The Election Commission (EC) has scrapped the indelible ink plan for the March 8 general election following legal advice, its chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman said. He said that the decision made at a meeting today was also to ensure security and public order.
“Police investigations reveal that there are irresponsible people who bought ink from foreign countries in order to persuade those not familiar with the procedure to have the ink applied (to a voter’s forefinger or nail) before polling day,” he told a press conference at the EC headquarters, Putrajaya. [Bernama]
Abdul Rashid also said that the use of indelible ink would not be effective as the country’s constitution allows those who refuse to have their fingernail marked with the ink to still be issued with a ballot, and that the use of the indelible ink could infringe the constitutional right of a voter to cast his vote, especially if the commission tries to bar someone from voting for having an ink marked in his finger. [Malaysiakini]
The last minute reversal is not well received by the opposition parties and the public. DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng and PKR’s deputy president Dr Syed Husin Ali have both criticised the cancellation of indelible ink of favouring the ruling party’s cheating and abuses in the election.
Frankly, I can see the point of cancelling the use of inedible link… I have thought of some possible downside for using the ink, for example some ladies might not know about the plan somehow and have applied nail polish and not allowed to vote etc… it could create unexpected chaos.
Questions are however… why using it at the first place? The indelible ink has cost the country million of dollars, shouldn’t the EC think twice before deciding to use it initially?
I have never thought of the violation of constitutional rights for using the ink, stupid me… but I am just a common citizen after all. However, what’s the excuse for EC for not considering about the constitutional factor back then? Shouldn’t they be thinking of the legal issues before spending millions for the ink?
Now, what will happen to the ink? Shouldn’t someone be held responsible for the earlier decision? Should we continue to allow incompetent people like Abdul Rashid to continue leading the commission? And what’s next… cancelling the use of transparent ballot box because it violates privacy? How about cancelling the poll all together?
Leave a Reply