KOTA BAHARU, July 27 (Bernama) -- PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat has rejected the use of the biometric system as proposed by the Election Commission (EC) and denied he had supported it earlier."I only said I would support any system which brings good and not something that is doubtful. If the biometric system brings doubts, it should be rejected. Reports which stated that I supported the system are inaccurate.
"Better to use indelible ink which we requested earlier, so that there won't be any doubt, as long as the biometric system bring doubts, don't use it," he told reporters after chairing the state executive council meeting here.
Tuesday, a newspaper highlighted on its front page a story that Nik Aziz supported the biometric system.
PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang rejected the system claiming that it was open to manipulation as only a small number of people had the expertise to handle it.
tunku : what stupid excuses pas.can't the indelible ink be manipulated? everything can be manipulated so better not to have election.i am sure EC will have enough expertise to handle it once it is to be implemented.don't talk nonsense pas.you don't have to oppose to everything the government does.you are not right all the time, most of the time you are wrong and full of craps.
Malaysian Ringgit Converter
15 comments:
Orang tua ni dah kena gertak ngan mursial kit siang la tu..
baca artikel ni mengenai polling agent.pakatan cuma nak bikin kecoh saja.
http://pengundisetiasungairapat.blogspot.com/2011/07/adakah-rakyat-sedar-bahawa-polling-agen.html
i believe Nik Aziz is not rejecting biometric in totality. there must be provisions when implementing a new system in such a broad scale. trial runs are imperative so that the system can function well without any glitches. just look at the recent pengguna portal that crashed just a few days after it went online. using biometric will require full blown redundancy and a high speed connectivity to each and every undi site. it is ultimately cost-prohibitive. How many sites are there to connect to the system? In the end, indelible ink is easier and cheaper to implement.
anyway indelible ink is so much harder to manipulate compared to a biometric system. I work in IT so i know that with just a click of a button, all data info can be changed.
bukanlah pas berfikiran kuno. Bn yang tak berfikiran panjang. Nak buat biometric, bagus. tapi kaji dulu the feasibility of such actions. when doubt creeps in, any system can be deemed unsuitable.
amir,
mcm mana nak buat kajian ke, trial run ke kalau awal2 lagi dah kondem sana , kutuk sini, bangkang sinun?????
Marina, Nik Aziz said he won't back biometrics until it is foolproof. maknanya dia menerima biometrik asalkan dah terbukti berkesan. Satu lagi ayat saya petik dari dia, dia sokong mana2 sistem yang membawa manfaat dan bangkang mana-mana yang masih boleh diragui. saya tak nampak dia kate, jgn buat kajian atau trial runs. saya nak tau dari mana awak dapat berita yang dia kondem sana, kutuk sini, bangkang sinun. boleh tak petik ayat dia supaya kita semua boleh kaji. terima kasih.
Tak payah biometrik kerana ada orang ambik kesempatan nak dapat projek berjuta-juta. Buang duit rakyat saja. Bersihkan dahulu senarai nama pengundi yang tak layak mengundi dah cukup bagus.
Kan yang mengundi tu semua mesti ada Kad Pengenalan dengan gambar sekali.Biometrik tu tambahan pengenalan seseorang saja dan tak ubah pun atau hindarkan cara-cara penipuan.
Masalahnya ialah orang yang dapat kad pengenalan palsu ramai-ramai datang mengundi berulang kali atau
ramai pengundi-pengundi yang tak datang mengundi tetapi kertas undian mereka disalah gunakan pada waktu-waktu terakhir sebelum dan selepas masa pengundian. Ni termasuk undian pos dsbnya.
Untuk elak mereka yang sudah mengundi tetapi datang semula mengundi dengan kad pengenalan lain, elok lah lepas undi, kita chop buntut semua yang telah mengundi dengan besi panas siap perkataan "SPR" macam cop lembu kat ladang-ladang lembu.
Hah! Apa macam ni?
Lembu belum kena cop.
Amir,
I think you are the one who needs some serious brain surgery. Although you are in the IT department, you are not an electronic engineer. The biometric system need not to be connected to the main database. Your IC has already contained your full information, your fingerprints, address, sex, etc. What it needs is just a reader to extract the information from your IC, and if your fingerprints match with the fingerprints in your IC, hence, you are the valid owner, not a phantom voter. Mind you, think before you talk. To defend your Tok Guru is really plain stupid. Which jungle have you been living? Indelible ink is much harder to manipulate than the biometric? No wonder, an IT person like you are not knowledgeable enough and can be fooled by the stupid senile old man.
hikayat penuh ranjau,
betul kata ko tu. mereka ni buatlah apa pun, hanya tau bangkang saja. besok dap sergah nik aziz, terkencinglah org tua tu mengikut perintah mereka.
