‘EC banking on getting more spoilt votes?’

Polls watchdog Tindak Malaysia is fearful that the marking of indelible ink on voters' fingers before voting may lead to ballot papers being smudged in ink, and causing a spike of spoiled votes.

PETALING JAYA: Election education movement Tindak Malaysia has questioned the motive of the Election Commission in deciding to apply indelible ink on voters before they vote.

The movement said this could result in ballot papers being smudged in ink and thus be interpreted as spoiled votes.

At a forum on voter education yesterday, Tindak Malaysia president Wong Piang Yow said the EC rules on the ink usage were in contrast to the common practice in other countries which only marked a voter’s finger with ink after voting.

“However, here, the voter would have their fingers marked before a ballot paper is given.

“The ballot paper is folded twice. And to unfold it you would naturally need to use both your hands. It’s highly possible that the ballot paper may be smudged.

“If it is smudged, does it then count as a spoiled vote? The EC did not give us a clear-cut answer,” he told 50-odd attendees.

Indelible ink was introduced by EC last year to prevent repeat voting among voters. It is set to be used for the first time when the nation goes to polls on May 5.

Wong estimated that EC would spend RM7 million to employ a new election clerk in each polling station to apply ink on voters.

“This has got no logic. They could have just place the ink on a table next to the ballot box and allow voters to dip their fingers after voting.

“Besides, indelible ink takes time to dry. It will disrupt the flow of voting if it is applied before a voter gets to vote,” he said.

He said that when a question was raised in a meeting with EC last July, an EC official said they would provide voters with tissue papers.

“But if the ink is not dry yet and you ask them to wipe it with tissue paper, what is point of indelible ink?” he asked.

Meanwhile, he also questioned the need to fold the ballot paper before it was handed over to a voter because there is no rule that requires this to be done.

“Article 19 of the Elections (Conduct of election) Regulations 1981 doesn’t specify the need of folding,” he said.

He alleged that the move was to “waste voters’ time” to reduce the number of votes cast.