Is E-Government = Easier Government?

Anyone who has had to deal with the government knows what a big pain it can be. Don't we hate it when it's time to renew our licenses or get NBI clearances? It usually means spending the greater part of the day lining up in sweltering offices to interact with unfriendly clerks who cannot be fired no matter how rude or slow they are (in fairness, they are overworked and underpaid, if you don't count their "side" income). Thus, any measure that will make these transactions more convenient is like manna from heaven.

One such measure is the use of e-government, or using the Internet and other ICT for government transactions. E-government is already in full swing in Singapore , where many transactions with the government can be made through ATM-like portals. In the Philippines , the use of e-government is mostly used by BIR (for taxpayer registration) and, to a lesser extent, by DBM (in connection with e-procurement).

E-government has many advantages. Obviously, it is more convenient for people who have to transact with the government—we no longer have to go through the suffering described above. Since there is no human interaction, there is less opportunity for graft or corruption. Still on corruption, e-government is more transparent and observable as all transactions are logged—it would be fairly easy to get usage statistics and, if payments are made electronically, balance the books. E-government could also be an easy way of getting general information about people who transact with government, which can be used for improving services or even shared with the private sector for market research (anonymity should be maintained, of course).

The downside to e-government is security. Given the information we have to divulge when we interact with government, the idea that someone can hack servers can chill attitudes to e-government. It just feels more secure to have our sensitive information in some (un)locked cabinet guarded by an underpaid sikyu who has a penchant for sleeping on the job. However, while threats from hackers can be reasonably plugged, a bigger problem is identity theft. How can the government be sure that those who use e-portals are who they say they are? Some white collar criminal can wreak havoc on your life with just a few mouse clicks, as is happening now in the United States where identity theft is becoming a major problem.

Bottom line, any move towards e-government should be well thought out and done properly, which our brick-and-mortar government is not always known to do. While e-government is the future, we should make sure that we dump the problems of the past on our way there.

Piracy

For quite some time, the Philippines has been part of the Priority Watch List of the US government for being one of the countries which offer inadequate and inefficient IPR protection. Though we have been lifted from the infamous list recently, the problem of piracy continues to pervade our society. To this date, there is an open peddling of bootleg discs of movies, music, and software on thoroughfares, sidewalks, and even malls.

Though there has been a sincere effort on the part of the government to curb IPR infractions, these may prove to be no more than temporary salves to a recurring problem. Piracy continues to lure many people because of its main selling point --- its low price. It is little wonder that many people find themselves drawn to opt for the pirated and counterfeit versions, considering that these can be bought at a fraction of the price of the original. While considerations other than price should also counsel caution, appeals to the public that buying and patronizing pirated products is a crime generally fall on deaf ears simply because the crime of piracy seems to have been disturbingly institutionalized in Filipino culture.

Perhaps it is high time for the government to consider framing a competitive pricing system for original software, movies and music so that people may be drawn to buy the original. Pegging the price of knowledge, information and entertainment too high would be tantamount to curtailing the free flow of ideas in the market.

The reasoning may be flawed, but it nevertheless persuades.