Nazri grilled decision not to use indelible ink

THE government bore the brunt of the Election Commission’s decision to cancel the use of indelible ink by voters in the recent general election as opposition members repeatedly poured cold water on the reasons given by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Aziz yesterday.
Nazri, replying to points raised during the debate on the royal address, had said the decision not to use the ink was made by the Election Commission.

“The government did not order the commission. We merely told them there were concerns about the legal implications and it could create problems later,” he said of the decision, which was made three days before the March 8 polls.

Nazri said the Constitution provided that every citizen had a right to vote and the commission could not stop anyone from voting because they refused to be marked with the indelible ink.

He was repeatedly challenged by Opposition Leader Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail (PKR-Permatang Pauh), Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah), Khalid Samad (Pas-Shah Alam), Dr Zulkifli Ahmad (Pas-Kuala Selangor) and Mahfuz Omar (Pas- Pokok Sena), who fired a variety of questions at Nazri on the issue.
The common thread to the questioning was that the government had failed in not considering the legal implications of using the ink.

They also wanted to know who was responsible for the decision as the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, and Election Commissioner, Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman gave different answers.

“Who is telling the truth here?” asked Mahfuz.

Nazri said the cabinet had alerted the commission two weeks before the decision to dissolve the House was made.

“We conveyed our legal concerns about the use of the ink to the commission.

“It did not mean we ordered them not to use the ink. It is up to the commission as to what it wanted to do,” he said.

Fong said it was strange that the cabinet thought about the legal implications two weeks before the dissolution of the House.

“Where was the attorney-general? Why did he not think about this earlier?” asked Fong, who had said it was strange as the Prime Minister’s Department had thought about the religious implications of using the ink but not the legal aspect.

Nazri said the religious aspects were raised as Muslims had demanded to know if the use of the ink would infringe on their religious practices.

“No one raised the constitutional aspect,” he said, adding that he was not going to reply to the question on what had happened to the RM2.4 million worth of ink bought by the commission.

“Submit it as a written question for the next session,” he said, while declining to answer another question from Fong on who was awarded the contract to bring in the ink.

Wan Azizah told Nazri the whole exercise to cancel the use of indelible ink was suspicious.

“We were told there were reports of people smuggling in the ink and that is why the use of the ink had to be scrapped.

“But after the election we were told it was not the case. Who do we believe then?” she asked.

Nazri said the authorities acted based on the information available at the time.

He said the Barisan Nasional also suffered because the use of indelible ink was cancelled three days before the general election.

“People thought the BN was behind the decision.

“It cost us, too, as there was no time to explain why the decision had to be made,” he said.

Lim Kit Siang