A story in Monday's International Herald Tribune reports that Razali Ismail, Chairman of Iris Technologies Sdn Bhd, a Malaysian IT firm, was successful in his effort to arrange the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. Though democratically elected President in 1990, she was forcibly kept from office by a junta of army generals. They have kept her under house arrest for the past eighteen months.
Razali, acting as an official envoy of the United Nations, has made seven trips to Rangoon over the past few months. The International Herald Tribune report states that a business contract between the government of Myanmar and Iris Technologies was signed during the time Razali was conducting his diplomatic mission. The contract calls for Iris Technologies to conduct a pilot project that will provide 5,000 electronic passports for selected Myanmar citizens, similar to the innovative e-passport recently introduced in Malaysia by Iris Technologies.
The report does not make clear whether Razali actively represented his personal business interests (he is reported to own a thirty percent interest) when he was in Rangoon, or whether the contract negotiations were actually carried out by others in the firm. Though he may be completely innocent of any conflict of interest, the contract has the appearance he was wearing two hats during a delicate diplomatic assignment. It puts him in a bad light. The fact that he is Malaysian tends to contribute negatively to the poor image Malaysian businessmen already have in the international arena. The appearance of playing a dual role is unfortunate, since both endeavors seem to have met with success.
The incident draws attention to the new electronic passport, which is read automatically by unattended computer equipment at immigration checkpoints. It works much like swiping a credit card. There is a microchip embedded invisibly in the cover of the passport that interacts with the computer. The passport is not stamped, and only the computer knows the date, time and point of transit. The information is immediately sent to the central computer of the Immigration Department, which keeps track of the international travel of Malaysians. Since there is no stamp in the passport itself, no visible record appears on the pages, and no printed record is given to the traveler to verify accurate information transfer.
So far, only Malaysia uses this new system. When Malaysians travel to other countries, an adjustment must be made on entry, because no other country has installed the necessary microchip readers. Travelers from other countries who enter Malaysia must line up in the time-honoured fashion at the immigration barrier to have their passports stamped. The stamp records the fact and date of entry, plus the visa expiration date. Malaysia's system is faster, and there are few lines. Malaysia is several steps ahead of the other floats in the parade, and only time will tell if the new system will be adopted worldwide.
There are drawbacks. It is mildly irritating for a Malaysian traveler to look into his/her Malaysian passport after a trip abroad to find the stamps of all the countries visited, but no record of ever leaving or returning to Malaysia. To get a printed record, one must apply to the Immigration Department in Kuala Lumpur, a procedure that may entail one or more days. The value of the passport as evidence of travel is thus greatly reduced. Whether a Malaysian court will accept the e-passport as legal is undecided, as is the durability and reliability of the inserted microchip. It is designed to last for the life of the document.
A passport is a valuable asset, internationally recognised as means of identification; it allows a means to control the flow of foreigners entering the country. No passport, no legal entry, is the rule. Illegal immigrants are subject to deportation and punishment when caught.
In many countries, hotel managers hold the passport of foreign guests until the bill is settled at checkout. During the time the passport is out of one's possession it is potentially subject to mishandling, fraudulent use and counterfeiting. It is always a good feeling to it back. The new passports are as vulnerable to fraud as a credit card, and those who make a practice of falsifying travel documents may find the Malaysian passport attractive, as there are fewer stamps to duplicate.
Once several other countries choose the e-passport, it will be difficult or impossible to determine the travel history of an individual without the proprietary microchip reader. Malaysians returning from a vacation in Myanmar, assuming Myanmar adopts the new system, will return home with nothing stamped in the passport to indicate they had ever left the country. Unless the equipment at all entry and exit points is compatible and working properly, the complete passport history could not be retrieved. Because the passport holder has no record, errors or fraudulent information cannot be detected by visual inspection.
There are balancing benefits. Since the information on the microchip is difficult to alter without special equipment, it is more difficult to counterfeit. The presence of the microchip can be an additional security feature if they are not readily available. Special codes can be imprinted to prevent unauthorised use. If the passport is stolen it would be immediately detected as soon as it was used. A lost or stolen passport could be readily cancelled, and the information stored in the central data bank could be used to create a duplicate.
Perhaps the Myanmar incident is a fortunate one, focusing worldwide attention on the plans and progress of the new e-passport system. The present international situation highlights the importance of validating identity and travel history. It must be considered a superior means of tracking suspected terrorists and fugitives. The UN is the appropriate agency to form an investigating committee to evaluate both the merits and the weaknesses of the new e-passport.
Some people will object to the ability of governments to follow their movements when they cross borders, considering this an invasion of privacy. Others fear the increased potential for repressive governments to control and restrict the international travel of their citizens. People are accustomed to a right of free travel anywhere in the world, and consider the passport evidence of an inalienable right. Some governments, however, require permission for travel, some even require visas for domestic travel from city to city. These governments insist that there is no freedom to travel outside the country, and many countries restrict travel to certain foreign destinations.
Malaysia is one of the countries that confiscate the passport of those it considers critical of its policies. A black list of people who cannot travel is maintained, but the names are kept secret. Anyone who objects to the new e-passport incurs a risk that soon s/he has no passport to complain about.
Consider the case of a traveler, on arrival at the immigration exit machine, who inserts the new e-passport. A bright red light on a pole starts to flash and loud alarm bells ring. The machine eats the passport, the gates clang shut, policemen come at the run with guns drawn, and that is the end of the long-planned vacation. In this wonderful new age, the government has no trouble to cancel a passport. It can be done from a central computer terminal hundreds of miles away. They may even forget to serve you with a notification.
A further, and potentially more worrisome consideration is that a repressive or malicious government can screen all the passports of their citizens for travel to certain destinations in the past. If relations with some neighboring country should deteriorate, the government could then simply filter out all travelers to that country for the past twenty years or so, and charge the travelers with illegal complicity in the affairs of that country.
Since it is impossible to know in advance which destinations will become suspect in the future, tourism will be hurt by damped enthusiasm. No one, to take a current example, wants to accept the unknown risk of arrest for terrorism simply because a country now considered benign is considered evil in the indefinite future. This apprehension is not far-fetched, but is the occasion for fear at this very moment.
If a government wishes to curry favor, as Malaysia does, innocent travelers may be arrested without charge or indictment under the ISA, labelled as terrorists, and kept in isolation indefinitely, all for political purposes. This is intolerable, and no democratic government would condone, much less offer congratulations for such an execrable practice.
The url of this page is: https://harunrmy0.tripod.com/74Businessman.html