Brief Summary
This video discusses the controversy surrounding the unmasking of National Identification (NR) numbers in Singapore. The opposition leader raises concerns about the lack of transparency and public consultation regarding this decision, highlighting the potential privacy implications. The Minister of Digital Development and Information responds by providing details about the public consultation process and the government's rationale for the change.
- The opposition leader questions the government's decision to unmask NR numbers despite public concerns and previous consultations.
- The Minister clarifies the timeline of the public consultation and the government's response to feedback.
- The Minister emphasizes the importance of whole-of-government discussions and briefings in implementing such changes.
Public Consultation and Feedback
The Minister explains that a public consultation on the proposed masking of NR numbers was conducted in April 2024. The consultation summary outlined the proposal to partially mask NR numbers and introduce a contact address as the default address for individuals. Some respondents expressed concerns about the need for full identification numbers for corporate transparency and know-your-client requirements. Others sought clarification on how to identify individuals associated with specific businesses. In response, ACRA decided to proceed with the contact address proposal and further review the masking of identification numbers.
Government's Rationale and Timeline
The Minister clarifies that the Ministry circular seeking to change the practice of masking NR numbers was issued in July 2024. The decision to change the practice was made after discussions and briefings within the government. The Minister emphasizes that whole-of-government discussions and briefings are standard practice for changes of this nature. The Minister also mentions that government agencies often compile frequently asked questions to provide guidance to colleagues. While the Minister acknowledges the incident that occurred on December 9th, she refrains from providing specific details about the events leading up to it, citing the potential for further questions and the risk of giving the impression of concealment.
