Search This Blog

Thursday, May 23, 2013

EC, don't treat the indelible ink issue as an eyewash


At 1% Silver Nitrate concentration, the silver nitrate in the indelible ink is only good enough for use in an eyewash.

Tindak Malaysia’s founder, PY Wong calls on the Election Commission chairman, Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof to be upfront about the indelible ink.

He was responding to Abdul Aziz’s recent comments that the EC would set up a team to probe the indelible ink.

“The issue of indelible ink,” he said, “is an important step towards restoring the people’s confidence in the Election Commission, tasked with conducting a clean and fair election. However, the rakyat have raised doubts over the issue of the indelible ink and told the EC on how to best implement it based on world standards.”

For example, Code ESI of Canada produces indelible ink with a concentration of silver nitrate in the range of 7% - 25% and under the UNDP Procurement Guide, “live” human trials by the public should be conducted to gain public acceptance. All this information is available online, for example, in Tindak Malaysia website (http://www.tindakmalaysia.com/showthread.php/5267-Indelible-ink-Suppliers) since July last year.

Wong pointed out that the finger also has to be dipped into the ink with a sponge and the bottle shaked to make sure that the silver nitrate is on top of the ink and stains the finger. “The ink has to stay on the finger for a minimum of 30 seconds to take effect,” he said.

While the EC Deputy Chairman, Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar claimed ink can dry in 3 seconds, Wong claimed that experts say it is impossible. “We demand the EC reveal the solvent used in the indelible ink that can dry in 3 seconds.”

By failing to use the indelible ink in a manner that is prescribed by the ink manufacturers, despite the advices given through the Public Accountability Committee in 2011, Abdul Aziz runs into the risk of doing things ‘detrimental to parliamentary democracy.’ “Abdul Aziz, as the EC Chairman, has to take responsibility for any foul play,” he said.

Abdul Aziz, he added, had on many occasions denied that the ink was easily removed; instead, he had claimed that the ink was able to last for seven days. He had also stated that the EC received a letter from the Ministry of Health stating that the silver nitrate content in the ink should not exceed one percent, because he claimed that silver nitrate could cause cancer or damage to the kidney.

A voter, who is trained as a chemist, had earlier disputed the claim that silver nitrate could be carcinogenic or damage to the kidney. “Silver nitrate is used in laboratory very often. In its 99.99% purity form, it can even be purchased online (www.silvernitrate.com), and the Material Safety Data Sheet of silver nitrate from reputable laboratories made no mention about the chemical being carcinogenic or able to cause damage to the kidney,” he said.

Wong wants to know who in the Ministry of Health had written to the EC, and on what basis was the false claim made or whether the EC chairman himself had lied to the public about the content of silver nitrate. “Abdul Aziz should publish the content of the letter,” he added. “He should also reveal the name of the manufacturers.”

Wong said that it is clear now that the silver nitrate content of the ink was a mere one percent. “At one percent silver nitrate content, I do not see the need to even shake the ink,” he said. “There is no need for the EC to set up a special team to probe the ink, especially when Abdul Aziz had made several statements that are blatant lies.”

If the EC wants a team to probe, it should include all stakeholders in the team. “This would have to also include representatives from both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional, as well as representatives from NGOs and the Bersih movement,” he said.

11 comments:

  1. If indelible ink can be bought at 7 - 25% concentration, now only less than 1%, just wonder how much money can be made on dilution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. EC gagal menyakinkan rakyat di PRu13.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PRu13 banyak bermasalah. Laporan demi laporan membuktikan PRU tidak amanah.

      Delete
  3. Satu sindiket yang berkemungkinan bermasalah.

    ReplyDelete
  4. SPR harus memberi penjelasan.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dakwat tidak kekal, satu hari sudah hilang.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anwar akan mengemukakan lebih banyak bukti.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dakwat ini benar sama kualiti seperti yang dirancang dan dicuba?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dakwat itu hilang begitu sahaja selepas 1-2 hari.

    ReplyDelete
  9. EC harus memberi penjelasan agar rakyat juga tidak meragu bahawa PRU13 adalah tidak adil dan kurang amanah.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Banyak laporan dan harus juga pihak berkuasa menjalankan siasatan.

    ReplyDelete