SINGAPORE: The unmasking of National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) numbers will be in focus as parliament sits on Tuesday (Jan 7).
There were also questions filed on telemedicine practices in the wake of provider MaNaDr Clinic getting its licence revoked, vaping as well the possibility of further safeguards around social media usage for children and teenagers.
According to the order paper released on Monday, Members of Parliament asked about the rationale behind plans to stop the partial masking of NRIC numbers, when was the decision to move away from that practice made, and whether the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) would face any sanctions for exposing NRIC numbers.
Privacy concerns were raised over ACRA's new Bizfile portal, which was launched on Dec 9, and showed names and full NRIC numbers for free via its search function.
Previously, search results displayed masked NRIC numbers, and users had to pay for full details, including NRIC numbers and addresses.
On Dec 14, the government said it had intended to change the practice of masking NRIC numbers, but the new Bizfile portal was launched before the plans were announced to the public.
The government on Dec 19 apologised to the public for the anxiety caused over the NRIC unmasking saga, while ACRA chief executive Chia-Tern Huey Min said the incident was due to a lapse in coordination.
She added that the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) had in July “issued a circular for government agencies to cease any planned use of masked NRIC numbers in new business processes and services”.
A lapse of coordination between the staff on how this was to be implemented, however, resulted in ACRA proceeding on the misunderstanding that it should unmask NRIC numbers in the new Bizfile portal, Mrs Chia-Tern said.
More than 30 questions on the matter were submitted by MPs.
MPs Liang Eng Hwa (PAP-Holland-Bukit Timah), Dr Tan Wu Meng (PAP-Jurong) and Sharael Taha (PAP-Pasir Ris-Punggol) asked for the rationale behind the government's intention to phase out the use of masked NRIC numbers.
Mr Liang also wanted to know whether the full availability of NRIC numbers to the public will pose security risks or individual privacy issues, and whether the private sector is aligned with the government's latest policy position.
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh (WP- Aljunied) asked when was the MDDI circular that sought to change the practice of masking NRIC numbers communicated to government agencies, and when did the government decide on the change and start making plans for it.
He also asked whether any whole-of-government discussions took place before and after the issuance of the circular and whether any other government agencies, aside from ACRA, had misread or misunderstood the circular.
MP Sylvia Lim (WP- Aljunied) wanted to know if sanctions will be imposed on ACRA or its officers due to the exposure of NRIC numbers via its Bizfile portal and whether the continued exemption of government agencies from the obligations of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) needs to be reviewed.
When CNA asked if action would be taken towards ACRA staff or any other agency found responsible for the lapse, Second Minister for Finance Indranee Rajah said on Dec 19 that it is “premature at this stage to say whether anything is going to happen to the particular staff in question”.
Several other questions that focused on the security risks and implications that come with the unmasking of NRIC numbers were filed.
MP Yip Won Heng (PAP-Yio Chu Kang) asked whether the move to unmask NRIC numbers could heighten the risk of NRIC-related scams, particularly among the elderly, while MP Christopher de Souza (PAP-Holland-Bukit Timah) asked how the government will ensure that Singaporeans are not exposed to the risks of scams and identity thefts as a result.
MP He Ting Ru (WP-Sengkang) sought data on the number of organisations investigated and fined under the PDPA for disclosing NRIC numbers, as well as the projected cost of the public re-education campaign on the appropriate use of NRIC information.
MPs also filed questions on telehealth abuse. Telemedicine practices have come under the spotlight over the past year, culminating with ManaDr clinic getting stripped of its licence last month.
MP Lim Wee Kiak (PAP-Sembawang) asked about the number of instances of non-compliance with telemedicine guidelines that have been reported to or identified by the Ministry of Health (MOH) in the past year, given the recent findings of potential lapses in telehealth consultations.
He also wanted to know the primary reasons for the lapses as well as the steps that have been taken to minimise these lapses.
Mr Taha asked whether MOH has observed any similar trends of unethical telemedicine practices by licensed providers of outpatient medical services, particularly of short consultations.
