INDELIBLE INK SCANDAL EXPOSED

Rafizi Ramli Liked about an hour ago Menteri bertanggungjawab enggan dedahkan nama syarikat pembekal dakwat kekal di Parlimen tetapi mengesahkan syarikat lain iaitu Nash Ventures mendapat kontrak perbekalan topi dari SPR semasa PRU13. Share & like page Rafizi Ramli untuk bantu sebarkan fakta hubung kait Nash Ventures Sdn Bhd dan Mohamed Salleh. Berdasarkan carian di SSM, selain menjadi pemegang saham dan pengarah kepada Intergrated Challenger, Mohamed Salleh adalah pemegang saham & pengarah kepada Allisons Sdn Bhd. Perniagaan utama Allisons Sdn Bhd adalah membekalkan peralatan ketenteraan kepada Kementerian Pertahanan dan Kementerian Dalam Negeri. Turut menjadi pemegang saham & pengarah kepada Allisons Sdn Bhd adalah wanita bernama Shamsia Mansoor. Shamsia juga merupakan pengarah di Nash Ventures Sdn Bhd iaitu syarikat yang mendapat kontrak perbekalan topi dari SPR secara rundingan terus. Hubungan antara Mohamed Salleh dan Shamsia adalah berkemungkinan besar sebagai pasangan suami isteri kerana mereka tinggal di alamat rumah yang sama dan nombor MyKad kedua-duanya menunjukkan berasal dari Singapura.

Tidak mengejutkan bilamana ketiga-tiga syarikat ini mendaftarkan alamat perniagaan mereka pada alamat yang sama. Turut menjadi persoalan bagaimana syarikat berkenaan dipertimbangkan untuk pembekalan kepada SPR kerana syarikat itu tidak mengemaskini rekod kewangan dan kali terakhir difailkan kepada SSM ialah pada 2009. Memandangkan kontrak diberi secara rundingan terus walaupun terdapat keraguan tentang kemampuan syarikat tersebut (yang telah terbukti gagal) makin menguatkan lagi dakwaan Mohamed Salleh mempunyai hubungan baik dengan kepimpinan SPR.

Friday, 19 July 2013 04:33

'Marked man' Rafizi steps up to the challenge, throws back indelible ink dare to EC, MACC
Written by Malaysia Chronicle

VIDEO INSERTED KUALA LUMPUR - Challenged to make his indelible ink expose's outside the Parliament hall, where he would no longer immunity from lawsuits, MP for Pandan Rafizi Ramli not only did just but gave additional details that will make it extremely hard for Prime Minister Najib Razak's government, the Election Commission and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to ignore without losing further credibility. "The fight is not with me, I am doing my job. The fight is for them (the EC or Malay acronym SPR) to clear their name and whatever their answer or reaction, I am sure they can be transparent about it. I am not making any accusations," Rafizi told a press conference at the Parliament lobby on Thursday. "It is only fair and it's only logical to question on what grounds when 3 companies by one person were awarded three contracts that were not delivered satisfactorily and there are also question marks as to the background of the shareholders unless there is something else and one of the possibilities is the closeness (to top officials in the EC and the government)."

"It is not only the EC's standing at stake but also an opportunity for the MACC (or Malay acronym SPRM) to regain the confidence of the public. The sooner they act when it is already quite clear, and some of the details are out, the better it is." A marked man Rafizi has been the target of BN leaders including Prime Minister Najib Razak himself after exposing the RM250mil NFC cattle livestock debacle involving Umno Women's chief Shahrizat Jalil. The Pandan MP's promise to reveal at Parliament the name of the supplier of Malaysia's controversial indelible ink used during May 5 general election had further alarmed and dismayed his rivals. Nonetheless, the 34-year-old Rafizi proceeded to pose the name of Integrated Challenger Sdn Bhd as the local firm awarded the RM7.1million indelible ink contract through direct negotiations during the first sitting of the august House following the May 5 general election. Minister in charge of Parliament Shahidan Kassim has not denied or verified if this was true. In fact at a press conference held later on Thursday afternoon, Shahidan had asked if Rafizi had repeated his allegations to reporters at the lobby. When told that Rafizi had done so, Shahidan still refused to confirm when pressed several times if Integrated Challenger was indeed the ink supplier, saying he would hold another press conference later.

Malaysia's recently-concluded 13th general election has been the most controversial and divisive in the country's history, with the EC accused of colluding with Najib's BN coalition to rig votes and pad-up the electoral roll with fictitious or phantom names. The indelible ink was also a sensational feature as most of the 8 million-odd electorate found the ink could be easily washed off within hours although the EC had promised it would stay on for at least 4 days. Meanwhile, BN lawmakers had demanded that the Speaker of the House referred Rafizi to a committee for disciplinary action on the basis that his allegation was untrue.

