|
 ©The
Sun (Used by permission)
by Terence Fernandes
» “There were reports made to the police alleging that certain quarters had
purchased indelible ink from abroad with the intention of creating confusion and
suspicion over the status of voters. This may cause chaos at polling stations
which, if widespread, may be difficult to control.
Following legal advice and looking at the issue of public order and security,
the EC has decided not to introduce the use of indelible ink.” – Election
Commission chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman at a press conference on
March 4.
» “The reason they cancelled the ink was because we were edging towards that
(winning the election). We had passed 48% of the popular vote, edging about 2% a
day of the shift; and they knew that. That’s why they cancelled the indelible
ink. Which means they had 3-4% votes to cheat. So imagine if they had used the
ink? And the postal votes? We would have won easily.” – Keadilan adviser Datuk
Seri Anwar Ibrahim in an interview with theSun published on March 27.
» “After the police reports were studied and interviews with the complainants
and the witnesses, it is found there was no evidence at all to show that the ink
was smuggled in from Thailand. This is because no witness has seen the ink
personally).
“From the witness statements, no individual, syndicate or any particular party
was identified to be involved in this (ink smuggling). The complainant and
witness statements were based on hearsay and no individual was identified
positively.” – Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar replying to DAP’s Fong
Po Kuan in Parliament, May 6.
DEAR readers, the above statements, in chronological order, speak volumes of the
constant bungling of our enforcers – intentional or otherwise.
Assuming that there is truth to the police’s finding that there was no evidence
of smuggling of indelible ink, it brings into question the investigative skills
of our law enforcers which caused disruption to the smooth running of a general
election!
They based their probe on hearsay and there was never any confiscation of the
ink said to have been brought into the country to upset the running of the
election.
Instead of spending millions on a new logo and changing the Royal Malaysian
Police emblem, money would be better spent to improve the investigative
abilities of our men in blue, which of late have caused embarrassment.
Our experience with two officers from Bukit Aman on Tuesday further strengthened
this belief. When there were four news reports published on the Balkis
controversy, they decided to pick on just one commentary by Citizen Nades
“because the report lodged was based on this single article”, reasoned ASP Wan
Zainal Wan Mat. And then they started asking questions to which answers could be
found in the other reports which they had failed to read.
Also, we have now come to understand that there were two reports lodged in
Kajang by the same complainant on articles published in theSun – one
regarding Balkis and the other on issues concerning the previous administration
of the Youth and Sports Ministry. Why were we quizzed only on Balkis? Could it
be that one of the senior officers directing the investigations is familiar with
individuals implicated in the Balkis report?
The fact that the two ASPs were more interested in getting us to reveal our
sources and if we had documents on us seem to suggest that some in the force
could be doing the bidding of certain powerful individuals.
How else could one explain the fact that the officers who interviewed us were
from Bukit Aman’s Commercial Crimes Division’s “Bahagian Korporat” and that
Commercial Crimes director Datuk Koh Hong Sun told my colleague Charles
Ramendran that he was not aware of any such investigation by his unit.
Back to the indelible ink, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan was
present at the press conference by the EC chairman at which the cancellation of
the ink was announced. Seated with them was Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani
Patail whose office decides the fate of every case and which of late has a
fondness for the letters N, F and A (No Further Action).
Abdul Gani had appealed to all parties not to “politicise” the issue, thus one
expects Anwar to be the first to be criticised for his statements in his
interview with us. But now that the home minister had declared to Parliament
that “the complainant and witness statements were based on hearsay and no
individual was identified positively”, what is the electorate to do?
Can you blame some parties for attempting to put two and two together and
conclude that the indelible ink fiasco was an attempt to influence the outcome
of the election – lending credence to Anwar’s accusations? Come on-lah! Even if
Anwar’s claims are not valid, one cannot fault the people for believing that the
whole thing was a sandiwara or hiburan malam ini starring Abdul
Rashid, Musa, Abdul Gani and now Syed Hamid, playing to an audience of 22
million.
The fact that the EC was reluctant to use indelible ink in the first place,
where Abdul Rashid said laws needed to be amended before the ink could be used
and that the use of the ink was not compulsory does nothing but further fuel
speculation that not all is what it seems, and that the election was not
conducted as fairly as it ought to have been.
In my column on Feb 26, I wrote: “On top of all these blemishes, we are reminded
at this time of some of the words uttered by Abdul Rashid – that he knows the
date of the election (information that only the prime minister is privy to);
that only the ruling coalition is capable of running the country; and his
challenging the Opposition to withdraw from the polls if it felt that the
election process was unfair.” The powers that be must realise by now that they
are not talking to a bunch of buffoons who will lap up everything that is spewed
out. The people are now discerning and will search in every nook and cranny for
the truth – a rare commodity these days.
This latest turn of events has left an indelible mark on the image of the EC and
our law enforcement authorities.
Terence hopes any attempt to bring him in will take place only after his
sister’s wedding at the end of the month. Feedback:
terence@thesundaily.com
Trackback(0)
 |
News 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
YA Dato' Ian Chin's Notes of Proceedings