He also asked whether there was any evidence of misuse in the dispensation of drugs in this case and whether there are any other penalties or disciplinary actions that have been imposed on the licensed medical practitioners associated with ManaDr Clinic.
MOH said last October it will refer 41 doctors who conducted teleconsultations for MaNaDr Clinic to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) for possible professional misconduct as they had potentially breached one or more of the ethical guidelines set out by the council.
MP Ang Wei Neng (PAP-West Coast) wanted to know how many medical clinics providing telemedicine services have been audited or investigated for irregularities.
He also asked about the number of clinics that have been issued warnings or subject to more severe penalties after being audited or investigated, and the common lapses by such clinics.
Three MPs also asked about the risk and categorisation of vaping devices as Singapore has stepped up its enforcement on vaping.
Mr Tan wanted to know the government's assessment regarding the risk of vapes and equipment being repurposed for the distribution and administration of substances prohibited under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
He also asked whether there can be upfront closer collaboration between agencies to address issues arising from vapes.
MP Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (PAP-Choa Chu Kang) asked whether the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOH) has studied the relationship of vaping with any increased risk of drug abuse and the risk of vapes acting as a device to consume controlled drugs.
He also asked whether the government will classify vapes as an apparatus or other article under the Misuse of Drugs Act, given the risk of vapes being linked to drug abuse.
Mr Yip wanted to know whether the government will consider categorising vapes containing controlled drugs under the same legal framework as the drugs themselves, thus imposing similar penalties for trafficking and consumption.
He also asked about the specific measures that are being taken to raise public awareness, particularly among young people about the dangers of consuming drugs through vapes.
Other questions filed include the effectiveness of social media bans to protect young users in light of the recent ban that was passed by the Australian government and recent reports of crime involving knives.
Two Bills – the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill are scheduled to be introduced.
Eight other Bills, including the Protection from Scams Bill, the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill and the Workplace Fairness Bill are set for a second reading.
An adjournment motion has also been submitted by Non-Constituency MP Hazel Poa for a more equitable Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system.
Continue reading...
There were also questions filed on telemedicine practices in the wake of provider MaNaDr Clinic getting its licence revoked, vaping as well the possibility of further safeguards around social media usage for children and teenagers.
According to the order paper released on Monday, Members of Parliament asked about the rationale behind plans to stop the partial masking of NRIC numbers, when was the decision to move away from that practice made, and whether the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) would face any sanctions for exposing NRIC numbers.
Privacy concerns were raised over ACRA's new Bizfile portal, which was launched on Dec 9, and showed names and full NRIC numbers for free via its search function.
Previously, search results displayed masked NRIC numbers, and users had to pay for full details, including NRIC numbers and addresses.
On Dec 14, the government said it had intended to change the practice of masking NRIC numbers, but the new Bizfile portal was launched before the plans were announced to the public.
The government on Dec 19 apologised to the public for the anxiety caused over the NRIC unmasking saga, while ACRA chief executive Chia-Tern Huey Min said the incident was due to a lapse in coordination.
She added that the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) had in July “issued a circular for government agencies to cease any planned use of masked NRIC numbers in new business processes and services”.
A lapse of coordination between the staff on how this was to be implemented, however, resulted in ACRA proceeding on the misunderstanding that it should unmask NRIC numbers in the new Bizfile portal, Mrs Chia-Tern said.
More than 30 questions on the matter were submitted by MPs.
MPs Liang Eng Hwa (PAP-Holland-Bukit Timah), Dr Tan Wu Meng (PAP-Jurong) and Sharael Taha (PAP-Pasir Ris-Punggol) asked for the rationale behind the government's intention to phase out the use of masked NRIC numbers.
Mr Liang also wanted to know whether the full availability of NRIC numbers to the public will pose security risks or individual privacy issues, and whether the private sector is aligned with the government's latest policy position.
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh (WP- Aljunied) asked when was the MDDI circular that sought to change the practice of masking NRIC numbers communicated to government agencies, and when did the government decide on the change and start making plans for it.