This despite the absence of any denial from Shahidan. The BN MPs also dared Rafizi to repeat his allegation outside Parliament. However, the request for disciplinary action was rejected by the Speaker, who instead asked Rafizi to table a motion to discuss the integrity of the top EC officials at the next sitting. The Speaker also repeated the request of the BN lawmakers that if Rafizi was confident of his information, he should repeat his statements outside the House. This way, those parties, if any, maligned by the allegations could sue him. Dormant firms but granted contracts and through direct negotiations

Rafizi not only complied with the Speaker's direction, he gave further details of the people behind Integrated Challenger and Nash Ventures Sdn Bhd, a related unit believed to have been awarded a contract to supply caps for the election. Rafizi also identified another firm Allisons Corp Sdn Bhd, which although did not get an EC-related contract, was also linked to Mohamed Salleh Mohamed Alli, the main owner of Integrated Challenger. Allisons is a firm that obtained procurement contracts from the Ministry of Defense, bolstering Rafizi's earlier claim that Mohamed Salleh and co-director Shamsia Mansoor were active business operators with close rapport to senior decision makers in the government. "The financial records of the firms have not yet been updated. The last filing with the Companies Commission of Malaysia was in 2009 and yet they were given the chance to get 3 contracts through direct negotiations. Doesn't this indicate that Mohamed Salleh Mohamed Alli has good relations with the EC leadership?"said Rafizi. Malaysia Chronicle

Rafizi to EC: Sue me

Anisah Shukry | July 18, 2013

Pandan MP confident he is correct in accusing the Election Commission of awarding the indelible ink contract through direct negotiations to its crony, Mohamed Salleh Mohamad Ali.

KUALA LUMPUR: PKR strategy director Rafizi Ramli told Parliament today that he was willing to make public his statement that a businessman linked to top Election Commission (EC) officials had secured the indelible ink contract through direct negotiations. In repeating the assertion outside the Dewan Rakyats walls, the Pandan MP risks facing legal action from the EC as he will no longer be given immunity as a parliamentarian. I am ready for the EC to commence legal action against me, Rafizi told reporters at the Parliament lobby, adding that he was unperturbed by such a turn of events as he had the facts on his side. I will also file a motion in the Dewan Rakyat so we can discuss the issue of the ECs integrity during the next Parliament session, he added. Rafizi stressed that the onus was on the EC to convince the public, and not just him, that they were in the clear. In accordance to Article 114(2) of the Federal Constitution, the Election Commission must be appointed from among those whom have public confidence on their side. So the fight is not with me. The fight is for them to clear their name, stressed Rafizi. On Tuesday, Rafizi told the House that Mohamed Salleh Mohamad Ali was awarded the contract to supply the EC with indelible ink, caps and T-shirts for the 13th general election. He claimed that Mohamed Salleh had close relations with BNs top brass, including the EC chairman and deputy chairman.

Rafizi was spurred to repeat his stance outside of the Dewan Rakyat when Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia suggested he do so today, during the debate session in Parliament. Motion denied Earlier today, Pandikar had denied a motion from Reezal Merican Naina Merican (Kepala Batas-BN) to refer Rafizi to the rights and privileges committee for his remarks on the indelible ink contract. Reezal Merican had contended that Rafizis claims had misled and insulted the House, and in doing so violated Standing Order 36(12). But Pandikar pointed out that Rafizis statement had failed to meet the three criteria required to refer a lawmaker to the committee: (1) the statement is false, (2) the MP knows the statement is false but does not correct it, (3), the MP has the intention to mislead the House. I cannot say that the statements were misleading, because there were no opposing facts. And if you wanted to refer him to the committee, you should have done this immediately, said Pandikar, in denying the motion. Another thing is intention. Pandan was sure he had his facts and was confident he was right. So if Pandan is brave and sincere, he will repeat his statement outside. He added that Rafizis remarks only violated Standing Order 36(8), which does not allow parliamentarians to mention certain public figures, including members of the EC, in the House unless a motion was moved for that purpose. This prompted Rafizi to stand up in Parliament and say: I will file a motion under 36(8) to discuss the Election Commission and I shall repeat my remarks outside the House.

Shahidan confirmed my expose Later, in a press conference at the Parliament lobby, Rafizi claimed that his assertions had been vindicated by the fact that Minister in the Prime Ministers Department Shahidan Kassim had yet to issue a denial on the matter. Instead, Shahidan had admitted yesterday that a firm named Nash Ventures, also allegedly controlled by Mohamed Salleh, was awarded a contract to supply caps to the EC during the recent elections. I had previously said three firms controlled by Mohamed Salleh received contracts through direct negotiations through the EC, including his main company, Integrated Challenger (M) Sdn Bhd, said Rafizi.

Nash Ventures is also linked to Mohamed Salleh. One of the directors of Nash Ventures is Shamsia Mansoor, who is also the director and shareholder of Allisons Corp. The other director and shareholder of Allisons Corp is none other than Mohamed Salleh. He suggested that Mohamed Salleh and Shamsia were related, citing the fact that both had the same home address. He said that the fact that Mohamed Sallehs companies financial records with the Company Commissions Malaysia had not been updated since 2009 also suggested cosy ties with ECs top brass. Among the key criteria for a project to be awarded to a firm through direct negotiations is sound financial position. This is because such negotiations are done for immediate performance work.

This is why I question why a company whose financial records have not been updated and filed since 2009 was chosen to supply the indelible ink, said Rafizi.

Rafizi repeats allegations about ink supplier outside the parliament

H AS BU LL AH AWA NG CH IK J UL Y 1 8, 20 13

Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli, who revealed in Parliament the identity of the supplier of the indelible ink and linked him to the leadership of the Election Commission, has repeated his statement outside the parliament where there is no immunity. Rafizi repeated the name of the supplier and the company in the lobby after Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia rejected a motion to refer Rafizi to the rights and privileges committee.

