EC chief: More woes with biometric than indelible ink

The Election Commission (EC) chief today conceded that the use of indelible ink to avoid double voting is less problematic than using a biometric system.

Speaking to reporters in Kuala Lumpur, EC chairperson Abdul Aziz Yusof said that while the biometric is the “perfect system” in theory, loopholes exist in practice.

“The argument is that (someone with multiple identity cards) can vote once and then bring another card to a different stream, and it will match his thumbprint and he will be allowed to vote

“The prerequisite for the system to work is for each person to have only one identity card,” he said.

Comparing it to indelible ink, he added that the system could also malfunction on the day of voting and complicate the process.

“We have had a dry run with 50 people and the average time per person is 10 seconds, but had problems where the machine could not detect.

“With indelible ink you just have to dip the finger in the ink,” he said.

He also noted that the biometric system is “very expensive” in comparison, and requires at least seven months lead time.

Abdul Aziz also refuted his deputy Wan Ahmad Wan Omar's claim that indelible ink could be used by irresponsible parties to mark naive voters to ensure that they are disqualified from voting.

Wan Ahmad said that the commission buckled to pressure to use indelible ink in 2008, only to call it off at the very last minute following claims that another batch of ink has been imported by another party, it was suspected for sinister purposes.

“This cannot happen as the colour of the ink is not known until the day... there can be so many colours. We can also maybe have some sort of pattern,” Abdul Aziz said.

He also noted that there will not be a shortage of supply as the ink can be bought from various sources.

Biometric, indelible ink or combo in next GE

As such, he said, the commission is currently reviewing which system to use for the next general election.

“It could be indelible ink, biometric or both systems combined to make it foolproof... God willing, by the next general election,” he said.

Abdul Aziz, however, said that the Attorney-General's chambers is still studying the legal aspects of the move, particularly if it would be made mandatory.

This is because the federal constitution states that no registered voter can be stopped from voting.

A constitutional amendment is not required if the use of either systems or both is made “voluntary”, but this, he agreed, would not stop possible double voting.

“That's why we want to make sure that everybody will use it. If they don't want to they will need to fill in a form, for example.

“(But) there will be people would not want to use (the ink) as they think it's haram, for example, or they are allergic," he said.

He added that if the system is made mandatory a constitutional amendment will need to be tabled in Parliament, and can only be passed with two-thirds majority vote.

“We are aiming for the next Parliamentary sitting (in October)... but politics can make things hard for the EC. (Politicians) can work together to block (the amendment),” he said.