PDPA Is Not a Shield Against Judicial Transparency
The Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA) was enacted to protect Malaysians from misuse of their personal information. It was never intended to become a convenient excuse for government agencies to avoid answering legitimate questions. Yet, in practice, agencies often hide behind PDPA to block even the most basic factual confirmations.
A recent case illustrates this problem: LPPSA’s (Lembaga Pembiayaan Perumahan Sektor Awam) refusal to confirm the repayment date of a government housing loan, despite that date already being disclosed in open court. This is not protection of privacy—it is bureaucratic overreach.
What PDPA Actually Covers
Personal data definition: Information that identifies a living individual, such as names, addresses, and financial details.
Purpose: To regulate commercial use of personal data, not to obstruct judicial transparency.
Exemptions: Section 45 explicitly allows disclosure when necessary for legal proceedings.
Court Records Are Public
When a repayment date is sworn in a witness statement, it becomes part of the public record. Confirming such a date does not breach PDPA. Courts have reinforced this principle. In Newlake Development Sdn Bhd v Zenith Delight Sdn Bhd & Ors (2021), the court held that PDPA cannot override discovery obligations.
To use an analogy: if a billboard on a busy street already displays the letters, confirming what those letters spell is not a breach of privacy. The information is already visible to all.
Why LPPSA’s Interpretation Is Flawed
Over-compliance: Agencies adopt a “zero disclosure” stance to avoid liability.
Misinterpretation: PDPA was never intended to block confirmation of facts already in judicial records.
Judicial oversight: Courts can compel disclosure, and PDPA cannot be used as a shield against compliance.
This is like a teacher refusing to confirm that “A” is the first letter of the alphabet because of a rule meant to protect exam papers. The refusal is absurd when the fact is already public knowledge.
Consequences of Overreach
Delays in dispute resolution: Property matters remain unresolved when agencies refuse to confirm basic facts.
Erosion of trust: Public confidence in government institutions suffers when transparency is sacrificed.
Misuse of PDPA: The Act becomes a convenient excuse rather than a genuine safeguard.
Agencies must adopt a balanced approach:
Protect sensitive personal data.
Do not misuse PDPA to avoid confirming facts already in the public domain.
Provide clear channels—through customer consent or court orders—for factual verification.
Transparency is not optional. PDPA should not be weaponized to obstruct justice or frustrate legitimate inquiries. Malaysians deserve institutions that respect privacy and uphold accountability.
Comments