He had advised the MP to repeat the allegations about the EC chairman deputy chairman and their purported ties outside the chamber. Rafizi said he would and did it at an afternoon press conference in the lobby today. He provided evidence that a company, which supplied hats to the EC, Nash Ventures Sdn Bhd, has links with the ink contractor. Rafizi said a search at the Companies Commission revealed that a director of Nash Ventures, named by Minister in the Prime Minister s Department Shahidan Kassim as the supplier yesterday, is also a director of Allisons Corp Sdn Bhd. Mohamad Salleh Mohamed Ali is director of Allisons Corp and Integrated Challenger. Rafizi had said Integrated Challenger was the ink contractor. Earlier, Kepala Batas MP Datuk Seri Reezal Merican Naina Merican moved to refer Rafizi to the committee because the EC chairman had denied the link. This, he said, was in an article reported by Elizabeth Zachariah in The Malaysian Insider yesterday. He said given the denial by the EC chairman, the allegation by Rafizi can be seen as misleading the House. Reezal also said that this will allow the chairman and deputy chairman who were not in the house to defend themselves against the allegations. Pandikar, however, rejected the motion, saying it should have been done at the first opportunity, when the Pandan MP made the statement, not after two days had lapsed. The speaker also said that Rafizi's statement cannot be seen as misleading as there were no opposing facts. Pandikar also noted that before making the statement, Rafizi had asked for the name of the supplier to be revealed. July 18, 2013.

Speaker denies motion to send Rafizi to rights committee over ink

BY BO O SU-L YN JUL Y 18, 2013UPDAT ED: JULY 18, 2013 02:19 PM

Rafizi said last Tuesday that the supplier of the indelible ink used in Election 2013 is linked to Election Commission (EC) chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof and deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar. Picture by Choo Choy May

KUALA LUMPUR, July 18 Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia rejected today a motion to refer PKR MP Rafizi Ramli to the Parliaments Rights and Privileges Committee over the latters remarks on the indelible ink supplier. Rafizi, who is the Pandan MP, said last Tuesday that the supplier of the indelible ink used in Election 2013 is linked to Election Commission (EC) chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof and deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar. In this matter, I am fair, Pandikar ruled in Parliament here today. The three conditions fall short, he said, referring to the three criteria required to send a lawmaker to the Parliaments Rights and Privileges Committee, which are: the statement is false, the MP knows the statement is false but does not correct it, and the MP has intentions to mislead the House.

The motion was moved by Barisan Nasional (BN) Kepala Batas MP Datuk Seri Reezal Merican Naina Merican, who said Abdul Aziz had denied knowing who Mohamed Salleh Mohamed Alli, the alleged indelible ink supplier, was or that he and Wan Ahmad were involved with the procurement of the ink. Pandikar, however, pointed out that Reezal Merican had stood up in the Dewan Rakyat last Tuesday and said Whats wrong with it?, after Rafizi said that the indelible ink contract was awarded via direct negotiation to Mohamed Salleh. The Speaker also said that the motion to refer Rafizi to the Parliaments Rights and Privileges Committee should have been done immediately, and not two days later. If Pandan is brave, he should repeat it outside, said Pandikar, referring to Rafizi. Rafizi later repeated his allegation at a press conference in Parliament here that the contract for the indelible ink had gone to Mohamed Salleh, besides the contract to supply caps and T-shirts to EC workers in the 13th general election. He noted that Minister in the Prime Ministers Department Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim had told Parliament yesterday that the contract for the supply of 100,000 caps to the EC was awarded to Nash Ventures Sdn Bhd, which Rafizi said was connected to Mohamed Salleh. That confirms my statement in Parliament that Mohamed Salleh Mohamed Alli got the contracts to supply T-shirts, caps and indelible ink, said Rafizi. I believe strongly that Integrated Challenger is the company for the ink on the basis that if theyre not, the minister would have denied it on record in the Dewan, he added, referring to another company he said belonged to Mohamed Salleh. The indelible ink, which became a national scandal after voters complained about it coming off easily with household detergents or soap and water, cost about RM7 million, according to Shahidan. The indelible ink fiasco is now the subject of a civil suit, which was filed last Monday by Pakatan Rakyat (PR) against ECs seven commissioners, including Wan Ahmad and Abdul Aziz. The opposition coalition is suing the EC officials for allegedly practising fraud through the use of the indelible ink, which is meant to prevent double-voting, in the 13th general

10

election and wants the High Court here to order fresh polls in all 222 federal constituencies. PR has noted that it had lost about 30 federal seats with less than 10 per cent of the votes, saying in its statement of claim: Therefore, even if a small percentage of dishonest voters were able to wrongfully vote more than once because of the deliberate failure of the EC to implement indelible ink, they were sufficient to affect the results in a significant number of seats. BN maintained its grip on power in the May 5 polls by winning 133 federal seats to PRs 89, 21 seats more than the required 112 seats to form a simple majority.

Dasar anak jantan, Rafizi Ramli sahut cabaran speaker

Oleh elleh pada 18 Jul, 2013

Sebelum ini Pengerusi SPR merintih berkaitan dosa kepada Rafizi Ramli, Kenapa tuduh di bulan puasa macam ini? Dia tak takut dosa ke?. Ini kerana dakwaan Rafizi Ramli berkaitan pembekal dakwat yang mempunyai hubungan dengan pihak atasan SPR. Hari ini juga, Speaker Dewan Pandikar Amin Mulia, meminta Rafizi mengulangi dakwaan pembekal dakwat kekal di luar Dewan bagi membolehkan pengerusi dan timbalan pengerusi SPR, mendapatkan keadilan, boleh menyaman Rafizi. Sebagai anak jantan Rafizi Ramli menyahut cabaran tersebut dengan mendakwa bukan hanya satu, tetapi tiga syarikat Mohamed Salleh mendapat tender dari SPR di lobi Parlimen. Kalau MP BN, mereka berani tuduh dalam Dewan aje, macam Bung Mokhtar semalam!! Dua lagi syarikat yang dikawal Mohamed Salleh iaitu Nash Ventures Sdn Bhd dan Allisons Sdn Bhd mendapat kontrak runding terus dari SPR. Sebelum ini Rafizi mendedahkan tentang Integrated Challenger Malaysia Sdn Bhd.

