In my earlier post I registered my utter contempt to indelible ink use.
I had also distinctly referred to its fallibility before.
Hoodwink Demand 3) Use of indelible ink.
This is the most laughable demand. See Step 5 above. There is no way for anyone to vote twice or three times. All political parties have their election agents in the voting room to ensure that the person registered to vote casts his vote only once by striking his name off their list.
Also indelible ink is not so full proof after all.
"Larrazabal said the Comelec plans to put more nitrate solution due to complaints in the past elections that the indelible ink could be easily removed and allow erring voters to vote several times."
The SPR decided against its use for fear that the unscrupulous found a way round this mechanism and open to abuse.
No need reminding the suggestion to use and not use indelible ink came during whose administration, who else but the flip-flopping Pak Lah.
The use of indelible ink as demanded by a devious Ambiga is actually an intention to give a perception and paint Malaysia as being democratically backward.
I find this extremely insulting.
The Star reported yesterday, "Indelible ink can be easily removed, says firm"
Off it goes: Indelible ink used to mark voter’s fingers can be washed off with off-the-shelf detergents. Pic from the Star report.
The controversy over indelible ink is not new as its use was questioned in the Afghan presidential elections in 2004 and elections in Palestine in 2005.
“It was discovered in both elections that some voters managed to remove the ink and vote more than once,” the spokesman said.