Wrong reasons
Wrong reasons
Posted 11:21pm (Mla time) Feb 25, 2005
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the Febrauary 26, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
SUPPORTERS of a national identification card system are quick to point out that we live in a society that demands identification for nearly any activity anyway.
There is merit to this argument. It is true that the government demands identification for many things, and provides all sorts of ways to assure identity. From birth to death certificates, driver's license, SSS, GSIS, TIN, CTC and passport numbers, the government has come up with many creative, time-consuming and income-generating ways to authenticate our individual identities. For virtually every professional calling, there is a corresponding authentication system. So when proponents of a national ID system declare that they are proposing something that already exists, they are at least partially correct.
We emphasize the partial quality of their arguments, because supporting a national ID is defensible only when based on promoting administrative efficiency, reducing bureaucratic red tape, easing the lives of a harassed citizenry and discouraging the counterfeiting of documents. If a national ID system were proposed so that government could do away with the many redundant and ridiculous identification systems, we would support it. Such a move would make the lives of citizens easier, make transactions more efficient and easier to track, and minimize the paperwork and fees ordinary people are made to endure as a part of life.
However, no such proposal has been made. Instead, convenience for the citizenry and efficiency for the bureaucracy are only promoted with regard to a national ID so as to sweeten popular misgivings over requiring such a card for purposes of national security. The reason many people are skeptical of a national security justification for a national ID system is based both on constitutional grounds (such as whether such a card would be used to contradict the constitutionally protected freedom of abode and privacy) as well as practical considerations. If the government cannot even properly issue and regulate the voter's ID card, which only applies to a specific segment of the population (of voting age), how could it possibly handle the processing and distribution of a national ID card? The tens of millions of voters still waiting for their ID cards that the Commission on Elections promised to deliver in time for the May 2004 elections are living examples of the problems associated with having a national ID card.
Inefficient and often criminal implementation of regulations is the bane of good governance in our country. We have wonderful plans, and a terrible record in implementing those plans. To date, no rational, practical, efficient and fiscally prudent proposal for a national ID has been made. At the same time, no serious effort has been put into establishing the parameters in terms of information, usage and scope, which would reassure the public that a national ID would not be used for spying on citizens or for extorting money or information from them.
We could propose that the government first explain to the public what information would go into a state ID, and the self-imposed limits it would place on the use of such a card, before the idea can be taken seriously. But we would rather suggest that the proponents of a national ID undergo a fundamental change in attitude. That attitude must be about service, and not about control. If the government said it wanted to serve the people better by issuing a state ID to every citizen, so that, from cradle to grave, the citizen has to use only one ID card, with one number, for a virtually limitless number of transactions, we would support it. Such a proposal would be useful and, indeed, timely. Singaporean citizens have benefited greatly from a unique identification number issued to each citizen, which is used for all public transactions and on all official documents.
However, to say that we need yet another card, with information and uses that are vaguely described, at an undetermined cost, in order to secure an equally undefined and vaguely worded concept such as "national security," or "fighting terrorism," inspires only feelings of insecurity and even terror. As it stands, the national ID proposal gives too much discretion to its proponents, and too little protection to the people who will be required to use it.
Posted 11:21pm (Mla time) Feb 25, 2005
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the Febrauary 26, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
SUPPORTERS of a national identification card system are quick to point out that we live in a society that demands identification for nearly any activity anyway.
There is merit to this argument. It is true that the government demands identification for many things, and provides all sorts of ways to assure identity. From birth to death certificates, driver's license, SSS, GSIS, TIN, CTC and passport numbers, the government has come up with many creative, time-consuming and income-generating ways to authenticate our individual identities. For virtually every professional calling, there is a corresponding authentication system. So when proponents of a national ID system declare that they are proposing something that already exists, they are at least partially correct.
We emphasize the partial quality of their arguments, because supporting a national ID is defensible only when based on promoting administrative efficiency, reducing bureaucratic red tape, easing the lives of a harassed citizenry and discouraging the counterfeiting of documents. If a national ID system were proposed so that government could do away with the many redundant and ridiculous identification systems, we would support it. Such a move would make the lives of citizens easier, make transactions more efficient and easier to track, and minimize the paperwork and fees ordinary people are made to endure as a part of life.
However, no such proposal has been made. Instead, convenience for the citizenry and efficiency for the bureaucracy are only promoted with regard to a national ID so as to sweeten popular misgivings over requiring such a card for purposes of national security. The reason many people are skeptical of a national security justification for a national ID system is based both on constitutional grounds (such as whether such a card would be used to contradict the constitutionally protected freedom of abode and privacy) as well as practical considerations. If the government cannot even properly issue and regulate the voter's ID card, which only applies to a specific segment of the population (of voting age), how could it possibly handle the processing and distribution of a national ID card? The tens of millions of voters still waiting for their ID cards that the Commission on Elections promised to deliver in time for the May 2004 elections are living examples of the problems associated with having a national ID card.
Inefficient and often criminal implementation of regulations is the bane of good governance in our country. We have wonderful plans, and a terrible record in implementing those plans. To date, no rational, practical, efficient and fiscally prudent proposal for a national ID has been made. At the same time, no serious effort has been put into establishing the parameters in terms of information, usage and scope, which would reassure the public that a national ID would not be used for spying on citizens or for extorting money or information from them.
We could propose that the government first explain to the public what information would go into a state ID, and the self-imposed limits it would place on the use of such a card, before the idea can be taken seriously. But we would rather suggest that the proponents of a national ID undergo a fundamental change in attitude. That attitude must be about service, and not about control. If the government said it wanted to serve the people better by issuing a state ID to every citizen, so that, from cradle to grave, the citizen has to use only one ID card, with one number, for a virtually limitless number of transactions, we would support it. Such a proposal would be useful and, indeed, timely. Singaporean citizens have benefited greatly from a unique identification number issued to each citizen, which is used for all public transactions and on all official documents.
However, to say that we need yet another card, with information and uses that are vaguely described, at an undetermined cost, in order to secure an equally undefined and vaguely worded concept such as "national security," or "fighting terrorism," inspires only feelings of insecurity and even terror. As it stands, the national ID proposal gives too much discretion to its proponents, and too little protection to the people who will be required to use it.
posted by Dante at 12:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home