11

Semalam, kebenaran dakwaan Rafizi adalah benar apabila Menteri Di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Shahidan Kasim mengesahkan Nash Ventures Sdn Bhd mendapat kontrak perbekalan topi dari SPR semasa PRU13 lalu. Jadi, dengan tiga syarikat, Rafizi Ramli yakin Mohamed Salleh mempunyai hubungan rapat dengan pihak atasan SPR. Selepas ini Pengerusi SPR akan tanya, Kau tak puasa ke Rafizi??.

Rafizi dedah Mohamed Salleh terbabit dua lagi syarikat pembekalan SPR
O LEH H AS BU LL A H A WA NG C HI K J UL Y 1 8, 20 13

Ahli Parlimen Pandan, Rafizi Ramli (gambar) hari ini mendedahkan dua lagi syarikat yang dikawal oleh Mohamed Salleh Mohd Ali iaitu Nash Ventures Sdn Bhd dan Allisons Sdn Bhd yang dikatakan mempunyai kaitan mendapat kontrak pembekalan secara rundingan terus daripada Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR). Semalam, Menteri Di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Shahidan Kasim di Dewan Rakyat mengesahkan Nash Ventures Sdn Bhd mendapat kontrak perbekalan topi dari SPR semasa Pilihan Raya Umum ke 13 (PRU13) lalu. Rafizi berkata, berdasarkan carian di Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM), Mohamed Salleh adalah pengarah kepada Allisons Sdn Bhd bersama Shamsia Mansoor dan wanita itu juga adalah pengarah di Nash Ventures Sdn Bhd.

12

Menurut Pengarah Strategi PKR itu, berkemungkinan Mohamed Salleh dan Shamsia adalah pasangan suami isteri kerana tinggal di alamat yang sama dan nombor MyKad kedua-duanya menunjukkan berasal dari Singapura. Rafizi turut mempersoalkan syarikat berkenaan dipertimbangkan untuk pembekalan kepada SPR kerana syarikat itu tidak mengemaskini rekod kewangan dan kali terakhir difailkan kepada SSM ialah pada 2009. Beliau berkata, dengan diberi peluang secara rundingan terus makin menguatkan lagi dakwaan Mohamed Salleh mempunyai hubungan baik dengan kepimpinan SPR. "Saya masih percaya Integrated Ventures Sdn Bhd sebagai pembekal dakwat kekal kerana jika saya berkata perkara yang tidak benar sudah pasti ahli parlimen BN merujuk saya ke Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan Parlimen," katanya. "Speaker menggesa saya untuk mengulangi pertuduhan syarikat berkenaan ada kaitan dengan SPR. Maka oleh sebab itulah sidang media ini diadakan," kata Rafizi pada sidang media di Parlimen, hari ini.

Dakwat kekal: Rafizi akan ulangi dakwaan di luar Dewan

Harakahdaily, 18 Jul 2013

Rafizi memberikan jaminan ini selepas Speaker Dewan Rakyat, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia menolak usul untuk menyeret beliau di bawah Jawatankuasa Hak dan Keistimewaan.

13

Selepas menolak usul itu, Pandikar mencadangkan agar Rafizi membuatnya di luar Parlimen di mana dia tidak dilindungi oleh sebarang imuniti. Rafizi bangun dan berkata dia akan melakukannya di samping akan memfailkan satu usul untuk membincangkannya sebagaimana dicadangkan Speaker. Sebelum ini, Rafizi membuat dakwaan di Dewan Rakyat bahawa pembekal dakwat kekal kepada SPR mempunyai kaitan dengan pemimpin kanan badan itu. Pengerusi SPR, Tan Sri Abdul Aziz menafikan dakwaan itu dan mempertikaikan dakwaat Rafizi. Beliau juga meminta persoalan itu ditanyakan kepada Setiausaha SPR, Datuk Kamarudin Baria, kerana ia diuruskan oleh beliau dan urusetianya. Kamarudin pula dalam kenyataannya turut mempertikaikan kenyataan Rafizi itu dan memperlekehkan Rafizi kerana hanya berani membuat tuduhan dalam Dewan Rakyat yang dilindungi imuniti. Kamaruddin turut menafikan beliau mengenali pembekal dakwat kekal, Mohamed Salleh Md Ali yang dikatakan rapat dengan kepimpinan tertinggi badan pengendali pilihan raya itu seperti didakwa Rafizi.

- 18 Julai, 2013.

Rafizi to go public with ink allegations against EC leaders

B Y J EN NI FE R GO MEZ A ND YISW AR EE P AL AN SA MY J UL Y 1 8, 20 13

Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli, who revealed in Parliament the identity of the supplier of the indelible ink and linked him to the leadership of the Election Commission, will repeat his statement outside the parliament where there is no immunity. Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia rejected a motion to refer Rafizi to the rights and privileges committee but advised the MP to repeat the allegations about the EC chairman and deputy chairman outside Parliament.

