Martin Piper was formerly a prominent member of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP). He was featured in the party's Hari Raya Puasa 2020 music video and was a consistent presence in the party's walkabouts. Unlike members from most other opposition parties, he did not shy away from being a publicly vocal proponent for LGBT equality [1]. While other opposition politicians like Pritam Singh of the Workers' Party skirted around issues such as the repeal of Section 377A, Piper went so far as to appeal to the High Commissioner of Canada to Singapore to hinge trade deals on Singapore's willingness to eradicate Section 377A of the Penal Code, the law which criminalised sex between male adults. Piper has also stood up for the rights of same-sex couples to adopt children, and is one of the administrators of the pro-LGBT rights Facebook page Real Singaporeans defending the family and shared values@truesingaporelove.

Piper was considered a prime choice to represent the PSP in the 2020 General Election, given his candour, outspokenness, and stellar career track record – he was the QA Head for Wealth and Private Banking at Standard Chartered Bank. With the Singapore Democratic Party and the Reform Party being the only opposition parties to date which have spoken up for LGBT rights in Singapore, it would have been interesting to see how Piper could have steered things forward if elected into parliament. However, he left the party in July 2023.

LGBT allyship[]

Piper is a staunch straight ally of Singapore's LGBT community. He often refutes hate speech by anti-LGBT groups and counters homophobic or uninformed arguments made online by members of mainstream society. Owing to his relentless advocacy LGBT equality, he has been the target of doxxing and death threats by hate groups such as "We Are Against Pinkdot in Singapore".

Victim of doxxing[]

In 2018, Piper and his family were doxxed - his private details, including residential address, were shared widely by the hate group “We Are Against Pinkdot in Singapore”. Other anti-LGBT groups also shared the content around this time.

Eventually a court ordered the material to be taken down and an apology made to Piper, a screenshot of which is attached below:

Screen captures made by Piper at the time of the doxxing revealed participation from religious leaders like Nina Khong. "Teril Lucifere" was a pseudonymous alternate account used by the main perpetrator while his main account was blocked by Facebook. The screen grabs are appended below:

This involvement caused extra worry and stress for Piper's family because he felt a “religious leader” posed a greater risk of inciting his/her followers to do something unwise. Religious leaders being involved with the hate group increased the risk of discrimination:

Received death threat[]

On 17 May 2021, Piper posted the following message on his Facebook [2]:

"Today is the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. It's time I share my experience, to speak out so that others know they are not alone.

MartinPiper002 — Straight ally of Singapore's LGBT community, **Martin Piper**.

About a year ago I received a physical death threat, it was violent and homophobic, which is crazy because I'm straight and married. The content left me without much doubt as to who sent it. There were other online threats around the same time. The police investigated, but nobody was charged.

A threat against me, is a threat against my family. It is a threat against society, by a small minority in Singapore intent on pushing their agenda of discrimination.

As part of the recent United Nations Human Rights periodic review, the Singapore government claimed they don't tolerate discrimination. But the fact is a well known Singapore based hate group called "We Are Against Pink Dot" still exists despite being active for years. The members of that group threaten and discriminate against others.

I stand up for human rights, I am against discrimination in all its forms. This is my painful story."

Documentation of threats[]

Civil suit against Singapore Kindness Movement for breaching Personal Data Protection Act[]

SporeKindnessMovementLogo001 — The Singapore Kindness Movement logo.

On Monday, 5 August 2024, then 51 year-old Piper's civil suit against the Singapore Kindness Movement (SKM), a non-government Institution of Public Character and a charity, opened at the State Courts. Piper was sueing the organisation for breaching the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA) for revealing his name and email address without his consent to Carol Loi Pui Wan, a woman he had complained to the organisation about. Loi was the co-founder of the SGFamilies Ground-up Movement, which billed itself as being “by parents, for parents” and “raising wholesome generations together”. It was an affiliate of and supported by the Singapore Kindness Movement. Loi eventually filed a claim against Piper under the Protection From Harassment Act 2014 (POHA) in September 2022. However she dropped this claim, and a separate harassment claim by Piper against Loi was settled out of court in July 2024.

Documents filed by Piper's lawyers Fong Wei Li and Tiffanie Lim of Forward Legal stated that their client suffered "financial loss and emotional distress" in responding to Loi's claim. Following his complaint, Piper received death threats which referred to Loi, according to his opening statement. He sought damages – with the amount to be decided by the court – costs, and a declaration that the Singapore Kindness Movement breached its obligations under the PDPA. The Singapore Kindness Movement's lawyers, Senior Counsel Gregory Vijayendran and Meher Malhotra of Rajah & Tann, said their client's efforts to connect Piper and Loi were not only rebuffed, but led to the organisation being caught in a crossfire between the two.

