Skip to content Skip to footer

Deep Dive into Singapore’s PDPA and its Synergies with India’s DPDP

Deep Dive into Singapore’s PDPA and its Synergies with India’s DPDP


In the contemporary digital epoch, the significance of safeguarding personal data is paramount. Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA) has established a gold standard in data privacy, ensuring ethical data management. This legislation impacts all private entities handling personal data within Singapore, solidifying the nation’s reputation as a secure global data hub. India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA) and Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act of 2012 (PDPA) exemplify comprehensive legal frameworks that aim to strike a meticulous balance between protecting individuals’ privacy and facilitating the legal management of personal data by organizations.


The PDPA’s enactment aimed at instilling consumer confidence and ensuring responsible data handling. It necessitates individuals’ consent for data collection and usage, balancing the protection of personal rights and organizational data requirements.

Key Obligations

Central to Singapore’s PDPA are nine pivotal data protection obligations. These aim to harmonize the individual’s right to safeguard their data with organizational demands for data for valid and rational business functions.

  • Responsibility Principle: Stated in Sections 11 and 12, this principle necessitates organizations to formulate and implement comprehensible policies to comply with PDPA. Organizations are also tasked with educating their employees and publicizing these policies, ensuring alignment with PDPA requirements and offering proof of compliance when needed. Assigning a Data Protection Officer is also obligatory.
  • Consent Principle: Sections 13 to 17 emphasize that consent, either expressed or implied, is essential before processing personal data. Consent must be lawfully obtained and specific to the purpose conveyed. Unlike the GDPR, the PDPA is less rigid but highlights specific scenarios where consent is not required, as outlined in Section 17.
  • Purpose Specification Principle: Section 18 mandates that the processing of data must be reasonable and previously informed to the individual, aligning with Section 20’s notification obligation.
  • Data Retention Principle: Section 25 requires organizations to cease retaining personal data when it’s no longer needed for legal or business purposes. Though the PDPA lacks a direct data minimization principle like the GDPR, it indirectly encompasses it through this and the purpose specification principles.
  • Data Accuracy Principle: According to Section 23, organizations must strive to ensure the data’s accuracy, particularly when it impacts the individual’s legal rights or is being disclosed to another entity.
  • Data Security Principle: Section 24 obliges organizations to institute apt security protocols to avert unauthorized data access or manipulation, and loss of data storage equipment.
  • Access and Rectification Principle: Sections 21 and 22 entitle individuals to access and correct their data. Exceptions exist, such as data held for evaluative purposes, disclosure that could expose confidential information, or data linked to ongoing investigations. Section 21(3) enumerates instances where access can be denied, but exemptions do not cover user activity or provided data.
  • Data Transfer Restriction Principle: Section 26 restricts transferring personal data overseas, ensuring it receives equivalent protection as per PDPA standards. Data sourced internationally and processed in Singapore is also subjected to PDPA once within the country’s borders.

These principles, crafted within the PDPA, are instrumental in fostering a balanced ecosystem where individual data privacy coexists with organizational data requirements for legitimate business operations.

Data Breach Notifications 

Sections 26A-26E dictate obligatory notification protocols in the event of significant data breaches, ensuring transparency and proactive remedial actions.

Offenses Affecting Data and Anonymized Information

Sections 48E-48F classify unauthorized disclosure or misuse of personal data and the re-identification of anonymized data as offenses, underscoring data security’s criticality.

Enforcement: The PDPC

The Personal Data Protection Commission oversees PDPA enforcement, providing guidance, educational resources, and issue resolution services. It also maintains the right to institute advisory committees to enhance its operational effectiveness.

Appeal Mechanism

Sections 48P-48R of the PDPA outline a comprehensive appeal process against the Commission’s decisions. Appeals can be filed to the Data Protection Appeal Panel and subsequently to the General Division of the High Court, ensuring judicial oversight.

Compliance and DPO Appointment

Sections 11 and 12 stipulate organizational compliance requirements, including the appointment of a Data Protection Officer (DPO). The DPO ensures internal PDPA adherence, addresses inquiries and complaints, and liaises with the PDPC, playing a pivotal role in an organization’s data protection ecosystem.

Analysing the Data Protection Frameworks in India and Singapore 

India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 (DPDPA) and Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act of 2012 (PDPA) serve as pivotal legal instruments, instrumental in outlining the protocols for the management and handling of personal data within their respective jurisdictions. These acts delineate the rights of individuals and obligations of organizations, underscoring the harmonious integration of data utility and privacy.

Legal Instruments and Jurisdictional Reach

India’s DPDPA governs both digital and digitized personal data, addressing the collection, processing, and dissemination aspects, whether conducted within or beyond Indian territory, under specific conditions. Contrastingly, Singapore’s PDPA is designed to oversee the collection, utilization, and disclosure of personal data by organizations in Singapore, with particular regulations applying to data transferred internationally.