14

Rafizi stood up and said he will do it. He added that he will also file a motion to discuss the matter in Parliament, as suggested by the speaker. Earlier, Kepala Batas MP Datuk Seri Reezal Merican Naina Merican moved to refer Rafizi to the committee because the EC chairman had denied the link. This, he said, was in an article reported by Elizabeth Zachariah in The Malaysian Insider yesterday. He said given the denial by the EC chairman, the allegation by Rafizi can be seen as misleading the House. Reezal also said that this will allow the chairman and deputy chairman who were not in the house to defend themselves against the allegations. Pandikar, however, rejected the motion, saying it should have been done at the first opportunity, when the Pandan MP made the statement, not after two days had lapsed. The speaker also said that Rafizi's statement cannot be seen as misleading as there were no opposing facts. Pandikar also noted that before making the statement, Rafizi had asked for the name of the supplier to be revealed. July 18, 2013.

EC deputy denies link to indelible ink supplier

BY BO O SU-L YN JUL Y 17, 2013

15

A polling clerk marks with ink a voters finger at a polling station in Pekan on May 5, 2013. AFP pic

KUALA LUMPUR, July 17 Election Commission (EC) deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar today denied knowing the supplier of the controversial indelible ink that was used for the May 5 polls, and insisted that he played no role in its purchase. PKRs Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli told Parliament yesterday that the contract for the indelible ink was awarded via direct negotiation to a businessman named Mohd Salleh Mohd Ali, whom he alleged were close to the ECs chief and deputy. I dont know him and I dont have anything to do with buying the ink, Wan Ahmad told The Malay Mail Online today. Wan Ahmads denial came after news portals reported EC chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof yesterday as saying that he did not have any ties with Mohd Salleh. Abdul Aziz was also quoted as saying that the procurement of the ink was handled by EC secretary Datuk Kamaruddin Mohamed Baria. When contacted, however, Kamaruddin declined comment, merely saying: I dont want to talk to reporters. The indelible ink, which turned into a national scandal after voters complained about it coming off easily with household detergents or soap and water, cost about RM7 million, according to Minister in the Prime Ministers Department Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim.

16

Wan Ahmad has explained that the election ink failed to stick for a week because the level of silver nitrate needed to give the ink its permanence had been kept at just one per cent following the Health Ministrys recommendations and to meet halal requirements for Muslims. The matter, however, sank deeper into controversy when Shahidan appeared to suggest that even the one per cent of silver nitrate had not been present, telling Parliament last month that there were no chemicals in the ink, and just food colouring. But Wan Ahmad later contradicted Shahidan and said that the ink did contain one per cent silver nitrate, and that it was likely classified as a metal, instead of a chemical. He said that food dye was used to turn the indelible ink red for early voters and dark blue for ordinary voters. The indelible ink fiasco was turned into the subject of a civil suit filed last Monday by Pakatan Rakyat (PR) against ECs seven commissioners, including Wan Ahmad and Abdul Aziz. The opposition coalition is suing the EC officials for allegedly practising fraud in the use of the indelible ink, which is meant to prevent double-voting, in the 13th general election and wants the High Court here to order fresh polls in all 222 federal constituencies. PR has noted that it had lost about 30 federal seats with less than 10 per cent of the votes, saying in its statement of claim: Therefore, even if a small percentage of dishonest voters were able to wrongfully vote more than once because of the deliberate failure of the EC to implement indelible ink, they were sufficient to affect the results in a significant number of seats. Barisan Nasional (BN) maintained its grip on power in the May 5 polls by winning 133 federal seats to PRs 89, 21 seats more than the required 112 seats to form a simple majority. - See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ec-deputy-denieslink-to-indelible-ink-supplier#sthash.Uykts7uT.dpuf

Bingo! This is indelible ink Stephen Ng

JULY 18 Finally, the formula is out! Ladies and gentlemen, The fiasco indelible ink is made of: Silver Nitrate 1 per cent

17

Organic colour Moisturiser Solvent

60 per cent 29 per cent 10 per cent

This, as declared by Minister in the Prime Ministers Department, Shahidan Kassim makes a perfect 100% indelible ink fiasco that rocked the nation and mocked our countrys electoral process. It has made me wonder why the Election Commission (EC) as a constitutional body set up to safeguard the electoral process from being manipulated by either party, has not been that forthcoming with the truth or willing to use the right tool correctly to tighten the loopholes within the system. Now, with the ink formula being told in parliament, there is finally light at the end of the tunnel. Firstly, the Minister should be censured for misleading the Dewan Rakyat by earlier stating that the ink did not have chemicals and only contained food colouring. Minister Shahidan, please do not also make a mockery out of our august House by stating what is apparently untrue. Even a young teenager will be able to tell you that silver nitrate and moisturizers are chemicals; or else, would you also categorise them as food colouring that can be consumed? But at least you score a point by telling the world the composition of the indelible ink. So, to be fair, now we know that in the indelible ink, there is one percent Silver Nitrate after all! I give the Election Commission chairman, Abdul Aziz Yusof a one-point score for stating the ink should not be more than 1 per cent Silver Nitrate, but excuse me, I have to minus two points from his deputy, Wan Ahmad Wan Omar for insisting that the ink had at least 4 per cent Silver Nitrate. Do not think that the rakyat are all stupid. We are in fact very disgusted with the way how ministers and the EC duo contradict each other, hoping that the public would buy their stories. There are no reasons why they should be playing the hide-and-seek, especially since the EC no longer enjoy public confidence after the indelible ink fiasco. If they have any sense of dignity left, they should immediately resign. After over a thousand police reports being lodged after GE13, the issue is still being taken lightly? Why?