Dr William Wan, a Singapore Kindness Movement senior consultant and its former general secretary, was present in court and was expected to be a witness for the defendant. Loi and Karun S'Baram, the Singapore Kindness Movement staff member who responded to Piper's complaint and who copied Loi in a subsequent reply to Piper, would also testify. According to court documents, Piper sent an email to the Singapore Kindness Movement on around 27 August 2022 complaining about Loi and her purported involvement in an SG Families Watchgroup Telegram group. The email contained his full name and email address, which were part of his personal data. "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," Piper's statement of claim stated. Piper knew that Loi was affiliated with the Singapore Kindness Movement and therefore thought it appropriate to lodge a complaint to the charity about her conduct, it added. Piper had hoped that the SKM would reach out to Loi, gain control of the Telegram group and remove the "nasty content" in it.

In a reply email, dated 1 September 2022, the Singapore Kindness Movement's Karun, then its head of strategic marketing and communications, said that Loi was neither the owner nor founder of the Telegram chat, and that her involvement was limited to her personal capacity as a "concerned citizen". Piper responded in a 4 September 2022 email to provide more information supplementing his complaint. In an email reply on 7 September 2022, Karun responded to Piper but copied Loi in the email thread, exposing Piper's name and email address to her. During the trial, it emerged that even before Loi was copied in the email reply, the SKM had revealed Piper's identity to her in a phone call, at a meeting and by blind copying her in an earlier email response. Piper's lawyers said that the Singapore Kindness Movement had violated its obligations under the PDPA by failing to obtain his consent for the use or disclosure of his personal data, and revealing the entire email thread to Loi without his consent, among other breaches.

On around 5 September 2022, Loi filed her suit against Piper, alleging that he had caused her harassment due to the email thread. She also made Facebook posts documenting her process of filing the claim, after which Piper received threatening messages. Loi withdrew the harassment suit in May 2023. "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 dismissive, cavalier and evasive response of the (Singapore Kindness Movement) in respect of its PDPA breaches exacerbated the emotional distress caused to (Mr Piper)." Piper's position should be likened to that of a whistleblower given the nature of the complaint, his lawyers argued. "Considering the fact that there is no overarching legislation governing legislation in Singapore, (Mr Piper) takes the position that it is crucial for the PDPA to be read in a manner that protects whistleblowers, notwithstanding the fact that the personal data can be used for investigative purposes," they said.

The Singapore Kindness Movement described Piper's case as "unmeritorious", and denied contravening its PDPA obligations. In its opening statement, lawyers for the organisation pointed out that there was no evidence that Piper had lodged a complaint with the Personal Data Protection Commission, as would have normally been the case for a complaint under the PDPA. The non-profit organisation would elaborate how it needed to discharge its investigative duties and promote conciliation between 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 lawyers said that the charity was "an innocent middleman" performing "an act of kindness" in line with its objectives. Among its arguments against the PDPA breaches, the charity argued that Piper was deemed to have consented to the collection, use or disclosure of personal data as he voluntarily provided his personal data for the purposes of an investigation. Questioning Piper, who testified on the stand as the first witness on Monday, 5 August 2024, the defendant sought to argue that Piper had not explicitly requested to stay anonymous and that it had been reasonable for Singapore Kindness Movement to have communicated his details. However, Piper disagreed. He said it would have been reasonable for the Singapore Kindness Movement to have used his name and email address to contact him, but not to reveal the details to Loi.

Vijayendran then put to Piper: "I'm going to put it to you, because you voluntarily agreed to provide your personal data to Singapore Kindness Movement for the investigation, you had impliedly consented to the disclosure of your personal data for their investigation." Piper disagreed. Referring to his experience as a former senior manager with Standard Chartered Bank dealing with staff complaints, Piper said that while he was expected to reply to complainants, he was not supposed to disclose complainants' names to the subjects of complaints. "This is normal confidentiality procedure," he added. Vijayendran also argued that whistleblowing typically related to management or staff within an organisation and that the analogy was not applicable in this case, as Loi was not employed with the Singapore Kindness Movement or within its management. Piper disagreed with these statements. The trial was slated to run until Tuesday, 6 August 2024.

Piper loses suit[]

In a judgment dated 12 November 2024, Deputy Principal District Judge Chiah Kok Khun dismissed the suit. He found that 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.

On 26 November 2024, Piper said that he was disappointed by the outcome and was considering an appeal "so that a higher court can clarify the law in this pressing area", adding: "I started this lawsuit not only because I wanted accountability for the way my personal data was dealt with, but also because I wanted to do what I could to make sure that marginalised communities feel safe and protected when filing complaints." He claimed that the owner of the Telegram group was 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 Karun S’baram replied on 1 September 2022, that 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 Piper came back with more information about Loi’s purported involvement, Karun replied to him on 7 September 2022, while copying Loi, saying that it would be best for her to respond to Piper directly. During the trial, it emerged that SKM had also revealed Piper’s data to 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 Karun blind copied her in a reply to Piper.

But the judge found that Piper should have expected his identity to be disclosed in the course of the investigation by SKM. He also noted that 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 the SKM in disclosing Piper’s identity to Loi, and said that the organisation was open about facilitating a discussion and resolution between them.