Hikayat Ranjau,
You are right. I apologize for the incorrect statement. The information I received was from a friend who works in IT in Jabatan Imigresen and he said they store the biometric data in servers as what they did with the illegal workers and not cards. But your method is plausible if they want to implement it in such a way. However I still stand my ground in saying that Nik Aziz is correct to say that until it is proven, at least on a large scale such as the malaysian population, biometric should be studied first. Any technology when applied in a large scale will be tested severely. You as an electronic engineer should at least agree with me on that issue right? The confidence level of any system must be high enough to merit consideration.
BTW, there's no reason to resort to name-callings and such. I was merely defending Nik Aziz's statement which i think is sensible and not at all membangkang tak pasal2. He did not fool me one bit and his opinion is absolutely reasonable. I for one would welcome biometrics if it is guaranteed that no tampering or foul play can be done in any way. After all, we do have 400k illegal workers database dont we? ;)
marina, tlglah jwb soalan saya. Tak perlu nak kutuk2 saya membangkang tak psl2. Tajuk post ni pun "Nik Aziz rejected EC's Biometric System" dan awak sokong bulat2 tanpa keluarkan fakta. Saya rasa post ni tak tepat kerana Nik Aziz tidak tolak bulat2 biometric, cuma perlu membuktikan biometric boleh berfungsi dengan baik dan tanpa was2. Macam mana nak berdialog kalau mencemuh saya saje.
Amir,
Well, it's true that all illegal workers data are kept in the database, as they do not have the ICs. But, as Malaysians, we do have our ICs. The data in the database, which is at JPN are kept as backup.
You must have been to banks, as they require you to identify your identity simply by placing your finger at the card reader. That is biometric right?
To reject biometric is simply a backward move. Do you reject technology? Heck, nowadays private companies, JKR and some government agencies have used biometric system for clocking attendance and no longer the old punch card system as it stands to be abused. You can't cheat your friend's attendance as it would require your friend's thumb to clock. Do you reject the fact that everybody's fingerprint is unique? Just because a politician says it, thus fingerprint is no longer a unique method to identify someone?
I doubt that it's hard to implement such system. In fact, the police traffic and have already use the card reader to identify one's IC for traffic offenders. Isn't that a biometric system?
Database, electrical & electronic engineering is my bread and butter. There is no way to tamper the data, only stinky politicians can say it's possible, of course, they say elephants can fly like Dumbo the elephant! Question is, are we smart enough to differentiate facts and lies?
Dear Hikayat,
I think you got me wrong. In no way did Nik Aziz or even I say that we have to reject biometric. Far from it, if it is a good solution, then by all means go with it. I was refuting this post and some opinions that he rejected it outrightly without needing to test it. Or did I write something here that said otherwise? However he and I have the same opinion that whatever new technology that needs to be implemented, it must go through rigorous testing. Sort of like a POC.
Anyway I do know that electronics is your bread and butter judging by your blog. But in all fairness, no system in this world is fool-proof. No matter how many layers of security that you have, how strict your policies in firewalls and IPS, there will always be a way to breach it. After all, technology is man-made, therefore there will always be a loophole. Or else the CIA database would not have been cracked by rookies. and this problem covers biometrics as well. it is not the ultimate security measure but one which is complementary to existing ones. Ppl have managed to crack biometric systems you know.
Anyway you have to understand, this is not merely a technology issue, it is also one that is highly politicized. I'm not even touching on the legal and privacy concerns which have surrounded biometric implementations throughout the world, both in corporate and government. I do know that the Ghanaian government has recently started implementing biometric in their EC. Great. However with any gomen initiative, public perception must be taken care of especially since EC's reputation is not so excellent. That is key. So I say, yes, go for biometric. but test it out first. My opinion is that, unless GE13 is called late next year or early 2013, then it is just too soon. Give confidence to the opposition and the public that there won't be any glitches or that data will truly not be compromised. That is all we ask. dont rush into anything new so that there will be another excuse for bersih 3.0.
btw, your example of police asking for mykad verification is a good one. but try doing that in a large scale with so many ICs to check. im sure they will need to find ways to remedy faulty chips and data with compromised integrity. after all, politicians aren't professionals in IT. the more the reason that they have to be convinced.
so... glad we can have this conversation in a civilized manner. :)
Amir,
Our point of discussion is about biometric system, i.e. the technology surrounds it. I do not wish to talk about perception about EC because bad perception can be created. Gossips and lies can get to people's heads, and not all people are smart enough to differentiate between lies and truths.
Anyway, biometric is about identification using one's body, i.e., fingerprints, eyes and DNA. There is no way to duplicate God's creation. I think you will agree with this.
Hence, the technology to match the identity, i.e. the biometric system. The main purpose is to differentiate and match physical properties of of above.