18

Silver Nitrate! According to public knowledge, industry standard for electoral inks contain anything between 10 to 18% silver nitrate solution, depending on the length of time the mark is required to be visible. A one percent silver nitrate is as good as the 2 per cent aqueous silver nitrate solution used for the treatment of Ophthalmia neonatorum (ON), or neonatal conjunctivitis. In other words, if a 2 per cent silver nitrate solution cannot cause a stain on the eyes of newly born babies, do not expect a 1 per cent silver nitrate to do the magic that we all know about in the genuine indelible ink. There is, in fact, no basis for the ink manufacturer to reduce the silver nitrate to 1 percent, especially since there is hardly anything carcinogenic about silver nitrate. As my chemistry professor at Monash University in Clayton wrote in his email reply to my query: Silver nitrate has been spilt on hands of dozens of students before OHS were tightened. The effects are unsightly stains that are hard to remove, but I have not heard of adverse health effects. Further AgNO3 has a long history in removal of warts from hands and feet, again without adverse effects other than stains. Given the attention to heavy metals I would have thought adverse effects would be documented by now. If not in MSDS, it should be OK. I thought my knowledge of chemistry has gone to the rust, but a well-known chemistry professor confirmed my suspicions that silver nitrate, which can be purchased online at its 99.9% purity, will not harm human beings. Why then the fuss of keeping it at one percent? If the ink supplier has any knowledge about the indelible ink, who then instructed them to change the formulation to one percent? Why was only one percent used? Was it done by intention? Moisturiser! Instead of silver nitrate, which is reduced to a mere one percent, moisturizer content in the ink is (Ooops!) 29 percent! I have yet to come across an ink which carries a moisturizer, but I have seen ink formula which uses a binder never a moisturizer! This is not about moisturizing the finger to keep it give it that youthful glow at all times, but to make sure that an indelible stain is made on the skin to stop multiple voting.

19

With the electoral roll frauds that we have seen, this is one way to stop people from voting more than once. It is a quick, easy and cheap way of deterring people from multiple voting. But to use moisturizer in indelible ink, I have to ask, Who gave that instruction? Moisturiser is essentially an emulsion preparation of oil and water, and sulfur lauryl sulfate (SLS) is used to stabilize the emulsion. For the sake of the ordinary folks, SLS is basically soap or detergent. It will only help remove stains. Oil, as you know, is repellent to any form of ink adhesion. If you have a moisturizer mixed into an ink, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to tell you why the ink would not adhere to the skin after it is being washed.

Eureka! Thats why our friends in Sabah could remove the ink using grass to clean their index fingers within the same day which means the electoral process has a loophole, left there inadvertently or by design, I let you decide! If there are health concerns over the use of silver nitrate which the EC chairman kept harping on, Abdul Aziz should be more concerned about the use of moisturisers. First, it has to do with the ingredients used in the moisturizer as a recent study had cited that the application of certain moisturizers increases the incidence of skin cancer in high-risk mice, but these animals were subjected to UVB radiation in high doses over a long period of time prior to application of moisturizers. There are also other factors to consider when using a moisturizer in the ink such as allergy, as some ingredients can cause irritation, rashes, and other allergic reactions. Besides that, the ink supplier had failed to include a most basic ingredient, which is the biocide since the moisturizers run the risk of being contaminated with bacteria that can cause disease. In the first place, using a moisturizer in the indelible ink is not only making us a big laughing stock, but totally unthinkable and unsound as far as formulation of inks is concerned. Minister Shahidan Kassim could have scored a point if he had said 89 per cent of the ink is food colouring, but for revealing the 29 per cent moisturizer content in the indelible ink, I shall remove 2 points from his score. There is a reason why you cannot use food colouring alone for the indelible ink, but I shall wait for the right time to reveal. However, any chemist would immediately pick up that, without the peroxides (in hair dye) or the silver nitrate in this case the indelible ink, the organic food colouring

20

will not be lasting. The trick in indelible ink is simply the silver nitrate, and it is public knowledge that an 18 per cent solution silver nitrate is what you need for an effective stain. Anything more than that makes no difference to the stain longevity. Solvent! What is so secretive about the solvent used? We all know that silver nitrate can dissolve in water or alcohol easily. If water is used, to manufacture 3 tonnes of the fiasco ink, 10 per cent of this (i.e. 300 kg) is nothing but water but did we pay RM6.9 million for this? Judging from the length of time it took for the ink to dry on the index finger, I doubt if alcohol was used, but even if it is used, there is no way that the ink could dry in three seconds as stated earlier by Wan Ahmad. With alcohol, it will take about 1530 seconds to dry before it causes a smudge o the ballot paper. For this reason, I believe Tindak Malaysia had, before the last General Election, argued that the EC should follow the standard practice of dipping the index finger into the bottle after the voter had cast his votes. One of the other reasons is because if you applied the ink at the second clerks position, fewer eyes are on it after the slightest traces are being painted over. The polling agents who are supposed to be the watchdogs would not be able to determine if there was indeed foul play. Whether this entire thing is done deliberately or not, I leave it to the people to judge especially since the evidence points to the fact that the EC had indeed committed misfeasance, at least in my opinion. They have flip-flopped with their own statements every other day. Could this be perhaps, signs of Alzheimers Disease, and if thats being the case, they no longer hold such important positions, especially since they no longer enjoy public confidence. Think about it! The results of the General Election determines who will form the next Government, and as the EC, I would do whatever I can to safeguard the electoral process from all sorts of frauds. Forget about the indelible stain on the index finger that will remain for another seven days (it is safe), I would want a clean and fair election.

