign. Classical theorists stress that progress along the political track is essential for ultimate success. Recent commentary, in shedding new light on the characteristics of modern insurgencies, reaffirms this principle. To make political headway the diplomat-counterinsurgent needs to develop a strategic narrative, build a political strategy around the narrative, acquire expertise, become a catalyst for political change, and maximize contact with the local population. In doing so, he will make important contributions to and help accelerate success in a counterinsurgency campaign.

“War and diplomacy are different but intimately related aspects of national policy. Diplomats and warriors who recall this will therefore act as brothers in a potentially lethal common endeavor.…they will consider together when to fight and when to talk and when to press and when to stop.”

Chas. W. Freeman, Jr., The Diplomat's Dictionary (1995)

Full-size table