The judge found that Piper 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 could not be a basis for assuming that the PDPA served this function, which it did not, the judge said. Secondly, a common understanding of a “whistleblower” was “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 were employed by the organisation in question and whistleblowing concerned matters relating to the management or staff of the organisation, said Judge Chiah. But neither Piper nor Loi were employed by the SKM, and the complaint did not concern the 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 Piper suffered any loss or damage caused directly by SKM’s disclosure of his identity to Loi. Loi filed a POHA claim against Piper on 5 September 2022, alleging that his 27 August 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. 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 Chiah found that any emotional distress Piper suffered had a direct link to 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. He also noted that Piper had been receiving death threats since before the POHA claim and Facebook album, and that there was no clear medical evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, he stressed that his findings did not detract from the serious nature of the death threats made against 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. Piper later filed an appeal.

Piper wins appeal[]

See also: Archive of District Court Appeal No 28 of 2024 between Martin Piper (Appellent) and Singapore Kindness Movement (Respondent)

On Friday, 29 August 2025, the High Court ruled that the Singapore Kindness Movement breached an obligation to protect Piper's personal data. This was a turnaround in the lawsuit. Justice Hoo Sheau Peng found that it was unnecessary for the SKM to have disclosed Piper's personal details to Loi in the course of investigating his complaint against her. Out of goodwill, the SKM might have wanted to conciliate between Piper and Loi, but this did not fall within the purpose for which Piper gave the SKM his details, which was to investigate his complaint, she found. The judge ruled that the SKM had breached its obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). But she dismissed Piper's appeal as she found that SKM's breach did not directly lead to his purported emotional distress.

Piper was relieved by the judge's finding on the PDPA breach. "What matters most to me is the court's clear statement that organisations cannot simply expose the identity of complainants in the way SKM did," he said. "In the right circumstances, complaints must be handled with confidentiality to prevent retaliation and to give people the confidence to speak up against wrongs. I hope SKM reflects on this judgment and improves how it handles complaints, so that no one else has to go through what I did. And perhaps, going forward, that it shows a little more kindness in practice."

The SKM said in a statement that its actions were motivated by a commitment to transparency and resolving conflicts in an amicable manner. "When Mr Piper contacted us with serious allegations, we served as an impartial facilitator and honest broker to help address the concerns raised," said the non-governmental organisation. "Our intended outcome was always to promote direct, respectful communication between the parties involved while maintaining the integrity of our investigative process." The organisation also said that it had comprehensively reviewed its PDPA policies and guidelines after the case, and would maintain regular reviews to ensure compliance with evolving regulatory standards and best practices.

Justice Hoo analysed whether Piper had given his "deemed consent" for his details to be disclosed to Loi. To establish deemed consent, the nature of the personal data being disclosed must be weighed against the purpose of providing such data in the first place, she said. "For instance, it would be reasonable for an individual to voluntarily provide his name and contact details within a form for the purpose of participating in a free-to-enter competition, where no prize money is involved," said the judge. But if the form asks for bank account details, it would not be reasonable to say that the individual volunteered this information for the same purpose. This was because such sensitive personal data would not be required to join a free-to-enter competition with no prize money.

In Piper's case, it was reasonable that he voluntarily provided his name and email address to the SKM for the purpose of investigating his complaint. This was because the SKM's personal data protection policy stated that it was generally unable to deal with anonymous complaints, and so SKM could continue to correspond with him on the complaint over email. "It then follows that SKM could only have collected, used or disclosed Mr Piper's full name and email address for the sole purpose of investigating his complaint against Ms Loi," said Justice Hoo. The judge found that it was unnecessary for SKM to have disclosed Piper's personal data to Ms Loi in the course of investigations. "There was simply no need for SKM to have authenticated Mr Piper's identity with Ms Loi before carrying out its investigations, because no part of the investigations would have turned on the identity or email address of the complainant," she said. "Put another way, it was immaterial whether Ms Loi knew Mr Piper's personal data."

Justice Hoo further noted that Piper's complaint was not about Loi's conduct towards him specifically. "SKM could simply have approached Ms Loi, stated the allegations that it was investigating her for, and sought the necessary clarifications from Ms Loi," she said. "Upon receiving Ms Loi's clarifications, SKM could have come to its findings, before taking the appropriate remedial action, if any." If Loi had refused to cooperate, SKM could have considered other means to escalate the matter for investigations. And if SKM thought that Piper's complaints had no merit, it could have told him so, although even then there would have been no reason to disclose his personal details to Loi, the judge found.

Justice Hoo also said that in the context of a complaint, the person being complained about could reasonably feel aggrieved, bear a grudge and even retaliate against the complainant. It was reasonable for a complainant to be concerned about such repercussions, even if he or she was expected to stand by the complaint. It was therefore reasonable for an organisation to disclose the complainant's personal data only if needed for investigating the matter. "The nature of the allegations would be important. One instance where such disclosure may be required or necessary is if the complainant alleges wrongdoing specifically committed against himself or herself," explained the judge.

Piper was saddened that despite the judgment in his favour, the court ruled that his pain and suffering did not reach the legal threshold for damages to be awarded.

References[]

Acknowledgements[]

This article was written by Roy Tan.

Martin Piper

Contents