`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Sunday, June 9, 2013

Who is lying - EC chief or Health Ministry?


YOURSAY 'Abdul Aziz, if the Health Ministry had indeed written a letter which back your statements, why have you not released the letter to public?'

We did consult ministry on indelible ink, insists EC

your sayLittleGiant: The Election Commission (EF) is clearly fond of 'beating around the bush' and not providing straight answers to the many issues and controversies surrounding it.

On the indelible ink matter, all that is expected of its chairperson, Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof, is to show the letter that EC wrote to the Health Ministry and the reply received by the EC from the ministry.

Since the health minister made it public that the EC did not consulthis ministry regarding safety of the indelible ink used in GE13, the Abdul Aziz should have no hesitation to show the letter or the report that he claims was received from the Health Ministry on the safety concerns of the indelible ink.

What is the need for him to say "we will inform the minister accordingly"? And if Health Minister Dr S Subramaniam made an incorrect statement, he should accept responsibility for the blunder and apologise to the EC.

Quigonbond: EC, let me underline this for you. The purpose of indelible ink is to stay indelible for advanced voters and also to stop double voting on polling day.

Even assuming health is an issue and you know full well that the ink will not serve its purpose, you should have highlighted this to the public way before the elections, which any reasonably sensible official in your position would have done.

Your secrecy imputes a sinister agenda. As a result, you no longer have the confidence of the public, and you must resign.

Anonymous #85701391: EC assured Malaysians that the ink was "indelible" and would remain for several days even after repeated washing. The purpose of applying this RM6 million "indelible ink" on voters fingers is to stop any fraudulent voting.

Malaysians trusted that public assurance and voted. Whatever excuses and reasons offered now by the EC chairperson will not change the fact that the public assurance was in fact a lie.

The EC had lied and misled all Malaysians. As Malaysians, do we allow and condone such lies by our civil servants?

Malaysiawatch4: From my own experience, the indelible ink was actually disappearing ink. After I voted, I tried to wash off the ink with water and some dishwashing liquid and about 60 percent of it came off.
However, later on the same day, the remaining traces disappeared after two short sessions of dish washing.

Odin: Abdul Aziz, if the Health Ministry had indeed written a letter which back your statements and actions up to and around the election day, why have you not released the letter to the public?

After all, the last minister was Chinese and the present one. Indian - two of the ethnic groups that some ‘pendatangs' from Indonesia hold in low regard, often condemned for causing their economic backwardness, and sarcastically told to return from whence their forbears came.

I will answer it myself. There are two most probable reasons - there is no such letter or there is such a letter but its contents do not support your claims. Either reason tells us that you are a liar. And so, too, is your deputy.

FairGame: One high probability is that the EC via Umno-BN will instruct the Health Ministry to issue a backdated letter. With Umno-BN running the show, the script can be rewritten in their favour. Fellow Malaysians, be ready for a long, long ride.

Mushiro: The first dispute is that the Health Ministry did not give any advice to the EC about the indelible ink. Secondly, silver nitrate does not cause cancer and the EC is thus making false statements.

Whatever it is, when the EC promised and confidently said that indelible ink will work, they are to take full blame for the indelible ink fiasco.

EC deputy chief Wan Ahmad Wan Omar, who said that even without the indelible ink, voters cannot vote twice, is wrong. There were voters who voted more than once. If the EC failed in its objective of the indelible ink then it has failed to conduct a clean, free and fair election.

Vijay47: For years now, India has been using the indelible ink during their massive elections and there never has been any complaint that the ink does not last the necessary five or six days.

At the same time, we also do not hear of any upsurge in cancer of the kidney cases or even other parts of the anatomy following the elections. And just to add a sense of scale, it must be remembered that a few hundred million Indians vote each time.

Two things are immediately necessary. First, give us all details of the company that supplied the ink and the price comparison with suppliers in India.

Secondly and more importantly, the EC must make working visits to New York, Paris, London, Geneva, Rome, Melbourne, Rio de Janerio, and Paris to find out how they can conduct elections there without using indelible ink.

OMG!!: There must be an inquiry into this fiasco. Firstly, who is lying? Secondly, would the silver nitrate really cause cancer or kidney damage? Any scientific proof?

Does it mean this silver nitrate is even more toxic than the waste of the Lynas plant and the Raub gold mine?

Lastly, why paid RM6 million when the ink is diluted and therefore should be cheaper? - Malaysiakini

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.