Introduction to Digital ID Introduction to Digital ID and inaccessible. As digital ID systems develop rapidly across the region, critical analysis of the impact of these systems on marginalized groups has been slow to catch up. Uncertainty surrounding the design of these systems, the lack of Legal and policy frameworks set in place prior to developing them, and the lack of public knowledge of the implications of such systems are serious concerns. Beyond knowledge production, combatting the lack of transparency in digital ID systems’ design and implementation requires shared principles, positions, and standards for what characteristics they should ideally have. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a law of the European Union, is the standard Legal framework for how to ensure protection of personal data in digital ID systems. While the GDPR’s compliance guidelines are widely followed, it is difficult to monitor government compliance with respect to digital ID systems due to the lack of transparency of their characteristics and the lack of comprehensive Legal and policy frameworks behind them. Another framework is UNDP’s Digital Legal ID Governance Framework for governments and civil society actors, which provides recommendations for rights based, inclusive digital identity systems. The Human Rights for Digital ID (HR4ID) Coalition, “a community of civil society organizations and researchers from across the globe advocating to diminish the negative impacts of digital identity on individuals and communities”, has also adopted a common position on mandatory digital ID systems. With a focus on systems that either have mandatory enrollment, or mandatory use (required to access essential services such as health care), the common position includes:  “Mandatory digital ID requirements negatively impact human rights/human life, particularly for those who are marginalized or vulnerable.”  “Public institutions should not require mandatory enrollment in a digital ID system.” for our claims and provide an analysis of our findings based on available evidence.  “Public institutions should not require mandatory use of elements of the digital ID system to access public services or privately provided public services.”  “In contexts where digital ID systems already exist or are in development, the State has an obligation to guarantee there are accessible, non-digital alternatives available for those who are unable to enroll or use the digital ID.” In addition to our own desk-based research, we collaborated with law firms, non-governmental organizations, and independent practitioners who contributed pro bono support. These experts shared primary inputs into laws, relevant case studies, provided legal interpretations, reviewed our drafts and provided inputs from their field experience. Their input helped us strengthen the depth and reliability of each factsheet.  NFA hopes that this research can contribute to as well as question these common positions and shared principles on how to ensure nondiscrimination, equity and protection of human rights in digital ID systems. Methodology The NFA Research team designed a standardized research framework to ensure consistency and comparability across all factsheets. We developed a uniform questionnaire in-house, outlining key thematic areas such as Legal Identity, Legal frameworks, policy implementation, population impact, and gaps in the protection of stateless and at-risk populations. This questionnaire guided the structure and scope of all data collection. Although not uniform, some elements of primary research have been incorporated based on the contributions to the NFA team by stakeholders. We also undertook an extensive review of secondary sources, including domestic legislation, policy documents, official statistics, academic publications, and credible reports from international organizations. By comparing and cross-referencing multiple sources, we reduced reliance on any single dataset and increased the accuracy of findings. In our attempt to ensure credibility, we have attempted to provide a source Structure Each factsheet is divided into four sections: A. B. C. D. Legal Identity Overview Laws Designed to Include? The Impact of Digital ID and Legal Identity on Citizenship and Nationality Rights Legal Identity The primary focus on this section relates to assessing if a given country has a Legal identity and who it is accessible to. It also explores the question of whether it forms a foundational document to access Nationality. The definitions for proof of Legal identity and civil registration that are used throughout the third edition follow the Guide drafted under the World Bank’s Identification for Development (ID4D) Initiative. Overview This section provides an overview of digital Identification (digital ID) systems in each country within the Asia Pacific, with a focus on their structure, scope, and implications. Our primary conceptual reference for referring to a digital ID system is drawn from the World Bank’s Glossary on Digital Identification. It further assesses whether each country’s digital ID is classified as foundational or functional, following the distinctions made in the World Bank’s ID4D Guide. Foundational IDs are “primarily created to manage identity information for the general population and p rovide credentials that serve as proof of identity for a wide variety of public and private sector transactions and services”, while functional IDs are designed “to manage Identification, authentication, and authorization for a particular service or transaction, such as voting, tax administration, social programs and transfers, financial services, and more”. The analysis also considers whether the use of digital ID is Legally or de facto mandatory or optional, whether it is available exclusively to citizens or also to non-citizens, and the range of services that are linked to it. Crucially, the section examines the availability of alternative pathways to access these services in cases where an individual does not hold or cannot obtain a digital ID. Beyond the ID systems themselves, the section explores the development of other forms of statesponsored digital public infrastructure (DPI) and evaluates whether access to these platforms requires a digital ID. These lines of inquiry are critical in understanding patterns of inclusion and exclusion. They provide the analytical groundwork for mapping the ways in which digital ID systems intersect with questions of citizenship and the equitable delivery of essential services. In addition, the section examines procedural safeguards in the design and rollout of digital ID systems. It investigates whether governments engaged in public consultations, solicited expert input, or conducted impact assessments before implementation, or whether the systems emerged primarily through Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) without significant public debate. This exploration helps to assess the extent to which the creation of digital ID systems reflects democratic processes and participatory Governance. 8 9 STATELESSNESS ENCYCLOPEDIA ASIA PACIFIC THIRD EDITION - REGIONAL OVERVIEW REPORT 2026