Stephen Ng's comments:

The indelible ink fiasco has turned our May 5 General Election into a big mockery.

The Election Commission’s duo had time and again misled the people about the indelible ink by making all sorts of controversial statements that they could not even substantiate at the end of the day.

Supposedly as custodians of the country’s electoral process, the EC, instead of doing all it could to address the possibility of multiple voting, has taken the matter lightly, not to mention that the Chairman himself, Abdul Aziz Yusof has not been able to produce the letter purportedly from the Ministry of Health stating that anything more than 1% silver nitrate could be carcinogenic or cause damage to the kidneys.

The truth is, as stated by the Health Minister, there was no such letter. Anyone daring enough to even sign the letter is probably out of his mind, since silver nitrate at its purest form (99.99% purity) could even be purchased online. Silver nitrate solutions are used for titration in the laboratories for the determination of halides in a solution.

Applause to Pakatan

Now, Pakatan has decided to take this matter to the court of justice and we will wait eagerly to find out what happened. This is the best thing that can happen, since the Attorney General had decided that they would do nothing about it even after several thousand police reports were lodged. It is also fair that Pakatan has given the EC enough time to tell the truth of what transpired, which caused the indelible ink to fail; along with it bringing the electoral process and the GE13 results into dispute.

In my opinion, this is an act of malfeasance on the part of the EC, a constitutional body entrusted with the task of running a clean and fair election. In fact, by complicating the issue around the indelible ink, the EC was acting in a manner that is detrimental to the democratic process of this country. The indelible ink is nothing complicated. However, since the ink was easily washed away within the same day, it swung open a wide door for multiple voting to take place.

The reason why the indelible ink was introduced in GE13 and elsewhere around the globe is to prevent multiple voting. If applied correctly, it is able to stop people from voting more than once, especially since the electoral roll is already so full of frauds. The EC has made it possible for voters to register using various documents apart from the national identity cards.

Even as a polling agent, I must admit that there is no way to stop someone from voting unless there are strong suspicions that the identity cards were fake. We would not be able to tell whether the same person has voted twice, unless the indelible ink used by the advanced voters is able to last more than seven days. A police man at my polling stream was supposed to have voted a week earlier, but when I asked him about the indelible ink on his finger, he said it was removed on the same day!

PKR’s strategy director, Rafizi Ramli had given ample time for the EC to reveal the name of the supplier, but the EC duo claimed that there are security issues if the name of the supplier is released. Now that the General Election is already over, what TOP SECRET are we talking about?Frankly, I don’t care a damn who you buy it from, as long as it is indelible.

But, if it is not indelibe ink, I want to know which supplier the EC had purchased the ink from. I want to also know whether the said company has a history of supplying indelible ink to other countries. In other words, is it a reputable supplier and does it have a track record? If not, why did our EC decide to purchase from this particular supplier, which ended up not serving its purpose.

I also want to know at what cost each bottle of the so-called indelible ink was purchased,compared to those that are already available in the market. This is because I frankly think this entire fiasco is also a criminal breach of trust, since a total of RM7 million of public fund was spent on the indelible ink which did not work. I want to know if the EC is now suing the supplier of the ink that that did not meet the expectations.

I also want to hear from the supplier what the silver nitrate content in the ink is, since there is controversy over the statements made by Shahidan Kassim in parliament recently and that of the EC duo. Even between Aziz and Wan Ahmad Wan Omar, the statements were controversial one saying you cannot exceed more than one percent, the other saying the ink was definitely in the range of 4-6 percent Silver Nitrate.

What the rakyat want to see is for the EC to publish all the documents including the specifications of the ink. In any bulk purchases, especially by a government agency, the supplier of the ink should make available the ink specifications especially when the inks are imported into the country. Such documents would be useful for the rakyat to know the truth. I dare the EC publish these documents.

In less than 24 hours, the EC chairman, Abdul Aziz has also denied knowing the supplier of the indelible ink after Rafizi Ramli announced the name in parliament. I frankly do not see how Abdul Aziz can vouch on behalf of his deputy, except to say he was probably lying. One can only vow for himself, not someone else.

Again, I find it hard to believe the EC chairman’s statement. If it is true that the supplier is based in Singapore, why then does the EC choose to only purchase the ink from Singapore instead of sourcing the ink locally? After all, there are so many ink manufacturing plants in Malaysia and they were among the leading investors in the eighties.

If it is concerned that the local ink suppliers would leak information about the ink out, why could the EC not purchase the ink from more established suppliers in China or India, which have good track record? Why do they have to purchase from down South, and why from this particular supplier?

Finally, why did it fail if it was meant to be indelible in the first place? All these questions raise more about doubts about the integrity of the people at the EC, and both Abdul Aziz and Wan Ahmad have a lot to answer for.

Stephen Ng