As the United Kingdom rolls out a new digital identity (ID) scheme to streamline access to services and control illegal immigration, the question arises whether such a system can be adapted to manage immigration more effectively in Malaysia.
The UK’s initiative involves
issuing secure digital IDs that will serve as proof of identity and legal
residency, particularly for right-to-work checks. This system aims to curb
illegal employment, reduce administrative inefficiencies, and enhance security.
While the UK emphasizes the
benefits of a centralized digital identity infrastructure, implementing a
similar scheme in Malaysia requires careful consideration of legal,
administrative, technical, political, and human rights implications.
Malaysia faces persistent
challenges related to undocumented immigrants, particularly in sectors like
construction, agriculture, manufacturing, and domestic work. The current system
relies heavily on physical documents, multiple enforcement agencies, and often
opaque regularization programs.
A digital ID system, if designed
correctly, could address many of these issues. It would allow authorities to
identify individuals more accurately, monitor immigration flows, and provide a
legal identity for those willing to regularize their status. However,
implementing such a system is not merely a technical exercise but it demands
political will, legal reform, and widespread public trust.
Legally, Malaysia’s framework for
data protection and digital governance is still developing. The Personal Data
Protection Act (PDPA) offers basic safeguards but lacks the comprehensive scope
needed to govern a national biometric identity database that would include
foreign workers, asylum seekers, and possibly stateless individuals.
A successful digital ID scheme
must be underpinned by legislation that guarantees data privacy, defines the
scope of use, establishes clear accountability for misuse, and provides redress
mechanisms. Without strong legal anchors, a digital ID system risks becoming an
intrusive surveillance tool rather than a public good.
Administratively, a digital ID
scheme would require significant coordination across federal and state
agencies. Malaysia’s current immigration and civil registration systems operate
in silos, with limited interoperability. Integrating these systems into a
unified platform would be a massive undertaking, requiring robust IT
infrastructure, data harmonization, and cross-agency cooperation.
Furthermore, the system would
need to account for people who lack access to smartphones or the internet that many
of whom are among the most vulnerable populations. A digital identity system
that excludes such individuals would only deepen marginalization.
Public trust is another critical
element. In Malaysia, past controversies surrounding identity documents,
refugee registration, and immigration crackdowns have created a climate of fear
among migrant communities.
To be successful, a digital ID
scheme must be perceived as a pathway to inclusion, not a mechanism of control.
Migrants and undocumented individuals are unlikely to register voluntarily
unless they are guaranteed protection from arbitrary detention or deportation.
This means that any rollout must
be accompanied by amnesty or regularization programs, as well as strong
assurances that the data collected will not be used for punitive purposes.
From a security standpoint,
digital identity systems come with both benefits and risks. On the one hand,
they reduce the potential for document forgery and identity fraud, improve
border security, and enable better tracking of overstays and illegal employment.
On the other hand, centralizing
personal and biometric data increases the risk of hacking, data leaks, and
misuse by state or non-state actors. Therefore, the design must incorporate
privacy-by-design principles, including encryption, access control, decentralization
where possible, and mechanisms for individuals to revoke or correct their data.
Another key issue is enforcement.
The UK’s scheme ties digital IDs directly to right-to-work checks, meaning
employers are legally required to verify the ID before hiring. This approach
shifts enforcement from state to employer and creates a powerful disincentive
for hiring undocumented workers.
In Malaysia, where informal
labour is widespread and enforcement is inconsistent, such a mechanism may be
harder to implement. Employers might simply bypass the system or shift further
into informality.
Therefore, enforcement must be
balanced with incentives such as reduced penalties for employers who
participate in migrant registration drives or tax benefits for hiring
documented workers.
Importantly, Malaysia should not
attempt a nationwide rollout immediately. A phased approach, beginning with
specific sectors or geographic areas, would allow policymakers to test and
refine the system before scaling it up.
For instance, the government
could start with documented foreign workers in plantations or construction, who
are already in the system and have biometric records. The next phase could
involve outreach to undocumented individuals under a voluntary registration or
amnesty program.
Throughout the process,
collaboration with civil society, NGOs, migrant organizations, and employers is
essential to ensure that the system is user-friendly, inclusive, and fair.
A hybrid model may also be more
appropriate for Malaysia. Instead of replacing physical documents altogether,
the digital ID could serve as an optional complement particularly useful for
those who need easier access to services or mobility across states. This would
reduce resistance and provide a safety net for those who may not be ready or
willing to transition to a fully digital system.
In a nutshell, a UK-style digital
ID scheme can be adapted to the Malaysian context, but it must be done with
care, inclusivity, and respect for rights. The potential benefits such as
improved immigration control, more efficient services, and reduced fraud are
substantial.
But so are the risks: exclusion,
misuse, and erosion of public trust. For such a system to work in Malaysia, it
must not only be technologically sound but also politically legitimate, legally
grounded, and socially just. If the government can strike that balance, a
digital identity system could become a cornerstone of a modern, humane, and
efficient immigration policy.
However, if rushed or
politicized, it risks deepening existing inequalities and creating a digital
divide between the visible and invisible populations in Malaysia.
02.10.2025
Kuala Lumpur.
© All rights reserved.
Comments