Indelible ink is not BERSIH: my reply

Thank you pix pixie for commenting on the ‘Indelible ink is not BERSIH’ article. I’ll take this opportunity to express my support towards the BERSIH organization for their undying effort to assure justice and fairness in our electorate system. Replying to your comment:

The discussion on the substance which could be used to counter the indelible ink is not possibly a rumour because the coffee shop owner in India (I meet everyday for breakfast) whom I interviewed has had the first hand experience of using it for submitting multiple votes (it was not a friend of a friend of a friend…). But then again, what he said may not be true. It could be something he made up or there was just some misunderstanding.

Nevertheless, you’ll never know of its existence unless you really find out.

I can only speculate that the 'liquid chemical substance' he was mentioning about, doesn't necessarily refer to some high-five chemical stuff which you can only find in laboratories. (e.g. Ethanol is cheap and can be found very rampantly!)

I suspect that this is a substance which you can find in any ‘Magic’ selling stalls (which sells trickery items for amateur magicians); among selling the magical ink pen which only appears when in contact with water or disappearing wound trick, why not an invisible skin coating liquid that can come off when it is rub?

He gave me the impression that this substance is somewhat starch-like and has this gluey consistency that can dry easily without a trace, after which it can be peeled off. How expensive can this substance be since it is bought by a man (coffee shop boss) who has a moderate socioeconomic lifestyle? (and this place in india i am staying in right now is kind of ulu and far from the main city)

Still, with so much talk and no facts, we will never know whether this claim is credible or not. Well, both of us have this benefit of doubt. But I am wondering, isn’t your committee dying to find out of its truth and existence? ‘Phenicol’ may not be the actual name, but the interviewee had explained the mechanism of action of this substance. It could be a clue.

Yup I agree with you that the ink is not cheating-proof and we must use any reasonable way possible to deter multiple voters (doing something about it is better that doing nothing at all right?). But my objective with the article is to create awareness on its possible liability so that others may be immunized to it and thus develop some methods of prevention in order to make the indelible ink more worthy of use.