21

It is obvious to me after monitoring the development around the ink fiasco that there was a deliberate attempt to make the ink fail to perform, thus making the electoral process vulnerable to manipulation by multiple voters. My proposal of indelible ink Having the privilege of working in the research and development laboratories in all three areas printing ink, paint and emulsion polymers I share with you my philosophy behind my own backyard product if I were to formulate the indelible ink. I would put 18 per cent silver nitrate to make sure that the ink is indelible. The rest of it, I would add perhaps a 15% per cent organic dye depending on the colour and opacity that you want. I will also need about 0.5 per cent biocide to make sure that the ink does not become contaminated with bacteria. I still have a room of 66.5 per cent to play with. Given the selling price is RM6.9 million of halal money, I would be generous to put a dose of 0.5 per cent fragrance to make the ink smell good. You can choose jasmine, lavender or rose. The rest of it, its nothing but a combination of water and alcohol. Doesnt this work better for an indelible ink? I go back to the Wikipedia for a quick reference and bingo! It says: Electoral stain typically contains a pigment for instant recognition, and silver nitrate which stains the skin on exposure to ultraviolet light, leaving a mark that is impossible to wash off and is only removed as external skin cells are replaced. Although normally water-based, electoral stains occasionally contain a solvent such as alcohol to allow for faster drying, especially when used with dipping bottles, which may also contain a biocide to ensure bacteria arent transferred from voter to voter. * Stephen Ng is a chemist by training. He dealt with printing ink, paint and emulsion polymer for 15 years before becoming a freelance writer.

RAFIZI: MINISTER WISHY-WASHY ON INDELIBLE INK

22

Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli says that Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Shahidan Kassim gave differing answers on the contents of the indelible ink used in the May 5 general election. Rafizi said Shahidan (right) had in his reply to Parliament last month, said that the ink did not have chemicals and only contained food colouring. "As I remember, in the first week of Parliament, he said there was no silver nitrate as this had been replaced with food colouring. "Today the minister said there is one percent silver nitrate. That is why I say the answers given by the Election Commission and minister are different," he said at a press conference in the Parliament lobby today. He was commenting on Shahidan's speech in Parliament where the minister mentioned there was silver nitrate in the ink. Shahidan when quizzed repeatedly by Pakatan MP's to explain on how the ink could be washed off easily, had asked the lawmakers not to focus solely on silver nitrate. "The content of the indelible ink is one per cent silver nitrate, 60 percent organic colour, 29 percent moisturiser, and 10 percent solvent," he said. "I cannot disclose the content in the solvent. If I did, it would be manipulated," he said. Earlier, Shahidan declined to reveal the identity of the indelible ink supplier, although Rafizi (left) hadnamed a company yesterday. Despite being harassed by various opposition lawmakers, Shahidan refused to verify Rafizi's claim. The minister however, denied that the company also supplied t-shirts and hats used by the EC as claimed by Rafizi. He added that the indelible ink issue is being investigated by the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission.

23

Pejabat Syarikat pun x wujud!! Tetiba boleh bekal dakwat kekal tapi x kekal 1 Malaysia!!
Menjejak tauke dakwat kekal ~ Sinar Harian!! Nama Mohamed Salleh Mohamed Alli tiba-tiba jadi tumpuan apabila dikaitkan ahli Parlimen Pandan, Rafizi Ramli di Dewan Rakyat dua hari lalu sebagai pemilik syarikat Integrated Challenger (M) Sdn Bhd yang membekalkan dakwat kontroversi kepada Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) untuk digunakan pada PRU13, Mei lalu. Rafizi juga mendakwa Mohamed Salleh turut terlibat membekalkan topi, kemeja-T untuk digunakan petugas SPR. Berpandukan maklumat yang dinyatakan Rafizi termasuk nombor kad pengenalan lelaki itu, Sinar Harian cuba menjejak Mohamed Salleh dengan tujuan bertemu dan mendapatkan reaksinya susulan dakwaan itu. Daripada pencarian itu, didapati Mohamed Salleh Mohamed Alli adalah nama ketua pegawai eksekutif sebuah syarikat yang beralamat di Seksyen 9, di sini. Syarikat itu bagaimanapun bukanlah Integrated Challenger (M) Sdn Bhd yang disebut Rafizi. Juga tidak dapat dipastikan sama ada persamaan nama itu hanya kebetulan, ataupun sememangnya Mohamed Salleh adalah empunya kepada kedua-dua syarikat, dan mungkin juga banyak syarikat lain - lumrah bagi kebanyakan ahli perniagaan yang berjaya pada masa ini. Menariknya, setelah anggota pasukan penyiasat kami turun ke lokasi syarikat itu di Seksyen 9, didapati alamatnya sama dengan alamat yang disebut Rafizi dalam Dewan Rakyat kelmarin. Kebetulan yang kedua! Namun tidak ada pula papan tanda nama Integrated Challenger (M) Sdn Bhd di premis itu. Malah di seluruh kawasan itu pun tidak ada. Kami menghubungi syarikat berkenaan menerusi telefon berpandukan maklumat yang diperolehi. Wanita yang menjawab panggilan itu menafikan pihaknya yang membekalkan dakwat kekal kepada SPR sebaliknya memberitahu, mereka hanya pembekal alat tulis. Dia juga enggan memberitahu nama syarikat, malah namanya sendiri. Namun katanya sejak kelmarin (selepas Rafizi mendedahkan maklumat mengenai Integrated Challenger di Parlimen), mereka dihujani ratusan panggilan telefon

