“HAVE you registered with Padu?” was a popular question at the end of March.

Although the registration drive had started on January 2, the slow uptake by the public until late came as no surprise to many observers, but the Madani government did what it could to boost the number of registrations in the final week.

Ironically, on the last day of the registration period, the government told the public that even if they didn’t register, they would be automatically enrolled, which bewildered those who rushed to sign up and fill in the 39 categories of personal information by the deadline.

The result was that 11.55 million individuals, or 52.6% of the population aged 18 and above, had registered with Padu, while 17.65 million profiles had been updated.

Given the scepticism and doubts surrounding this initiative, the result of the three-month campaign was still commendable. The government could have faced an even more humiliating lukewarm response had it not been for the final, desperate push.

Some may have misconceptions about Padu – it actually existed before the government opened it up to self-inputs. Padu functions as an inter-departmental data-sharing platform.

The government already holds a lot of our personal information across 455 participating government departments and agencies.

So not registering for a Padu account would not mean that the government does not already have your personal information. Only a handful of new information that the government collects this time, such as personal loan and household finance matters.

Some were puzzled as to why they had to provide such data again – the government may not convey well to the public that it actually wants people to “update” their information in a timely manner so that the latest information can be relied on as the cut-off point for disbursement of targeted subsidies in the second half of the year.

It is unclear whether a self-update mechanism is the better solution, as this information will need to be verified and may contain errors. Should the person be penalised for these errors?

Public trust in the government’s handling of public data is also lacking. Many probably still have fresh memories of the unfortunate incident of the 2022 personal data breach, in which 22.5 million citizens, or about two-thirds of the population, were found being sold on the dark web.

The launch of Padu and the government’s open invitation to the entire population to register and provide more information seems to have only reopened the old wounds.

The public is also being reminded of the exclusion clause in the Personal Data Protection Act, that federal and state government data are excluded from data protection, as stated in Section 3 of the act. This adds to people’s sense of insecurity about future data breaches.

Economic Affairs Minister Rafizi Ramli once admitted that the Padu system is under millions of daily attacks, yet he declared that it is still secure.

Many would certainly be concerned if one day, just anyone managed to break in and gain access to the powerful system, or simply if someone within the government were to be the turncoat, allowing access to unauthorised people who would tap into the “data goldmine” for hidden or often criminal agendas.

The over-emphasis on targeted subsidies and welfare puts off many who would likely be left out of such benefits, so there is no incentive for individuals in the T20 and some upper M40 households to register.

Some may be afraid that the new inputs may not be consistent with previous declarations made to the relevant authorities, particularly the Inland Revenue Board, for fear of trouble or repercussion.

Other than the recipients of targeted subsidies and welfare, many still fail to see the benefits and needs of setting up this Padu system. This is the total failure of the government to communicate with the people.

Prior to Padu, government departments and agencies almost all operate in silos in terms of data collection, analysis and storage, mostly only publishing periodic statistics relevant to their function or purpose. Data sharing across departments and agencies is considered uncommon.

Individual profile data is the smallest unit, with the most common identifiers being the identification number (IC), telephone number and home address.

Indeed, if the databases of all government departments and agencies are linked, the government has a very powerful analytical tool to understand the demographics of particular localities.

With Padu, there is now the possibility to set more criteria or conditions for certain targeted policies to improve living conditions, say the government wants to encourage more healthy and active living, governments at all three tiers can do a lot to meet the needs of the local community, whether it is building more public amenities such as bus stations, sheltered walkways, community halls/spaces, gardens or parks, sports centres or even public swimming pools (to echo former education minister Maszlee Malik’s concern)!

But do our elected representatives, government officials and civil servants really have the practice and habit of using data to support their decision-making (i.e. evidence-based policy making)? – May 6, 2024.

* Lim Chee Han is a founding member of Agora Society and a policy researcher. He holds a PhD in infection biology from Hannover Medical School, Germany, and an MSc in immunology and BSc in biotechnology from Imperial College London. Health and socioeconomic policies are his concerns. He believes a nation can advance significantly if policymaking and research are taken seriously.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.