Doubts over 'removable' indelible ink claim

Election observers who have worked in several other countries today raised doubts over a claim that indelible ink used to prevent multiple voting can be easily removed with detergents.

However, Ong BK, who had observed the Afghanistan presidential election in 2009, said there were reports of the ink being removed, but only because the ink had been diluted.

“There was no problem with the use of the ink, except where election officials had diluted the ink so it was not able to stay... but these were isolated cases and not cited as a problem in that election,” he said when contacted.

Ong, who was in Afghanistan as part of the Asian Network for Free Elections (Anfrel) delegation, said the problems that arose from indelible ink in that election were due to lax enforcement.

“I had observed that some officials did not mark voters after they voted, resulting in some cases of multiple voting.

“There were also problems with heads of families demanding several ballot papers, claiming that they were voting for their sons and daughters,” he said.

Ong, who is now coordinator for the Malaysian Election Observers Network (MEO-Net), has also acted as an independent observer in elections in other countries, including Bangladesh.

National daily The Star reported yesterday that an unnamed firm based in Europe, with 25 years of experience in 40 countries, conducted a reliability test on the ink and found that it came off easily.

It reported that the firm demonstrated that a stain on a finger made using ink from a tube marked “indelible ink” was removed easily with “off-the-shelf” stain removers available at most hardware stores.

It also said that this was a problem in the 2004 Afghanistan presidential election and in the 2005 Palestinian election.

Times Online had then reported that two Afghan presidential candidates had complained that the ink did not stop people from voting several times as it could be removed easily.

It was reported that many voters were spotted trying to remove the ink with various detergents, including industrial bleach, with “varying degrees of success”.

'Not a single report'

However, then Anfrel election observer for the 2004 Afghan presidential election, Abdul Malek Hussin, said he had not heard of even “one report of indelible ink coming off”.

“I had observed the use of it in the tents where people voted. The ink lasted for one day, but would fade after a while. I can assure you that it does not come off for the whole day,” Malek said.

A former Malaysians for Free and Fair Elections (Mafrel) chairperson, Malek said the issue of “removable indelible ink” did not arise in other elections that he had observed.

This included the 2004 Indonesian and Filipino presidential elections, and national elections in Sri Lanka, Thailand, India and Bangladesh.

“In Indonesia, the ink was used from Jakarta all the way to the most remote earthquake regions in eastern Sumatra, and the issue was not the ink, but corruption and abuse by military forces,” he said.

The Star reported that the unnamed European-based firm, which specialises in fingerprint security systems, would be submitting its findings to the Malaysian authorities.

When contacted, Election Commission (EC) chairperson Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof, who has also served as an election observer abroad, said: “No comment.”

Indelible ink is one of the eight demands of the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih 2.0).

The EC said recently that it would decide if indelible ink, a biometric system or both would be used in the 13th general election.