Personal Data Protection Act 2012 · 2020 Revised Edition · Part 9 · Do Not Call Registry
48. Defence for employee
Feedback & supportLast amended by an amending law of 2020.
In any proceedings for an offence under this Part brought against any employee in respect of an act or conduct alleged to have been done or engaged in (as the case may be) by the employee, it is a defence for the employee to prove that he or she did the act or engaged in the conduct in good faith —
proceedings
“proceedings” means any civil, criminal or administrative proceedings by or before a court, tribunal or regulatory authority that is related to the allegation of —(a)a breach of an agreement;(b)a contravention of any written law or any rule of professional conduct or other requirement imposed by any regulatory authority in exercise of its powers under any written law; or(c)a wrong or a breach of a duty for which a remedy is claimed under any law;
in the course of his or her employment; or
in accordance with instructions given to him or her by or on behalf of his or her employer in the course of his or her employment.
Section 43(1) or 44 does not apply to an employee (X) who sends a specified message addressed to a Singapore telephone number in good faith —
in the course of X’s employment; or
in accordance with instructions given to X by or on behalf of X’s employer in the course of X’s employment.
Section 45 does not apply to an employee (Y) who makes, causes to be made or authorises the making of a voice call containing a specified message, addressed to a Singapore telephone number, from a telephone number or fax number, in good faith —
voice call
“voice call” includes —(a)a call that involves a recorded or synthetic voice; or(b)in the case of a recipient with a disability (for example, a hearing impairment), a call that is equivalent to a voice call.
in the course of Y’s employment; or
in accordance with instructions given to Y by or on behalf of Y’s employer in the course of Y’s employment.
Subsection (1), (2) or (3) does not apply to an employee (Z) who, at the time the act was done or the conduct was engaged in, was an officer or a partner of Z’s employer and it is proved that —
Z knew or ought reasonably to have known that the telephone number is a Singapore telephone number listed in the relevant register; and
the specified message was sent with Z’s consent or connivance, or the sending of the specified message was attributable to any neglect on Z’s part.
In this section —
“corporation” has the meaning given by section 52(7);
“officer” —
in relation to a corporation, has the meaning given by section 52(7); or
in relation to an unincorporated association (other than a partnership), has the meaning given by section 52A(7);
“partner”, in relation to a partnership, has the meaning given by section 52A(7).