He also asked whether any whole-of-government discussions took place before and after the issuance of the circular and whether any other government agencies, aside from ACRA, had misread or misunderstood the circular.
MP Sylvia Lim (WP- Aljunied) wanted to know if sanctions will be imposed on ACRA or its officers due to the exposure of NRIC numbers via its Bizfile portal and whether the continued exemption of government agencies from the obligations of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) needs to be reviewed.
When CNA asked if action would be taken towards ACRA staff or any other agency found responsible for the lapse, Second Minister for Finance Indranee Rajah said on Dec 19 that it is “premature at this stage to say whether anything is going to happen to the particular staff in question”.
Several other questions that focused on the security risks and implications that come with the unmasking of NRIC numbers were filed.
MP Yip Won Heng (PAP-Yio Chu Kang) asked whether the move to unmask NRIC numbers could heighten the risk of NRIC-related scams, particularly among the elderly, while MP Christopher de Souza (PAP-Holland-Bukit Timah) asked how the government will ensure that Singaporeans are not exposed to the risks of scams and identity thefts as a result.
MP He Ting Ru (WP-Sengkang) sought data on the number of organisations investigated and fined under the PDPA for disclosing NRIC numbers, as well as the projected cost of the public re-education campaign on the appropriate use of NRIC information.
Related:
TELEMEDICINE PRACTICES
MPs also filed questions on telehealth abuse. Telemedicine practices have come under the spotlight over the past year, culminating with ManaDr clinic getting stripped of its licence last month.
MP Lim Wee Kiak (PAP-Sembawang) asked about the number of instances of non-compliance with telemedicine guidelines that have been reported to or identified by the Ministry of Health (MOH) in the past year, given the recent findings of potential lapses in telehealth consultations.
He also wanted to know the primary reasons for the lapses as well as the steps that have been taken to minimise these lapses.
Mr Taha asked whether MOH has observed any similar trends of unethical telemedicine practices by licensed providers of outpatient medical services, particularly of short consultations.
He also asked whether there was any evidence of misuse in the dispensation of drugs in this case and whether there are any other penalties or disciplinary actions that have been imposed on the licensed medical practitioners associated with ManaDr Clinic.
MOH said last October it will refer 41 doctors who conducted teleconsultations for MaNaDr Clinic to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) for possible professional misconduct as they had potentially breached one or more of the ethical guidelines set out by the council.
MP Ang Wei Neng (PAP-West Coast) wanted to know how many medical clinics providing telemedicine services have been audited or investigated for irregularities.
He also asked about the number of clinics that have been issued warnings or subject to more severe penalties after being audited or investigated, and the common lapses by such clinics.
RISK AND CATEGORISATION OF VAPING DEVICES
Three MPs also asked about the risk and categorisation of vaping devices as Singapore has stepped up its enforcement on vaping.
Mr Tan wanted to know the government's assessment regarding the risk of vapes and equipment being repurposed for the distribution and administration of substances prohibited under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
He also asked whether there can be upfront closer collaboration between agencies to address issues arising from vapes.
MP Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (PAP-Choa Chu Kang) asked whether the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOH) has studied the relationship of vaping with any increased risk of drug abuse and the risk of vapes acting as a device to consume controlled drugs.
He also asked whether the government will classify vapes as an apparatus or other article under the Misuse of Drugs Act, given the risk of vapes being linked to drug abuse.
Mr Yip wanted to know whether the government will consider categorising vapes containing controlled drugs under the same legal framework as the drugs themselves, thus imposing similar penalties for trafficking and consumption.
He also asked about the specific measures that are being taken to raise public awareness, particularly among young people about the dangers of consuming drugs through vapes.
Other questions filed include the effectiveness of social media bans to protect young users in light of the recent ban that was passed by the Australian government and recent reports of crime involving knives.
Two Bills – the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill are scheduled to be introduced.
Eight other Bills, including the Protection from Scams Bill, the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill and the Workplace Fairness Bill are set for a second reading.
An adjournment motion has also been submitted by Non-Constituency MP Hazel Poa for a more equitable Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system.
Continue reading...