NOW YOU TELL US?
I'm wondering. Was the EC ever serious at all in enforcing that plan to use the indelible ink?
Was it announced just to please certain quarters?
Did they purchase the supply of indelible ink, at all?
Hmmm, my suspicions are very sneaky...
And you know why..
The constitutional interest which legal experts had advised on, should have been considered before a decision to announce the use of indelible ink was made.
Did they ever discuss the matter?
Doesn't it make you wonder?
And now everyone is angry. Well when I heard about the decision yesterday, I was not angry. I think I felt nothing. Perhaps so resigned was I that I was devoid of any emotion.
But when I heard the EC chief's statement, I know I laughed. Now I want to cry....
Aaah....but do they care?
Here's the story.
KUALA LUMPUR, March 6 (Bernama) -- The decision to cancel the use of indelible ink during the voting process in Saturday's election was not done solely on the advice of the police but was also based on the constitution, said Election Commission (EC) chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman.
Abdul Rashid said the police only gave their views in terms of the security aspects, but the overriding factor in making the decision was constitutional considerations.
"If we were to proceed (with the use of the ink), it could be deemed we are violating the rights of voters as we would be forcing them to undergo the ink marking," he said when interviewed on a special election talkshow aired by private television station TV3 Wednesday night.
He added that he very much wanted to have it used during this election but the legal experts warned against it on the grounds of voters' right.
Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan, who also appeared on the show, said police investigations showed there were certain quarters who planned to misuse the ink to create chaos.
The EC announced that it was withdrawing usage of the indelible ink Tuesday.