DAP Penang

Press Statement: Implementation of biometric voter verification system will be problematic.

By admin on July 29th, 2011

The biometric voter verification system proposed by the government for the Election Commission (EC) is cumbersome as it will be wholly dependent on the functional capability of other government departments and readability of identification documents.

I am of the view that the biometric verification system is too monumental a task for the EC to undertake at this time, especially with the next General Election coming soon. Without structural reforms to our electoral system, the EC – in spite of its best efforts – would remain unable to shake off perception that it is unclean and unfair. While I appreciate the EC’s efforts in addressing allegations of voter fraud, this sudden announcement and undertaking of a biometric verification project is indeed reactionary to the July 9 Bersih Rally. Unfortunately, I find it difficult to believe that this is a genuine move to improve accountability of the electoral system. Instead of appearing to be only interested in appeasing unfounded discontent, I hope the EC can be open enough to admit existing weaknesses and work towards instituting real reforms.

EC Chairman Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof is reported to have said the biometric system is the best approach but neglects to inform how – after so long – he has come to this new discovery. Even if the biometric system works perfectly, the personal identification data is only as reliable as the original source documentation supplied. Will the biometric system open a whole new can of worms instead? In a 2001 study on “Innovations in Election Administration” commissioned by the Federal Election Commision of the United States of America, it was noted that biometric measures are always fuzzy to some extent, changing over time and circumstance of collection. Problems are generally caused by changes in the physical characteristic. Even fingerprints change as cuts, cracks and dryness in the skin come and go. According to this study, in cases where there is change in physical characteristic, it is likelier that the computer will not recognise the voter’s identity than link him/her to the identity of someone else. However, it should be noted that both types of errors do occur.

The indelible ink method should not be dismissed completely by the EC. Abdul Aziz’ reasons for rejecting of indelible ink contradict his reasons for praising the biometric system. On the one hand, he says the biometric system is the best despite being not foolproof. On the other hand, he claims indelible ink will never be accepted because it is not foolproof. I hope the EC Chief is not trying to take the people for fools with such statements.

Let me remind Abdul Aziz that the EC did indeed spend RM2million of taxpayers’ money in procuring 47,000 bottles of indelible black ink from India before the 2008 General Election. However, the EC then made a shocking U-turn – 4 days before polling day – on the implementation of the ink method, saying it believed there were plans by certain groups to abuse the process. Such rash and inexplicable behaviour by the country’s highest administrator of democracy fails to convince the people that elections are indeed clean and fair. Likewise now, the EC’s decision to unilaterally move ahead with the biometric verification system without first consulting interested parties is undemocratic and therefore suspicious.

The biometric system and indelible ink are not mutually exclusive methods. Opting for the biometric system does not mean indelible ink is no longer relevant. What are the real reasons for the government’s continued reluctance to implement the usage of indelible ink? The EC has to be open and consultative in this process.

 

Chow Kon Yeow

Member of Parliament, Tanjong.

Penang State Exco Member and State Assemblyperson, Padang Kota.

Penang DAP State Chairman.