Provisions on Data Transfer

The DPDPA necessitates that data fiduciaries ensure robust safeguards are in place during international data transfers, accentuated by explicit consent requirements for sensitive data. On the other hand, the PDPA obligates organizations to enact suitable protections during cross-border data transfers, complemented by individual consent requirements.

Consent and Notification Obligations

Both legal frameworks demand that entities secure consent before processing personal information. The DPDPA and PDPA necessitate comprehensive notifications to data subjects, delineating data categories, origins, recipients, and data subject rights.

Regulatory Authorities

The DPDPA envisages the creation of a Data Protection Board (DPB), entrusted with enforcement, investigation, and imposition of penalties. Conversely, Singapore’s PDPA has instituted the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) with a similar mandate.

Penalty Structures

DPDPA: Depending on the nature and gravity of the violation, the DPDP Act imposes fines ranging from INR 10,000 to INR 250 billion for violations of its provisions. 

PDPA: The PDPA stipulates monetary penalties of up to SGD 1 million for violations of its provisions.        

Exemption Clauses

Both frameworks offer exemptions for data processing in contexts like national security, legal proceedings, and research. Furthermore, processing for personal, domestic, and journalistic purposes is excluded under both acts.

The Principle of Voluntary Provision

India’s DPDPA highlights the “voluntary provision” clause for data processing, which is akin to Singapore’s “deemed consent by conduct” under the PDPA.

The concept of “voluntary provision” resembles Singapore’s “deemed consent by conduct” Under Section 15(1) of Singapore’s PDPA, “an individual is presumed to consent to the collection, use, or disclosure of personal data about the individual by an organisation for a purpose if (a) the individual voluntarily provides the personal data to the organisation for that purpose; and (b) it is reasonable to expect that the individual would voluntarily provide the data”. This concept of “deemed consent by conduct” in Singapore is explained in advisory guidelines issued by the Personal Data Protection Commission of Singapore (Singapore’s PDPC), which state that “the purposes [for which organisations can process personal data in reliance on deemed consent] are limited to those that are objectively obvious and reasonably appropriate from the surrounding circumstances”.

Addressing Publicly Available Data

Both countries provide exemptions for processing publicly available data, though the definitions and scope vary, reflecting the nuanced approach to balancing privacy and accessibility.

DPDPA:  Under India’s DPDPA, there is a non-applicability clause for “personal data which has been made accessible to the public or is displayed publicly.” The law incorporates examples to illustrate scenarios where sensitive information may become accessible to the public, though it doesn’t provide an in-depth analysis of the term “publicly available.”

PDPA: In Singapore, there exists a provision, though not as extensive, that allows for the exemption of data that is readily accessible to the public. The city-state’s PDPA authorizes the gathering, utilization, and sharing of data that is open to the public without the necessity for individual consent. Publicly available data, under the PDPA, is defined as data that can easily be obtained by the public and comprises data observable through ordinary means at locations or events where the individual is present and which are accessible to the public. The PDPC of Singapore offers additional insights and clarifications on this through its advisory guidelines, addressing complex issues including the categorization of CCTV footage, recordings within vehicles, and information accessible on social media and other public online platforms.

International Perspective: On the global front, exceptions for data that is publicly accessible are not widespread, with only a few countries, notably India, Singapore, and to some extent, China, providing such exemptions. This was highlighted in a collective declaration by regulatory bodies from twelve different nations, such as Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, and the UK. These authorities pointed out that their respective data privacy legislations lack a blanket exemption for data that is publicly accessible, especially concerning data extraction from social media and similar public online platforms.

Public Authority Exemptions

Both acts grant extensive exemptions to government agencies, ensuring flexibility in data processing for public welfare and governance.

Business Contact Information

The DPDPA’s provisions are silent on the definition of “business contact information,” while the PDPA provides a detailed interpretation, establishing a pragmatic balance between privacy rights and business necessities.


Singapore’s PDPA emerges as a comprehensive legal edifice, balancing individual privacy with organizational data requirements, fostering a trusted environment for data management and promoting Singapore as a reliable data hub. Its intricate design, marked by consent principles, organizational accountability, and regulatory oversight by the PDPC, underscores Singapore’s commitment to data privacy.

India’s DPDPA, though newer, echoes similar sentiments, highlighting potential convergence points for entities operating in both countries, enhancing compliance efficiency, and promoting consistent data protection norms. The synergies between the DPDPA and PDPA amplify the potential for bilateral trade and multinational operational consistency.

As the digital economy proliferates, the PDPA stands as a testament to Singapore’s adeptness in navigating the intricate balance between data-driven innovation and privacy preservation, marking a cornerstone in global data protection narrative.



Leave a comment

Subscribe to the updates!

[mc4wp_form id="461" element_id="style-11"]