Thursday, November 10, 2011


May I ask, “What’s so unconstitutional about allowing the use of the indelible ink in the upcoming GE?” AG Gani Patail opined that (he believes) the Federal Constitution does not allow the authorities to force a voter to be marked with permanent ink. But the nine member panel of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) that was formed to look into the electoral reforms demanded by Bersih 2.0 however does not agree with the AG. Now, is this another of the AG’s trickery to ascertain the BN government’s opportunity of winning the next GE by disallowing the use of the indelible ink? There is already a growing perception that this is another of the AG’s trickery, and even the driver of the taxi that I rode in this afternoon think so.

India, the world’s largest democracy has been using the indelible ink, and what is so unique about our constitution that has ‘outlawed’ the use of the indelible ink? Why has India to use the indelible ink when they are said to be the true practitioner of democracy? They don’t need to, and I don’t think we have reached the same level as India with regards to the practice of democracy, and it is for this reason that we should be using the indelible ink during the elections, instead of India. I am no constitutional lawyer, but the AG’s opinion sound rather odd to me. I hope Prof Abdul Aziz Bari, a constitutional expert can throw some light into this issue for all Malaysians to be conscious of the truth.

In a recent interview via email with Malaysiakini, former EC boss Tan Sri Abd Rashid had reaffirmed his support in the use of the indelible ink for the 2008 GE that was withdrawn during the final hours prior to the elections. In a media interview he made at the time, Abd Rashid claimed that the decision not to use the indelible was for security reasons, but did not reveal the source that had influence him to make that decision. I now believe that Abd Rashid was pressured (or was he ordered) by someone to withdraw the decision that he had in the first instant wanted to use of the indelible ink. I just wonder what happened to the indelible ink purchased from India at the costs of RM 1.2 million of taxpayers’ money for the 2008 GE? Hope it wasn’t drained out into the South China Sea.

Badrul Hisham aka Chegubard in a recent press conference has vowed that he would organize a much larger Bersih-like rally if he finds that the government does not heed to the electoral demands of Bersih 2.0 first before calling for the GE; believed to be held early next year. A Bersih 3.0 is not what all like-minded Malaysians would like to see happening to the country. I believe that should Bersih 3.0 proceed, it would be the youth that will be taking the lead. And did we not see in recent times how the youth were able to galvanize themselves into a strong and potent force to rally and protest in the UIA’s Prof Abdul Aziz Bari’s case? And have we not witnessed the massive support of our youth towards the Bersih 2.0 rally overseas? These are clear signs of growing popular people’s protest that our government cannot ignore, and I am not at all surprised that to ignore would only lead to serious consequences to the government, even leading to the possibility in the change of government by force. We have seen such trends in the North African Muslim states recently where powerful governments were brought to its knees by a popular people’s uprising against a repressive government. Let this be a warning to ourselves that such a trend could happen to us at anytime.

Enough has been said that the 13th GE will be a ‘mother of all battles’ of sort. It is a do-or-die for the opposition and similarly, PM Najib has vowed to defend Putrajaya even if bones and bodies were to be crushed. These are strong statements citing the desperation of the BN government to defend itself from relieving power. Likewise, in the case of the opposition, losing this election would not only diminish all hopes of them making any sizable inroads into Putrajaya in the future, but what is worse I think the opposition’s failure would call for an end to their challenge.



bruno said...

Dato,it's been over a week since your last posting.Taking a breather from your regular bashing of corrupted politicians and their bola carriers,I guessed.

Why are the representatives of the Umno GOM coming out in defense of not using the indelible ink is anybody's guess.Now we have the country's most corrupted AG coming out with his most moronic opinions.

I am not familiar or an expert at any constitutional law or any laws whatever that concerns elections.But let me put in my two cents worth of saying that proponents of a fairer and cleaner elections,wanted indelible ink to be used in elections to prevent double or triple voting.

To make it simple,political operatives of a party loaded with cash are out to buy votes during election day.They approached a voter who is willing to sell his or her vote.But they do not trust the voters who are selling their votes.So they took their I.C. and send in one of their own to vote for them.

But these political operatives are stamped with indelible ink.So once they have voted and leave the building they cannot re-enter the building again.If they want to re-enter the building they have to put their hands under a lamp which will shine out the stamp.

So if the political party operatives succeeded in buying 1000votes,they will need 1000 different guys to vote for them.So indelible ink makes it difficult for them to buy large amounts of votes,say in hundreds or even thousands of votes in a single constituency.

It does not prevent cheating or vote buying,but it helps control or minimise the amount of votes a cheating party can buy.So it can help minimise the chances that vote buying will influence the result of that particular race.

Mohd Arshad Raji said...

Dear Bruno,

Yes, I've off the air for almost a week; not taking a breather but have some problems with my computer. Maklum sajalah, saya kurang cekap dengan kumputer ini.

I am of the view that the government is taking all measures to avoid the use the indelible ink, and of course they got the AG to come out with a legal opinion. This is a sure way of creating a confusion and futher delays.

I see no other reason other than all that I have said in my blog.


Dato, glad to have you back writing.Read all your articles but choose not to comment. Keep up the good work.

mike joey said...

Welcome back! I thought you gave yourself a deserved joyful happy holiday with your family away from the congested city of Kuala Lumpur.
Yes, I am all for the implementation of usage of the indelible ink come GE13. It will surely control a large amount of cheating by the BN political agents. Why is the Govt so afraid to try it out for once?? Perhaps they fear in loosing more votes and Putrajaya all at one go. If India can practice it without any hitches why can't our country do like wise? Maybe the former EC Rashid can tell us the truth of this issue. Anyway, I dont think he has the guts to do so.To tell the truth is always difficult, but to lie there is no problem especially for people with no integrity.

exrmafazhar said...

Dato, whether it is indelible ink or cap jari or anything that can serves its purpose i am for it. The main thing is how do you monitor it and make sure that voters does not vote more than once. I remember someone said before that some voters, vote early in the morning in one constituency, say Kuala Trengganu, then take the next flight to KL and vote in Selangor. If it is true then this has to stop.

Another of concerns is on the 'illegitimate' voters... those given instant ICs and become legitimate voters. I just hope Mat Bangla and Mat Susilo will not become the deciding factor in who will be our future leaders.

And of course the elusive postal votes which we ourselves had the experience before. Doesn't postal voters have the right to decide which area he/she wants to be registered into? I had the experience of first registering in the north of peninsula but my name appears in the KL area and i was stationed in the east coast then. Also why must the spouse be subjected to the same rules ie must be a postal voter also? The usual reasons given for postal voters is security.... but the spouse? security also? The problem is most postal voters are ignorant of their rights especially those in uniform. Because they are use to 'ikut arahan', so to question the authority is a big no no. And the allegation of postal votes being manipulated still haunts us. .. question like how secure are the postals votes after it has been cast and waiting for it to be counted at end of election day. Who keeep them? Many a time we heard postal votes arriving late at the counting centres eventhough postal votes were cast a few days earlier. And this always happened when the early result of such constituencies indicates of small margin wins for the opposition. By right postal votes are the one that should be counted first then only followed by others.

I just hope the parlimentary reform committee will look into these matters. I hope so.