So, if you are the rightful owner of your finger, and your fingerprint is stored in your IC and the database, tell me, how to tamper those data? No human will be able to duplicate your fingerprint, only Charlie's Angels can do so but it's a movie with fantasies.
About firewalls, even if a hacker or a cracker can access the database, what can he do to the database? He can't change the fingerprint. You want to change information in your IC? A person who wants to do that must posses the physical IC, then only can tamper the data. However, the only data he can tamper is only name, address, sex and religion. Can he tamper the fingerprint? No, but he can insert his own fingerprint or someone else' fingerprints inside. In any case, still, the IC needs to rightfully match with the bearer's fingerprint.
The talk about confidence level and public perception is just rubbish. The anxiety and fear are only created by politicians. As I have always said, we have to be smart to differentiate between facts and lies. Since the politicians are not tech savvy, why would you listen to them?
As I've said also, the one EC is going to propose will only include an IC reader and nothing else. Hacking, cracking and stuff like that are just plain rubbish. There is no point to talk about something that is not relevant. Do you think the system will involve high speed internet access and connect to the database?
The only system which does that is LHDN when you want to file your income tax every year. But, to access your portal and key in your data, there is no such thing as biometric, only password and digital cert. Heck, that system is even less security than biometric, anybody can file income tax for you, and mind you, that involves money. How come your politicians never say anything about it? At the last day, the so call high speed internet access crawls like a snail because everybody accesses the system.
There is no need to setup high speed internet access, connect to the database just to check a person. Only yourself, your IC and a card reader are enough to identify you as the rightful voter. If somebody says otherwise, then he's not a tech savvy person.
Hikayat,
Ok you win. I think this discussion is going nowhere since you insist on it being purely technical. This blog is political, so I write based on political opinions. As a professional, and I have said so many times, I agree with you. Biometric is the way to go. As a citizen, I still insist on it being tested for the aforementioned reasons. Anyway why are you so against testing? That doesn't sound like someone from a professional area. If not for the integrity of the system, then do it for public perception and confidence. And saying that those things are rubbish is just being naive on your part. Politics has and always will be about perception and confidence level. This is not about lying or listening to Nik aziz's rantings. This is about us normal citizens who aren't familiar with the technology or aren't confident that the system won't be manipulated in any way. Once trust is lost, no matter how canggih the system you use, it will only backfire. You can't deny the possibility that someone can gather the database of the illegal workers, come up with a fake IC or chip and then input their biometric ID inside can you? It sounds far-fetched, bordering on conspiracy-theory but in this hi-tech world, it is possible.
So, rather than just rushing into implementing it, do the smart thing and kick out any doubt from the system, process and so on. Then only you bring in biometric which everyone should and must accept. So if you are still gonna talk about the technology, then ok, u win. I cant argue with that and I actually agree with you. I think I have to repeat this a few more times. Nik Aziz and I agree that biometric should be implemented but only after testing. Nik Aziz and I agree that biometric should be implemented but only after testing. Nik Aziz and I agree that biometric should be implemented but only after testing. I hope I have made it clear enough for you. oh my examples of firewalls and CIA was merely to showcase that any technology can be cracked. you don't have to refute it with a case-by-case example. if you still believe otherwise, then ok, you still win. TQ..
Hi Amir,
This discussion is not about winning or losing. It is to straighten out misleading information given by politicians.
It is not our job to let the politicians know how things work. It is their job to get facts, and use them. What happens is, these politicians talk without knowing what jack shit they talk about and yet they lie to people and become proud of it.
If 1+1=2, it is and has always been 1+1=2. There is no otherwise. To these politicians, they bend the information and lie to ordinary people, as such, 1+1=10 will be the truth to dumb people.
Politics is just a system, or a tool to govern a country, a state or even a family. However, politics is not too far fetched from reality, I mean, if 1+1=2, politics has to use 1+1=2 to govern a country.
It means facts are always above politics. However, politicians create misleading information, and thus bad perception is created. Although it is a non issue, but for politicians, it is ok to create lies and mislead people as long as they can achieve their desired results.
I don't understand this big hoo haa about bad perception and such. To me, the negative perception is only to the supporters of the other party although in reality it does not exist at all. It starts in their heads, but worse is when they propagate lies and influence others although such thing does not exist.
Indelible ink for identification? If such ink is the best, why don't banks use it? Why immigration departments don't use it to tag people from going in and out of the country? Why companies don't use it to clock attendance? The only place indelible ink can be used is at disco clubs, so that they can tag people because it is the cheapest form of identification.
From what I can see, the reason why indelible ink is really wanted by oppositions is not about phantom voters. However, they can use indelible ink to prevent people from voting, because there are hardcore BN supporters, identifiable but illiterate or less informed. The oppositions know that they will never win the election, hence they resort to such tactic.
Post a Comment