Big Brother Is On Its Way

Why not have security cameras everywhere? Is it really an infringement of privacy? Probably. But if you can catch criminals in the act. Why not? If there were cameras everywhere, then you could basically follow the criminal from the scene right to their hide-out. People should behave accordingly in public.

I think there are several ways this system could be misused:

a) Snoopy people who want to stalk or gawk at you (if you are hot or a celebrity)
b) Criminals trying to understand your movement patterns and exploit it to their ends.
c) Marketing companies who want to track you down and sell you stuff.

I think Big Brother should be self policing based on the following:

a) The system requires traceable identification (like our NRIC) to log on and use. Unless you are a really good hacker, you can probably circumvent this. So let this system be hacker proof and any breach shall be treason and punishable by life imprisonment and/or civil prosecution to the nth degree. This should be a sufficient deterrent.

b) Your access to the system will depend on your tax bracket. For example, you can only observe those areas proportionate to your income. Perhaps a range. If for instance your taxable income is RM1000, you are allowed to view images from areas where the property values are RM700 to RM1300 per square feet, i.e about ±30%. The rationale behind this is to keep the riff-raffs out of your area who may target those in the higher income group or exploit those with lower income.

c) If you want access to those areas outside of your bracket, you will have to pay and the income therefrom should be put into a pool to be used for community development for the targeted area. Using the same example above, let’s say, an individual whose taxable income is RM1000 can buy time to look at feeds for areas worth RM600 per square feet. He will need to pay a surcharge that Big Brother shall contribute to the residence within coverage of that camera.

d) Combined with GPS in mobile phones we can pretty much track anyone for a fee. But the individual must be informed that he is being watched. If he is not doing anything illegal why would he object? Of course evidence culled from such a system shall not be permissable in family court or civil court unless it is related to felony or criminal cases. Hopefully, this will deter moral policing. Blackmail from its use can always be detected because the system is accessible only by individuals. Besides, it will deter people from committing immoral acts in public, like peeing or sex in public.

We have the technology to implement this, all it takes is political will.

An I-Phone for Our Guests?

Why not? Give all immigrants a GPS phone which they have to pay for. The same shall be their identification. The problems feared by governments and local citizens of immigrants are:

a) Lost job opportunities for local citizens
b) Immigrants becoming the majority and creating unrest
c) Terrorism
d) Citizenship issues when locals marry non-citizens

How would a GPS phone identification device solve these immigration issues:

a) There would be accurate information on the number and whereabouts of non-citizens.

b) When there is knowledge of these non-citizens, entrance fees and witholding taxes can be better enforced. Non-citizens shall be classified based on their income tax returns of their home country. Those that come from countries where there is no or incompatible tax systems will be classifiend under a separate class. Based on their classification, a rigorous tax/levy regime can be implemented.

c)These levies and taxes should be borne by the immigrant which will be deposited to HRDF for disbursement to qualified citizens. Why should locally operated companies pay for use of foreign talent? Firstly, this will discourage cheap and lower skilled foreigners from participating in the job market thus level the playing field for citizens who may not be interested or qualify the same jobs. Secondly, through training local citizens can upgrade their skills to perform more value added jobs (either locally or even overseas where such skills may be required).

d) If a foreigner is found to have entered the country illegally, his punishment would be to perform community service such as garbage collection until he has paid his dues. Thereafter, he can either continue as a legal immigrant or be allowed to return to his home country.

e) A record of his stay will be kept in a database. As long as he is a law-abiding citizen in his homeland and behaves accordingly in the country, the costs (in terms of levy and witholding tax) for his next visit will be reduced. To prevent the database from being tampered with, it is proposed that high security measures are institutionalised. However, if he has been in the country illegally before, he will have to pay a higher levy the next time he visits. This will encourage the immigrant to enter the country legally.

f)Illegal immigrants will not be detained in any facilities, instead they will be required to report to local police station periodically and will be electronically tagged and treated like a prisoner of war though still be allowed free movement. Alternatively, he may ‘released’ from his sentence through deportation which he must pay himself.

How much would this cost? I think in the range of RM1,000 per immigrant per year. Assuming that the number of immigrants at any one time is 3 million, this project may cost up to RM3 billion. However, this need not be foot entirely by taxpayers.

Let us look at the breakdown of the cost. GPS/phone/identification device: RM300. To be financed by the levy. Immigrant levy: RM1,000 per year. This will be used to pay for maintaining the infrastructure. For tourists, the levy is refundable.

A few questions remain:

a) How can we control immigrant population? The levy will deter those without financial means. Their ability to make or maintain a living will be another. Those who are not able to compete will obviously return to where they come from. Or deportation process applies.

b) So how many immigrants is too many? At present it is estimated that there are 3 million non-citizens in Malaysia. That is more than 10%.

c) Should there be perhaps a quota based on the GDP of the home country of the immigrant?

d) Can we effectively control such a large immigrant population?

e) How do we address inherent abuses in the system? This include the policing authority. Potential corruption can be address by letting the stakeholders be setting clear KPI to be met. For example, crime rates, traffic congestion.

f) What will happen if a non-citizen starts a business and employs only his countrymen?

g) Can the benefits of such a laissez faire system outweigh the negative impact on local employment and society in general?

But at present, not knowing the exact number of immigrants both legal and illegal is the most pressing problem which I believe this infrastructure hopes to address first.