24

yang bertanya mengenai syarikat itu. Selepas memberitahu hal berkenaan, dia terus meletak telefon. Di pintu masuk premis yang alamatnya 'kebetulan' sama dengan alamat Integrated Challenger (M) Sdn Bhd itu, kami cuba bercakap dengan pihak di dalam menerusi interkom. Seorang wanita menjawab. Sinar Harian: Selamat pagi, boleh kami bertanya, adakah ini syarikat Integrated Challenger (M) Sdn Bhd? Wanita: Selamat pagi, untuk apa ye encik? Sinar Harian: Kami datang mahu berjumpa dengan Mohamed Salleh Mohamed Alli, beliau ada di syarikat sekarang? Wanita: Saya minta maaf encik, Encik Mohamed Salleh tiada di pejabat sekarang, dia outstation. Sinar Harian: Kalau dia tak ada, boleh ke kami berjumpa dengan sesiapa dari pejabat dia? Wanita: Tidak boleh encik, sekarang tiada seorang pun pihak atasan yang ada di pejabat. Sinar Harian: Bila kami boleh datang semula ke pejabat? Wanita: Saya pun tidak tahu...(padamkan interkom) Cubaan kami untuk hubungi kakitangan wanita itu semula tidak berjaya kerana di pintu masuk itu mempunyai sistem kamera litar tertutup (CCTV). Ketika kami masih menunggu di pekarangan syarikat tersebut, seorang lelaki kelihatan baru keluar dari pintu pejabat berkenaan. Lelaki ini bertanya kepada kami apa tujuan kami menunggu di kawasan itu, dan kami memberitahu mahu berjumpa dengan pemilik syarikat Integrated Challenger. Katanya, di lot kedai tersebut, terdapat banyak syarikat lain yang menyewa bilik dan syarikat Integrated Challenger mungkin menyewa sebahagian daripada pejabat di situ dan ia tiada kena mengena langsung dengan pihaknya. Setelah mendapati harapan untuk bersemuka dengan Mohamed Salleh yang sebagaimana didakwa Rafizi mempunyai hubungan rapat dengan individu tertentu dalam SPR semakin tipis, kami pun meninggalkan lokasi pejabat syarikat berkenaan dengan janji kepada diri sendiri, kami akan datang lagi setelah cubaan pertama ini gagal.

25

Indelible ink supplier very media shy

Integrated Challenger (M) Sdn Bhd, the alleged indelible ink supplier revealed in Parliament yesterday, has refused to entertain several journalists who visited itsoffice. Based on information contained in a company search, Malaysiakinivisited the indelible ink supplier's office at an office complex in Section 9, Shah Alam at about 2pm yesterday. The company's premise did not have a signboard and was located on top of a Balinese spa. However,Malaysiakini was able to speak to one of the company's staff, who insisted on communicating anonymously through the intercom. Malaysiakini: Good afternoon. Is this the office of Integrated Challenger? I would like to speak to its director, Norsiah Yusoff. Staff: She is not in the office right now as she has a job outside. Malaysiakini: I want to get comments regarding the company, which is said to supply the indelible ink to the Election Commission. To whom can we address the issue? Staff: I don't know. I do not know when Norsiah will complete her task. Close ties with EC

26

The staff also refused to provide Norsiah's contact details or that of other executives in the company to answer the allegations made in Parliament. After waiting for about an hour outside the office, there was no sign of Norsiah or any other company staff. Two journalists from other media organisations arrived later, also to seek information about one Mohamed Salleh Mohd Ali, whom Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli named in the Dewan Rakyat as one of the directors with links to the EC. However, they left with only photographs of the building.

Ink supplier revealed, what a calamity!

VOXPOP 'One wonders whether Shahidan Kassim knew what he was talking about when he defended the need for secrecy regarding the indelible ink supplier.' FellowMalaysian: It certainly sounds like a clandestine deal indeed on how the supply of indelible ink, used for the first time in the recent GE13, was clinched by the expert businessman in direct-negotiation dealings. But truly, this businessman need not be too skillful as all the three companies involved in the negotiations are either fully or partially controlled by him and is thus assured of the deal. Election Commission's (EC) head and his deputy, Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof and Wan Ahmad Wan Omar, need to answer to Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli's charges. And if they are reliably ascertained to be true, it reveals a dire lack of scrutiny, diligence and transparency on the part of EC in carrying out their sacred duties in an impartial manner. Refusing to name the suppliers after repeated calls by PKR has given rise to the impression that EC has some stealthy reasons for doing so. The EC must come clean as otherwise, the law suit filed on Monday by PKR against all the seven members of EC will eventually reveal the truth. Sali Tambap: Syabas Rafizi. No wonder the EC chief fought tooth and nail not to disclose the supplier. Corruption is at its zenith here. The EC is supposed to be the bulwark of impartiality and core of our democracy but human beings fall to the depths of evil and unable to resist

27

the temptation of personal interest. One also wonders whether Minister in the PM's Department Shahidan Kassim knew what he was talking about when he defended the needs for secrecy regarding the supplier of the so-called indelible ink. Bash: Is there any misappropriation or cheating of public funds? Can corruption be proven? Will the culprits be charged? If the answers are 'no', then don't waste our time. GoodToBeMalaysian: The Spanish prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, was implicated for taking illicit bribe of only 322,231, and it was headlined, 'The atom bomb explodes in Spain'. Such is the level of accountability there. Mind you, Spain is not even a tier 1 democracy. But here in Bolehland, 322,231 (RM1.35 million) is kacang putih' (peanut). Even EC's indelible ink far exceeds that. I wonder how many "atom bombs" had already exploded in Malaysia. Supercession: OMG (oh my God), now that Rafizi has identified the edible ink supplier, the rakyat will surely stampede to the supplier to purchase massive amounts of the edible ink, dip their fingers in it, and march to the polling stations demanding to vote. What a calamity! What a threat to national security!

28

29