My recommendations were at the end of my testimony, when I suggested waiting a few years to see how it works with Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. How cost-effective are the measures? Is it really improving the security there? Is it increasing the cost? Is it worth it?
It doesn't cost anything to wait a few months or a few years to see how they fare, and if they fare fine, if the government thinks that this is the best way, and if the government feels that there is such a security risk that we're going to be invaded by visitors who have fraudulent intentions, then of course, they have to go ahead with such biometric data.
Then again, I remind you that more than a year ago there was the underwear bomber who made an attempt in the United States. The United States already had his biodata, but could not prevent that man from boarding the plane and trying to attempt his terrorist act. Even the father of that man, who had tried to advise U.S. Immigration of his son being a dangerous man, was ignored.
There's always a risk that, even with all the biodata, it won't change the intentions of an individual who wants to commit a terrorist act. That's why I think the security risk is not necessarily at the level of biodata.