Personal Data Protection Compliance — Layered Reference
⚠ Reference material, not legal advice
This skill is engineering reference material, not legal advice. The maintainers and contributors are not licensed to practise law in Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, or any other jurisdiction. No attorney–client relationship is created by use of this skill.
Do not rely on this skill as your sole source of truth for personal-data-protection compliance. Always (a) verify any statute citation, threshold, or obligation against the official source, and (b) engage a qualified Data Protection Officer or privacy lawyer before making compliance decisions that materially affect your obligations or your users' rights.
Source-text posture: this skill does not reproduce or republish any of the underlying statutes. It provides engineer-facing interpretation and short attributed quotations of operative phrases under fair-dealing principles, with links to the official sources. Anyone planning to package or redistribute the content beyond similar engineering-reference use should read DISCLAIMER.md § Copyright in source materials — Malaysia's PNMB-published Act 709 / Act A1727 carry the strictest publisher's notice of the populated jurisdictions and may require prior permission.
By using this skill you accept the full disclaimer in DISCLAIMER.md, including the "use at your own risk" terms and the maintainers' zero liability for any decision taken in reliance on this content.
This skill helps engineers ship features that comply with personal-data-protection statutes in Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam. It is organised by where in the stack the obligation lives rather than by statute section number — engineers shouldn't need to learn statute references to do their job.
Step 1 — Identify the active jurisdiction(s)
On first use in a project, check for .pdp-compliance.json at the project root. If present, use personalDataProtection.jurisdictions and load only the matching jurisdictions/<code>/README.md files. If absent, ask the user which jurisdiction(s) apply. The answer depends on where the application's users are located, not where the company is registered.
"Which personal-data-protection regimes does this application need to comply with? Pick all that apply: Singapore (PDPA 2012), Indonesia (UU PDP 27/2022), Thailand (PDPA B.E. 2562), Malaysia (PDPA 2010 with 2024 Amendments), Philippines (DPA / RA 10173), Vietnam (PDPL 91/2025/QH15). If users span multiple jurisdictions — and note Vietnam applies to Vietnamese citizens wherever they are —, pick all relevant — the strictest rule will usually win."
Once selected, suggest creating .pdp-compliance.json in the project root so future sessions and local guardrails do not need to re-ask:
{
"personalDataProtection": {
"jurisdictions": ["sg-pdpa"],
"mode": "strictest-wins",
"reviewPolicy": "warn"
}
}
Then load only the relevant jurisdictions/<code>/README.md files. Cross-jurisdiction comparison lives in jurisdictions/_index.md.
Codes: sg-pdpa, th-pdpa, id-pdp, my-pdpa, ph-dpa, vn-pdpl — all populated. Per-jurisdiction status and the full comparison grid live in jurisdictions/_index.md.
Once the user has chosen, persist that choice in .pdp-compliance.json when the project allows file changes. If the project cannot accept that file, persist the choice somewhere project-specific (a comment in the project's AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, or equivalent project-instruction file) so subsequent sessions don't need to re-ask.
Step 2 — Pick the right entry point
You're starting work on something. Open the matching checklist:
You want depth on a specific layer. Open the matching layer file:
| Layer | What it covers |
|---|
| 01 Non-technical | DPO, staff acceptable-use, vendor contracts, complaint handling |
| 02 Architecture | Data residency, isolation, encryption, secret handling, defence-in-depth |
| 03 Data model | Consent records, audit records, retention markers, deletion conventions, PII inventory |
| 04 Controls and processes | Access control, retention sweeps, log hygiene, breach detection signals |
| 05 Feature / UX | Signup consent, settings, account deletion, data export, primer dialogs, EXIF strip |
| 06 Disclosure | Privacy policy, T&C, OS permission strings, contextual notices |
| 07 Operational | Incident response, retention sweeps, backups, vendor reviews, monitoring |
Layer files are universal across all populated jurisdictions — implementation patterns are shared. Jurisdiction-specific obligations live in jurisdictions/<code>/obligations/.
Jurisdiction files
Once the active jurisdiction is known, open its files directly from this table rather than following links from one file to the next. Each README.md states scope, statute version and verification date; statute-map.md maps sections to layers; the obligation files hold the per-statute rules.
