Singapore: A person is suing the organization after exposing his personal information to her after filing a complaint against a Singapore Kindness Movement advertising.  ,
The Singapore Kindness Movement, a non-government institution of public character, was the subject of Mr. Piper’s civil lawsuit, which was filed on Monday ( 5 August ) in the state courts.  ,
The unemployed 51-year-old man is claiming that giving Ms. Carol Loi Pui Wan, a woman he had complained about, his name and email address violated the Personal Data Protection Act of 2012 ( PDPA ).
Ms Loi is the co-founder of the SGFamilies ground-up motion, which is an affiliate of the Singapore Kindness Movement.  ,
In September 2022, Ms Loi filed a lawsuit against Mr. Piper under the Protection From Harassment Act 2014 ( POHA ).
Nevertheless, she refrained from making this state, and a separate harassment claim against Ms. Loi by Mr. Piper, a previous Progress Singapore Party member, was settled out of court last month, according to Mr. Piper. In July of last year, Mr. Piper left the opposition group.
According to the papers filed by Mr. Piper’s attorneys, Fong Wei Li and Tiffanie Lim of Forward Legal, their client “experienced financial damage and personal problems” in responding to Ms Loi’s state. Following his grievance, Mr Piper received death threats which referred to Ms Loi, according to his opening speech.
He is seeking damages – , with the number to be decided by the court , – , fees, and a declaration that the Singapore Kindness Movement breached its obligations under the PDPA.  ,
The Singapore Kindness Movement, represented by Rajah & Tann’s Top Lawyers Gregory Vijayendran and Meher Malhotra, claimed that their client’s attempts to connect Mr. Piper and Ms. Loi were rejected and that this led to the formation of a conflict between the two.  ,
Dr William Wan, a Singapore Kindness Movement top specialist, was present in court and is expected to be a testimony for the respondent.  ,
MR PIPER’S CLAIM ,
Around August 27, 2022, Mr. Piper emailed the Singapore Kindness Movement, according to court records. His complete name and email address, which were included in his personal information, were included in the internet.  ,
” To ( Mr Piper’s ) knowledge, ( Ms Loi ) was engaging in discriminatory conduct by operating a chat group on Telegram Messenger which disseminated transphobic and anti-LGBT material”, Mr Piper’s statement of claim stated.  ,
Mr. Piper felt it was appropriate to complain to the generosity about Ms. Loi’s do because she was aware that she was a member of the Singapore Kindness Movement.  ,
The head of the Singapore Kindness Movement’s strategic marketing and contacts, Karun S’Baram, stated in a reply message from Sep. 1 that Ms Loi was only involved in her personal power as a” involved citizen.”
In response to his grievance, Mr. Piper sent an email on September 4, 2022 with more details.  ,
Mr. Karun responded to Ms. Loi in an email reply on September 7, 2022, exposing Mr. Piper’s name and email address to her in an inbox email.  ,
The Singapore Kindness Movement, according to Mr. Piper’s attorneys, had violated its rights under the PDPA by, among other things, disclosing Mr. Loi’s full email thread and not obtaining his assent.  ,
Ms. Loi sued Mr. Piper on behalf of the company on September 5, 2022, alleging that he had harmed her as a result of the internet thread.  ,
” In responding to the POHA claim, ( Mr Piper ) suffered financial loss and emotional distress”, his lawyers said.  ,
” Between October 2022 and May 2023, ( Mr Piper ) and/or his solicitors sought explanations from the ( Singapore Kindness Movement ) on ( its ) PDPA breaches. To date, the ( Singapore Kindness movement ) has not provided any substantive explanation”.
The ( Singapore Kindness Movement’s ) dismissive, cynical, and evasive response to its PDPA violations “exacerbated the emotional distress that ( Mr. Piper ) experienced.”
The lawyers claimed that Mr. Piper suffered losses as well as emotional problems as a result of the Singapore Kindness Movement’s reported PDPA intrusions.  ,
Mr Piper’s location may be likened to that of a journalist given the nature of the issue, his attorneys argued.  ,
According to them,” Mr. Piper” believes that it is important for the PDPA to be read in a way that protects whistleblowers given that there is no overarching regulations governing legislation in Singapore, despite the fact that personal information can be used for investigative reasons.”
SINGAPORE KINDNESS MOVEMENT’S Event
The Singapore Kindness Movement described Mr Piper’s situation as “unmeritorious”, and denied contravening its PDPA responsibility.
The Personal Data Protection Commission issue was not filed with the organization in its opening statement, as would have normally be the case for a problem under the PDPA, according to the organization’s attorneys.  ,
The non-profit organization will provide more information about how to carry out its analytical duties and promote mediation among the parties.  ,
” This was also part and parcel of the ( Singapore Kindness Movement ) achieving their proactive, Samaritan and pacific goals: By authenticating the complaint and connecting ( Mr Piper ) to Ms Loi”, said the defendant in its opening statement.  ,
” Nonetheless, the ( Singapore Kindness Movement’s ) kind efforts in discharging such duties have not only been rebuffed but ultimately culminated in the ( Singapore Kindness Movement ) being caught in a crossfire between ( Mr Piper ) and Ms Loi”.
The doctors said that the donation was” an honest middleman” performing” an act of kindness” in line with its goals.  ,
The generosity argued that Mr. Piper was deemed to possess consented to the collection, use, or publication of personal information as he deliberately provided it for an investigation as one of its defenses against the PDPA intrusions.
The plaintiff argued that Mr. Piper had not specifically requested anonymity and that it was appropriate for Singapore Kindness Movement to had disclosed his details when he testified as the first witness on Monday.  ,
But, Mr Piper disagreed. He claimed that using his name and email address to contact him would have been acceptable, but that Ms Loi had not been given access to the information.  ,
Mr. Vijayendran then said to Mr. Piper,” I’m going to throw it to you because you deliberately consented to the reporting of your private information to Singapore Kindness Movement for their investigation.”
Mr Piper disagreed. According to his encounter with Standard Chartered Bank handling team issues, Mr. Piper claimed that while he was expected to respond to complainants, he was not required to give the names of the complainants.  ,
” This is standard security process”, he added.  ,
Additionally, Mr. Vijayendran argued that reporting was usually based on organizational management or staff, and that the analogy was ineffective in this situation because Ms. Loi was neither employed by the Singapore Kindness Movement nor by its management.
Mr Piper disagreed with these comments.  ,
The demo will continue on Monday and will last until Tuesday.