Lawyers criticised the Employees Provident Fund's (EPF) refusal to release financial data linked to M Indira Gandhi's ex-husband, Riduan Abdullah, arguing that the establishment cannot withhold such information when requested through court processes.
Speaking to Malaysiakini, lawyer Naran Singh described EPF’s refusal as "nonsense".
"The police or the respective deputy public prosecutor can get a subpoena (for an EPF official) from the court.
"Once the EPF officer receives the subpoena, they are obligated to appear in court, and the court makes the decision of the disclosure," he said.
On April 6, federal counsel Safiyyah Omar told the Ipoh High Court during a hearing on the progress of enforcing an arrest warrant against Riduan that police inquiries with the EPF were unsuccessful.
She said the EPF had declined to release the requested financial data, citing confidentiality rules.
An officer from the Perak police headquarters' Criminal Investigation Department, Yap Siew Cheng, confirmed this, saying that the EPF pointed to statutory limitations against releasing the data.
Yap said EPF stood firm in the face of formal requests accompanied by a court order and that the agency had asserted such information could not be released without the account holder's consent - even to law enforcement.
Privacy vs court order
Commenting on this, Bar Council ad hoc Parliament liaison committee deputy chairperson Kokila Vaani Vadiveloo noted that EPF's website itself stated that the data it collects may be disclosed if it involves court orders or legal proceedings.
According to EPF's privacy policy page, personal data may be released to relevant bodies to "comply with statutory requirements and government directions, court orders or legal processes, or if required by law".
Kokila also said that there are no clear provisions under the EPF Act 1991 that allow the agency to refuse to disclose personal data of any member.
Additionally, she said provisions under Section 39 of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) 2010 justify the release of personal data for the prevention or detection of crime, through court order, and due to public interest.
"Furthermore, Section 45(2)(a) of PDPA states that personal data processed for the purpose of police investigation, crime detection or prosecution is exempted from PDPA key principles.
"This shows that EPF may not be able to rely on PDPA for such refusal because there is no restriction on the disclosure when it comes to criminal investigation," she added.
Data confidentiality
Kokila stressed that the EPF is not the only agency with what she called "secrecy shields".
For example, she cited the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) legal framework under the Income Tax Act 1967 to prevent unauthorised access to records, while the Financial Services Act 2003 restricts Bank Negara Malaysia from arbitrarily releasing customer transaction activities to the police.
"Having clear provisions on data confidentiality for every agency is important for the prevention of abuse of power, where there are possibilities of law enforcement conducting fishing expeditions into the customer's private records.
"Furthermore, financial institutions rely heavily on public trust. When their personal data is being accessed easily by third parties without their consent or orders from the court, the trust in financial institutions will collapse," Kokila said.
Malaysiakini has reached out to the EPF for comments.
The hearing at the Ipoh High Court last week was part of proceedings initiated in 2020 to compel the police to appear in court and provide quarterly updates on their progress in locating Riduan, as well as Indira’s youngest daughter, Prasana Diksa.
Since Prasana had turned 18 on April 8, she is legally considered an adult, which means Indira will not be able to use the Child Act 2001 to compel the authorities to reunite her with her daughter.
Indira’s 17-year struggle began in 2009 when her ex-husband unilaterally converted their children to Islam, abducted Prasana, and disappeared.
The Ipoh High Court overturned the conversion of the three minors in 2013, ruling it violated natural justice since Indira’s consent was not obtained.
The court also granted her full custody.
In 2018, the Federal Court ordered the inspector-general of police to arrest Riduan for defying the High Court’s directive to return Prasana to her mother - a mandate which remains unfulfilled. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.