Man loses suit against Singapore Kindness Movement for revealing his identity to woman he accused of transphobia

SINGAPORE: A man’s lawsuit against the Singapore Kindness Movement (SKM) - over allegations that an affiliate promoted discrimination against transgender individuals - has been dismissed by the State Courts.

Mr Martin Piper, 51, sued SKM, which is a non-government Institution of Public Character, for revealing his details to the affiliate in question, Ms Carol Loi Pui Wan.

Ms Loi is the co-founder of SGFamilies Ground-up Movement, which bills itself as being “by parents, for parents” and “raising wholesome generations together”. It is supported by SKM.

Mr Piper, who is unemployed, was suing SKM for damages and a declaration that the organisation had breached its obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).

His claim related to an Aug 27, 2022, email he sent to SKM complaining about Ms Loi and her purported involvement in an “SG Families Watchgroup” Telegram group.

Mr Piper’s email contained his full name and email address, and this personal data was disclosed to Ms Loi when an SKM staff member copied her in a subsequent reply to Mr Piper.

Mr Piper claimed that this had breached SKM’s PDPA obligations and caused him to suffer financial losses and emotional distress through a claim that Ms Loi later filed against him under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA).

But in a judgment dated Nov 12, Deputy Principal District Judge Chiah Kok Khun dismissed the suit.

He found that Mr Piper had provided his data to SKM for the purpose of investigating the complaint, and this gave rise to a presumption of consent to disclose his data.

“The claimant had volunteered his personal data. He made a complaint and wanted the defendant to carry out an investigation. He did not request for his identity to be anonymised. He is reasonably deemed to have consented to the disclosure of his personal data,” the judge said.

Mr Piper’s email complaint was about an “SG Families Watchgroup” Telegram group that he said was “promoting discriminatory and false material that is designed to insult and harass transgender people”.

He claimed that the owner of the Telegram group was Ms Loi and said he had hoped that SKM would reach out to her, gain control of the group and remove the “nasty content” in it.

SKM staff member Mr Karun S’baram replied on Sep 1, 2022, that Ms Loi had clarified the Telegram group was not associated with SGFamilies Ground-up Movement, she was not the group’s founder or owner, and she was involved in the group as a concerned citizen in her personal capacity.

After Mr Piper came back with more information about Ms Loi’s purported involvement, Mr Karun replied to him on Sep 7, 2022, while copying Ms Loi, saying that it would be best for her to respond to Mr Piper directly.

During the trial, it emerged that SKM had also revealed Mr Piper’s data to Ms Loi three other times – twice when its then general secretary, Dr William Wan, told her the identity of the person who had complained about her, and once when Mr Karun blind copied her in a reply to Mr Piper.

But the judge found that Mr Piper should have expected his identity to be disclosed in the course of the investigation by SKM, which was represented by Senior Counsel Gregory Vijayendran and Meher Malhotra of Rajah & Tann.

He also noted that Mr Piper did not ask to be kept anonymous, nor for his email correspondence to be kept private and confidential.

The judge also found no evidence of “bad faith” by SKM in disclosing Mr Piper’s identity to Ms Loi, and said that the organisation was open about facilitating a discussion and resolution between them.

NOT A “WHISTLEBLOWING” CASE

The judge found that Mr Piper, represented by lawyers Fong Wei Li and Tiffanie Lim of Forward Legal, ran into a fundamental problem trying to characterise his claim as a “whistleblowing” case.

Firstly, the fact that Singapore has no overarching legislation governing whistleblowing cannot be a basis for assuming that the PDPA serves this function, which it does not, the judge said.

Secondly, a common understanding of a “whistleblower” is “one who reveals something covert or who informs against another, especially, an employee who brings wrongdoing by an employer or by other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency”.

Whistleblowers are employed by the organisation in question and whistleblowing concerns matters relating to the management or staff of the organisation, said Judge Chiah.

But neither Mr Piper nor Ms Loi were employed by SKM, and the complaint did not concern SKM's management or staff. “This is an insurmountable hurdle to the claimant’s attempt to characterise his claim as a ‘whistleblowing’ case,” the judge found.

The judge also did not agree that Mr Piper suffered any loss or damage caused directly by SKM’s disclosure of his identity to Ms Loi.

Ms Loi filed a POHA claim against Mr Piper on Sep 5, 2022, alleging that his Aug 27, 2022, email harassed her. In September 2022, she also published screenshots, photos and comments in a Facebook album documenting her process of filing the POHA claim.

Mr Piper claimed that he had incurred considerable expenses responding to the POHA claim and suffered emotional distress, including death threats after the publication of the Facebook album led to him being identified as the complainant.

This emotional distress led him to withdraw as a member of the Progress Singapore Party, and caused his physical health to deteriorate, resulting in a diagnosis of post-traumatic disorder, he claimed.

But the judge found that any emotional distress Mr Piper suffered had a direct link to Ms Loi’s POHA claim and the Facebook album, rather than SKM’s disclosure of his identity. 

“Whilst it may seem intuitive to argue that the disclosure of the claimant’s identity led to Ms Loi filing the POHA claim, which in turn led to her publishing the album, the direct causal requirement … is to be stringently applied,” the judge said.

Judge Chiah also noted that Mr Piper had been receiving death threats since before the POHA claim and Facebook album, and that there was no clear medical evidence of PTSD.

However, the judge stressed that his findings did not detract from the serious nature of the death threats made against Mr Piper, and that the court did not take this lightly.

The judge dismissed the case and asked parties to file submissions on costs within 14 days.