RM2.9 mil indelible ink up in smoke

The indelible ink bought for use in the 12th general election for RM2.9 million has been disposed of by a burning process in accordance with the procedure set by government regulations.

Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Liew Vui Keong said the ink that could not be used due to security and legal problems was disposed of on Nov 25.

He said this in a written reply to a question by Senator Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim ( left ) on the decision made on the indelible ink that was bought and was to be sold but its expiry date had passed.

Just before the March 2008 general election, the Election Commission had agreed to use the ink to put to rest claims of multiple voting. However, the plan was cancelled four days before the March 8 polling day in 2008.

The commission paid RM2.9 million for about 48,000 bottles of the ink which was bought from India, but it (EC) called off the use of the ink on claims that elements of sabotage had been detected by the police.

The EC's reason behind the cancellation was due to police reports alleging that certain quarters had purchased indelible ink from abroad, allegedly to create confusion and suspicion during the polls.

It was a cabinet decision

However two months after the general election, the then Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar revealed in Parliament that the EC's controversial decision to cancel the use of indelible ink was based on hearsay evidence.

Syed Hamid had said police found no evidence behind the claims after three investigation papers were opened. He added that the papers were referred to the Attorney-General's Chambers on March 14 and 21 were later classified under "no further action".

This was followed by a revelation by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz that no action will be taken against those who had lodged police reports on indelible ink smuggling allegations.

The EC chief during that time, Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, had then dropped a bombshell by revealing that it was the cabinet which had rejected the use of indelible ink.

He disclosed that the cabinet was swayed by the police information that political parties had purchased indelible ink overseas. He said the cabinet had also considered the constitutional aspects of using the ink.