Templates to copy into a project: INCIDENT_RESPONSE.md.template (breach runbook) and pdp-nudge.sh.template (changed-file reminder hook).
Critical thresholds (commit to memory)
These vary by jurisdiction — the active one(s) determine which apply.
| Singapore PDPA | Thailand PDPA | Indonesia UU PDP | Malaysia PDPA | Philippines DPA | Vietnam PDPL |
|---|
| Breach notification window to authority | 3 calendar days after assessing as notifiable (s26D(1)) | 72 hours from awareness (s37(4)) | 72 hours from awareness — to both subject AND regulator (Pasal 46(1)) | 72 hours from discovery to Commissioner (s12B(1) + JPDP Guideline 25 Feb 2025); 7 days post-Commissioner to affected subject | 72 hours from knowledge / reasonable belief — to both NPC AND affected subject (§ 38 IRR + NPC Circular 16-03 § 12) | 72 hours from detection of the act (Điều 23(1)) — no assessment step |
| Significant-scale / risk threshold | ≥ 500 affected individuals | "Risk to rights and freedoms"; "high risk" triggers individual notification | Always notify subject; "certain circumstances" trigger public notification (Pasal 46(3)) | "Significant harm" triggers subject notification (s12B(2)) — no fixed scale threshold | Information-type-driven: SPI or identity-fraud-enabling info, acquired by unauthorised person, real risk of serious harm (NPC Circular 16-03 § 11); ≥ 100 persons triggers § 35 penalty aggravation | None — harm-based trigger covering national defence/security and the subject's life, health, honour, dignity, property (Điều 23(1)); Điều 23(3) also covers purpose-creep and rights failures |
| Maximum financial penalty cap | SGD 1M / 10% SG turnover (s48J(3)) | THB 1M / 3M / 5M tiered (s82–84); plus criminal up to 1 year + THB 1M (s79) | 2% of annual revenue per violation (Pasal 57(3)); plus corporate criminal — fines up to 10× + suspension / dissolution (Pasal 70) | RM 1M / 3 years per principle breach (s5(2), raised by A1727 from RM 300k / 2y); per-offence not turnover-based; offences stack | ₱5M / 6 years for combination or series (§ 33); ₱4M / 6 years for SPI offences (§§ 25(b), 26(b)); ≥ 100 persons triggers maximum-period aggravation (§ 35) | 5% of revenue for cross-border violations (Điều 8(4)) — highest here; 10× the gain for buying/selling data (Điều 8(3)) |
| Individual criminal liability | Yes (s48D/E/F) — SGD 5,000 / 2 years | Yes (s79–81); s81 catches director / manager omissions, broader than SG | Yes (Pasal 67–68): up to 6 years + IDR 6B; corporate liability extends to dissolution (Pasal 70(4)) | Yes (s130 unlawful collecting RM 500k / 3y); s133 deeming liability for directors / managers unless they prove no-knowledge + due-diligence defence | Yes — § 34 makes responsible officers personally liable for the prison terms of corporate offences (in addition to the corporate fine); § 30 concealment is its own offence (1.5–5 years + ₱500k–₱1M) | Yes — Điều 8(1) routes to criminal prosecution; Điều 7 prohibits appropriating, intentionally disclosing or losing data, and buying/selling it |
How to use the layer ↔ obligation split
The pattern is implement once, check against multiple jurisdictions.
A new-feature checklist run looks like:
- Identify what personal data the feature touches.
- Walk the universal
layers/ to plan the implementation (data model, access controls, UX, disclosure, operational).
- For each active jurisdiction, walk
jurisdictions/<code>/obligations/ to verify the implementation satisfies the statute-level obligations. Note where multiple jurisdictions disagree — usually the strictest rule controls.
- Update the project's privacy policy / consent records / runbook as needed.
Statute version
Each jurisdiction's README.md records:
- Which version of the statute the obligation files reflect
- When the content was last verified against official sources
- Pending amendments to watch for
When statutes amend, this skill is updated and tagged. See the upstream CHANGELOG.md and pin to a version if you need stability.