Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds.
– John Perry Barlow, American poet and political activist
Initially, I thought the government’s Central Database Hub or PADU was good for the country, when it was officially launched by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim early January this year. Now, I have my doubts.
The database hub has of late met with apprehension from the rakyat. While its intended purpose of streamlining subsidy distribution to those truly in need sounds promising, concerns about data security and potential misuse loom large.
Anwar’s vision for PADU aligns with the need to ensure equitable distribution of subsidies, a sentiment echoed by many. Indeed, the current system allows subsidies to trickle down even to non-Malaysians, a situation hardly equitable. However, behind the noble intentions lie doubts about data privacy and governmental motives.
Economy Minister Rafizi Ramli’s warning about exclusion from subsidies for non-registrants stresses the government’s push for widespread participation. Yet, as over 5.4 million individuals update their details, questions linger about the safety of the information they provide.
PADU’s integration of sensitive individual and household profiles from various government departments raises legitimate concerns about data security.
Malaysians, above 18 have been encouraged to register and update their information on PADU’s website until March 31, but I don’t think I want to do that. I will wait until the government makes it mandatory through a legislation for everyone to register, and also assure and guarantee us that data will not be leaked out and abused by third parties.
Tourism, Creative Industry and Performing Arts Minister Datuk Seri Abdul Karim Hamzah’s recent frank remarks about “stripping oneself naked” when filling in details in PADU sums up the public’s unease over the extent of information collected.
His scepticism about PADU’s necessity, given existing databases like eKasih, strikes a chord with many who question the hub’s redundancy.
“The moment you fill in (the details), you bogelkan diri sendiri’ (strip yourself naked). Practically everything – your bank account, your house, everything! I don’t think that is a proper way to treat your citizens.”
I was quite amused by what he said though I appreciate his frankness; his comment eliciting some not-so-good reactions from netizens, mainly from Malaya, and from some politicians.
Abdul Karim believes the government could use information from the existing data hub eKasih launched in 2007 for various poverty alleviation programmes.
“Back then we had eKasih to search for those who are poor, why do we need PADU? It is more or less the same. Just that in PADU, if you don’t fill it in, the aid recipients may miss out.
“Is there a hidden agenda behind the introduction of PADU? Is it because you want to help the poor, or is it because you want to know how many people there are (for example, say in a village)? That’s the role of the Statistics Department!”
Well said, Sir! Couldn’t agree with you more!
To be fair to Abdul Karim, he did say he supports PADU, “but if there’s an ulterior motive, we will not be happy.”
The lack of legal recourse in the event of data breaches raises these concerns. Section 3(1) of the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 exempts governmental bodies from liability, leaving citizens vulnerable to potential misuse of their data without recourse.
Legal scholars Sidi Mohamed Sidi Ahmed and Sonny Zulhuda’s apprehension about this exemption highlights the urgent need for comprehensive data protection laws that include governmental data processing.
The government’s insistence on linking PADU with subsidy allocation has increased fears of data exposure without adequate safeguards. While the aim is to ensure targeted policy implementation, the potential for abuse looms large in the absence of stringent data protection measures.
To allay public fears and uphold data privacy, it is important to extend the Personal Data Protection Act to cover governmental data processing. Moreover, linking PADU with existing databases through NRIC integration could streamline data collection without compromising privacy.
While PADU holds promise in optimising subsidy distribution, its success hinges on robust data protection mechanisms and transparent governance. Without these safeguards, public trust will remain elusive, and the government’s efforts to support the needy could be overshadowed by concerns over data security and misuse.
PADU is good overall if there is no leakage, and I would feel much more comfortable if there is good governance and corruption is curbed. But knowing the authorities, they say one thing and do another; like I said earlier, I rather wait for a legislation before I sign up.
Well, one could argue that the government is ensuring subsidies and aids go to the right people, but it could also be seen that the government is covering its butt for those whom it would undoubtedly miss – blaming those for not signing up.
As we navigate the digital frontier, the call for accountability and transparency rings louder than ever. Only through collective vigilance and proactive legislation can we ensure that PADU serves its intended purpose while safeguarding our most precious asset – our personal data.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.
