Rafizi to EC bosses: Just answer my questions

'My statement outside Dewan Rakyat is enough for them to sue me.'

PETALING JAYA: Election Commission (EC) chairman Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof and deputy chairman Wan Ahmad Wan Omar are resorting to issuing challenges to their detractors to avoid answering embarrassing questions, PKR strategy director Rafizi Ramli said today.

In their refusal to answer “pressing questions” from the public, they were virtually admitting that there were irregularities in the supply of indelible ink for the 13th general election, he added.

Rafizi was responding to yesterday’s challenge from Abdul Aziz and Wan Ahmad that he repeat outside Parliament an accusation that they had a close relationship with the ink supplier, Mohamed Salleh Mohamed Ali.

He said he had indeed repeated the accusation outside Parliament.

“Both of them are now resorting to challenging me because they are not brave enough to answer the five pressing questions on the people’s mind,” he said in a media statement.

“The fact that they are more vocal to dare than to clean up EC’s name by answering these questions show that there are irregularities they want to hide.”

Rafizi’s five questions are:

1. Why are the companies owned by Mohamed Salleh Mohamed Ali appointed through direct negotiation to be the supplier of GE13 merchandise, including the indelible ink?

2. What is the involvement of the chairman and his deputy in acquiring the merchandise, especially the indelible ink, which was supposedly the major improvement in GE13 as touted by the EC? Is it true that they have washed their hands clean from its acquisition even though it was the major aspect of the implementation of indelible ink as touted by them?

3. Does this mean the chairman and his deputy were not involved at all in any discussion related to indelible ink, including the demonstration, chemical content, implementation, et cetera?

4. When the chairman and his deputy were answering various questions on the indelible ink, why did they not discuss this issue with the other (EC) officers? It is impossible they answered media questions without knowledge or prior information about the indelible ink, including logistical matters, et cetera.

5. Why is the chairman and his deputy so adamant to protect and hide the identity of the indelible ink supplier even though the supplier has destroyed the credibility of the EC?

Duty to answer
“Their duty is to answer these questions,” Rafizi said. “If my revelation is wrong, my statement outside of Dewan Rakyat is enough for them to sue me.”

He said the real issue was Abdul Aziz and Wan Ahmad’s failure to conduct a free, fair and transparent election.

“This is proven with the various reports and charges against them, especially the failed implementation of indelible ink,” he said.

“As the highest leadership of the EC, they have to take responsibility for this failure.”

In a speech in the Dewan Rakyat last week, Rafizi claimed that Mohd Salleh was granted contracts to supply indelible ink, caps and T-shirts to the EC through direct negotiations because he was close with the BN leadership as well as the EC chief and his deputy.

He repeated his accusation in the Parliament lobby but stopped short of naming the two, saying instead that the businessman had links with EC’s “top officials”.