One of the things that has been said repeatedly in discussions and presentations about Jamaica’s pending National Identification System is that it wasn’t going to be a mandatory system. Yes, people would need a National Identification Card (NIC) or National Identification Number (NIN) for all transactions with the Government and its agencies. Yes, many private entities might require a NIC or NIN from someone in order to do business with them. You might end up not being able to function in the society if you did not have a NIC or a NIN, but there was no offence or penalty in the Bill for not having a NIC or a NIN.
But that has changed.
On September 19, 2017, the House of Representatives passed the National Identification and Registration Bill, with approximately 100 amendments. Two of those amendments were to Clause 20 in PART IV of the Bill, which deals with Enrolment. Clause 20 deals with “Enrolment of registrable individuals” and two new subclauses were added to the Bill:
The penalty referred to in the Fourth Schedule is as follows:
So if someone doesn’t apply to enrol in the National Identification System, without reasonable cause, they will have committed an offence in law and will be liable to a fine of up to $100,000.
So much for persuasion via public education regarding the benefits of the system or coercion via exclusion from being able to interact with public or private entities. It is now made explicit. Enrolment will be mandatory.
A number of significant changes addressing some of the specific problematic aspects of this new piece of legislation have been made to the Bill since it was first tabled in Parliament on March 21 this year. Many problematic issues remain. The Bill now goes to the Senate for further consideration.
The current version of the National Identification and Registration Bill
Right Steps & Poui Trees 
November 2, 2017 at 11:44 pm
This must be subject to intensive national debate!
LikeLiked by 2 people
November 2, 2017 at 11:51 pm
Unfortunately it’s likely to pass into law by the end of the month. The Government decided not to send it to a Joint Select Committee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 3, 2017 at 5:01 am
Again, our government’s aversion to public consultation on show 😩🇯🇲
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 3, 2017 at 6:09 am
The Government would say that consultation has been going on for more than thirty years, when the suggestion of a national identification system was first made. However, the consultation regarding this actual Bill is what matters now. The reason given for no Joint Select Committee is that we risk losing the IDB funding if we take the time to do it. Which is a bit curious when you consider that the Bill was first tabled March 21 this year, was withdrawn and a new version tabled on June 6; the debate in the Lower House started on June 13, resumed on September 19 and was completed and the Bill passed that same day, with 100 amendments. This morning the Bill goes to the Senate for consideration. It seems there might have been time in there for a Joint Select Committee allowing for wider public input. I do know that there have been direct consultations with some stakeholders and in the ones I’ve participated in, the Government representatives have been very open and responsive. I have seen some significant changes to the Bill, though other significant concerns remain. But I don’t like that a new piece of legislation that will have such far-reaching impact on people in relation to the State isn’t being subjected to “the closer scrutiny of the Parliament in a joint select committee” as the PM said about another piece of legislation this year.
LikeLiked by 2 people
November 3, 2017 at 6:16 am
Rubbish rationalizations for ‘unseemly haste’. I’d always have issues with notions that only selected groups have input 🙂 Agree on last point.
BTW, this covers clearly those born in Jamaica. What happens to any immigrants? Presumably, they can exist with whatever foreign documentation they possess (if any, in case of minors). Does that leave a gap? Would, say, Dr Alexis have been a ‘documented alien’?
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 3, 2017 at 6:46 am
I agree completely about not restricting consultations to selected groups. The public generally should have an opportunity for input. Regarding who the Bill applies to…not only those born in Jamaica, but all Jamaican citizens and people normally resident in Jamaica. So Dr Alexis would have to apply, citizen or no… 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 5, 2017 at 4:00 pm
I’d suggest your talking to the IDB rep, in any of your official capacities, to confirm whether funding would have been/is at risk. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
November 5, 2017 at 8:00 pm
But the Leader of Govt Business in the Senate said on Friday that they want to pass the Bill in time to get it before the IDB Board’s November meeting, in order to stick with an effective timeline for implementation. And in order to do so, the Senate has to pass the Bill by next Friday. Do I have a puzzled look on my face?
LikeLiked by 2 people
November 5, 2017 at 8:07 pm
Yes, of course the funding is at risk, as I just noted in my blog. There were some delays initially, which has resulted in this huge rush. Senator Johnson Smith emphasised that the funds would be gone if it wasn’t passed on Friday November 10!
LikeLike
November 7, 2017 at 2:18 am
I’d still speak to the IDB rep.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 12, 2017 at 8:28 pm
The funds wont go (at least, initially). Board approval may be delayed, and with that the implementation timetable will move till such time as proposals pass through Parliament. That may not be in 2017, as currently envisaged. It’s a long way from the any idea of funding being pulled.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 3, 2017 at 1:13 am
Is there any age threshold?
LikeLike
November 3, 2017 at 5:32 am
Upper or lower?
LikeLike
November 3, 2017 at 5:40 am
Both
LikeLiked by 2 people
November 3, 2017 at 5:48 am
There is no upper limit and an identification number will be issued at birth and the card will be issued at age 6.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 3, 2017 at 5:51 am
Both make sense, though why no card till 6 makes me wonder. Thx
LikeLike
November 3, 2017 at 11:43 am
Thank you Sue. I have read your blog and the exchange above and the only thing I can say is – I have to fight against my natural flow of thoughts and restrain them. They might be thoughts alone but they are not healthy ones. I just don’t like how this makes me feel and/or think. So i am going to leave it at thank you for posting and informing us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
November 5, 2017 at 8:09 pm
Jeanette, I don’t like the feel of this either. One of the things about a Joint Select Committee is that there is more space for explanation on the record about the decisions taken regarding amendments at the clause by clause stage. Individuals and groups have the opportunity to submit and those submissions form part of the Parliamentary record. It leads to better opportunities for understanding the decisions taken.
LikeLike
November 3, 2017 at 4:04 pm
I may have missed something, but was there in the first place any public education on this issue? It has been floating around for decades… I don’t understand though how and why it was decided that it was mandatory to obtain an ID card (and such a large fine?) – who made this decision or was it a collective one? What about a homeless person, for example? So the police can lock anyone up for not having an ID card on them? Reminiscent of Hitler’s Germany…
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 5, 2017 at 6:12 am
Poor us. Betrayed on a daily daily basis. I’m beginning to have a real problem with the artifice and hypocrisy. I am getting to the point of favouring another system. Not sure what it is but it would just allow them to do what they want when the want however they want. Because the sham of a democracy that plays out in Jamaica leaves a bitter taste both in my heart and mouth. I’d rather we call it by some other name but can’t manage the theatre anymore.
LikeLiked by 2 people
November 5, 2017 at 8:22 pm
I hear you, Jeanette…
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 5, 2017 at 8:20 pm
The Govt has been doing some public education about the Bill this year, but the absence of a Joint Select Committee removes an additional avenue for public input and further discussion on specific issues of concern. Having a public record of the reasons for the various amendments would be much better for transparency. At the moment, there is no provision in the Bill that requires that people carry their ID with them at all times, but there is nothing that would prevent something along those lines being inserted in the regulations. And while there is nothing that says the police could lock you up if you don’t have your ID with you, it is quite likely that this could become a practice on the ground in some areas or for people fitting a certain profile.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: “Argument Dunn,” Goodbye to GSAT and King Evil’s Demise: Jamaica, November 5, 2017 – Petchary's Blog
Pingback: Voluntary? Not Anymore: Jamaica National Identification & Registration Bill Enrolment Amendment — Right Steps & Poui Trees – Jamaica Peace Council