Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz has admitted that he blocked the use of the indelible ink prior to the 2008 general election.
"On indelible ink, I must admit that the person who questioned it was me. At that time, there were constitutional concerns.
"Under the constitution, if you fulfill the two conditions, aged 21 and above and are a registered voter, you must be given the ballot paper. So, what happens if you refuse to be marked by the ink?
"There was also concern among Muslims at that time that the ink will block water from reaching the skin when cleaning up for prayers.
So, there were many unresolved questions at the time when the election was near," Nazri told a forum on "Free and Fair Elections: Reality or Illusion?" in Kota Baru last night.
He said this in response to former Election Commission (EC) chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman that he was prevented from implementing indelible ink in the 2008 election.
The move saw the plan to use the indelible ink on voters scrapped at the last minute before the 2008 general election and Rashid bore the brunt of criticism from the turn-about.
"In 2007, I received a letter from the Attorney-General's Chambers saying that the implementation of indelible ink contravened Article 119 of the federal constitution," Rashid (left) said.
"I argued that the voters must obey election rules, just like showing their identity card, which is not included in the federal constitution but must be done as a condition to vote.
"But in the end, I was the bad person, my house was splashed with red paint. It was hurting. When I wanted to implement it, I was stopped, but now other people are allowed to implement it," Rashid added.
Nazri said the implementation of indelible ink was now possible because the parliamentary select committee (PSC) on electoral reform has cleared the air and the AG's Chambers and the fatwa council have given the green light.
"On indelible ink, I must admit that the person who questioned it was me. At that time, there were constitutional concerns.
"Under the constitution, if you fulfill the two conditions, aged 21 and above and are a registered voter, you must be given the ballot paper. So, what happens if you refuse to be marked by the ink?"There was also concern among Muslims at that time that the ink will block water from reaching the skin when cleaning up for prayers.
So, there were many unresolved questions at the time when the election was near," Nazri told a forum on "Free and Fair Elections: Reality or Illusion?" in Kota Baru last night.
He said this in response to former Election Commission (EC) chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman that he was prevented from implementing indelible ink in the 2008 election.
The move saw the plan to use the indelible ink on voters scrapped at the last minute before the 2008 general election and Rashid bore the brunt of criticism from the turn-about.
"In 2007, I received a letter from the Attorney-General's Chambers saying that the implementation of indelible ink contravened Article 119 of the federal constitution," Rashid (left) said."I argued that the voters must obey election rules, just like showing their identity card, which is not included in the federal constitution but must be done as a condition to vote.
"But in the end, I was the bad person, my house was splashed with red paint. It was hurting. When I wanted to implement it, I was stopped, but now other people are allowed to implement it," Rashid added.
Nazri said the implementation of indelible ink was now possible because the parliamentary select committee (PSC) on electoral reform has cleared the air and the AG's Chambers and the fatwa council have given the green light.
'Rashid was made to lie'
However, PAS vice-president Husam Musa reminded the audience that when the plan was first scrapped, Rashid had gone on national television saying it was due to security concerns as other parties had also acquired a similar ink.
"This means that Rashid was made to lie to the people," said Husam.
Furthermore, Husam said, it was questionable that attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail would come to a separate conclusion about the constitutionality of indelible ink at different points in time.
He also said the fatwa council had in 2007 approved the use of indelible ink.
However, Nazri denied knowledge of any fatwa endorsing the use of indelible ink in the 2008 general election.
He said unlike India, which had a large population, Malaysia used the identity card system that could already ensure one vote per person.
"There is no real need for indelible ink because we have identity cards and no one has two identity cards.
"Claims that Indonesians and Bangladeshis can vote in Malaysia are untrue. Only those with blue identity cards can vote," Nazri added.
However, PAS vice-president Husam Musa reminded the audience that when the plan was first scrapped, Rashid had gone on national television saying it was due to security concerns as other parties had also acquired a similar ink.
"This means that Rashid was made to lie to the people," said Husam.
Furthermore, Husam said, it was questionable that attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail would come to a separate conclusion about the constitutionality of indelible ink at different points in time.
He also said the fatwa council had in 2007 approved the use of indelible ink.
However, Nazri denied knowledge of any fatwa endorsing the use of indelible ink in the 2008 general election.
He said unlike India, which had a large population, Malaysia used the identity card system that could already ensure one vote per person.
"There is no real need for indelible ink because we have identity cards and no one has two identity cards.
"Claims that Indonesians and Bangladeshis can vote in Malaysia are untrue. Only those with blue identity cards can vote," Nazri added.
To see and hear the FULL DISCUSSION : http://malaysiansmustknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2012/01/hot-and-exclusive-video-wacana-perdana.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.