MENU
Who is NOT potentially liable when an employee in a Singapore corporation or partnership breaches the PDPA?
Suggested Answer: A
Get Premium CIPP/A Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
11 comments · newest first
MA
Magnolia
12 months ago
This seems too lenient, are you sure about this?
SH
Sharan
1 year ago
A partner is also off the hook, right?
EM
Emerson
1 year ago
Wait, how can the employer not be liable?
DE
Detra
1 year ago
Totally agree, it's the employee's responsibility!
HY
Hyman
1 year ago
A corporate officer isn't liable under PDPA.
LI
Lillian
1 year ago
I think the employer is typically liable, but I’m not confident about whether a partner can be exempt in this case.
KI
Kirk
1 year ago
I’m a bit confused about corporate officers and their liability under the PDPA. I feel like they might still be accountable.
WA
Walton
1 year ago
I remember practicing a similar question where the employer was found liable, so I’m leaning towards the partner being the correct answer here.
CA
Candra
1 year ago
I think the employee is usually the one held liable, but I'm not entirely sure about the partner's role in this situation.
GI
Gilma
1 year ago
I'm pretty sure meperidine is a controlled substance, so I'll need to check the schedules to determine which one it belongs to.
KI
Kimi
1 year ago
I'm leaning towards Option A as the greatest risk. If the IT operations staff can restart the log server, they could potentially disrupt the continuous monitoring and create gaps in the log data, making it harder to detect any fraudulent activity.