Tweet In Mouth Politicians

The Spanker has said it before. Politicians have to prove that they have a brain before being issued a twitter account.  Look who have jumped on the very unfortunate death of little William Yau to “earn” some political mileage. This is truly despicable.  

This tweet goes beyond the boundaries of both what is politically acceptable and common decency. The 71-year-old grumpy grandpa should know more than most people that he should not try to score political points from a personal tragedy such as this. Exploiting a nation’s grief for the loss of an innocent child for his own gain is just pure evil. 

The Spanker has no words to describe the 36 followers who Retweeted this.

Then of course Nizar “Tweet in mouth” Jamaluddin does it again. And again. And again.

This serial dispenser of tweet diarrhea is just too much. He has not only insulted the Yau family by being totally unsympathetic and insensitive, he has insulted the entire grieving nation as well.

Dictionary.com defines “carcass” as 

[kahr-kuhs] noun

1.the dead body of an animal.

2.Slang. the body of a human being, whether living or dead.

3.the body of a slaughtered animal after removal of the offal.

The Spanker says

It doesn't matter which political ideology you subscribe to. We are all human beings, who should sympathize when such a tragedy befalls any family.

Click here for my earlier article on more tweet diarrhea. Thank God the other tweet imbeciles Ngeh Koo Ham and M Manoharan have kept their big diarrhea gaps shut this time.

The rule of law and judicial integrity in Malaysia.

The probe on three judges for alleged corrupt practices is a good start towards restoring confidence in the rule of law and judicial integrity in Malaysia.

It can’t be denied that a cloud of suspicion has been hanging over it since a sitting High Court judge made 112 allegations against 12 of his peers in an anonymous 33-page letter in 1996. The judge, Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid, came out openly 10 years later to admit he wrote it and that the accusations were 

never investigated properly.

Three eminent former Court of Appeal judges have now called for the allegations against the 12 judges to be re-examined.

Adding to the dark cloud is the fact that the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the infamous “Correct, Correct” video clip invol­ving a judge and lawyer V.K. Lingam remains unresolved.

Five years ago, the then Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi spoke openly of graft involving the bench, claiming that he personally knew of two retired judges suspected to be corrupt. He highlighted corruption at the lower levels of the system and even admitted to paying bribes himself as a lawyer to ensure that his files were attended to.

Three weeks ago, the current CJ, Tun Arifin Zakaria, raised the issue of judicial corruption again by urging lawyers and the public not to bribe the judges, stressing that both the giver and taker were equally guilty.

The much touted noble profession, like all other vocations, has its share of crooks who can fix the outcome of cases. Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee, when asked if behind every corrupt judge there is almost always a corrupt lawyer, responded with“I agree, it is likely; not always, but likely.”

The Bar Council is aware of corruption involving lawyers as givers or facilitators of bribes, and has so far reported three alleged cases of tainted judges to the MACC.

A retired Court of Appeal judge and two High Court judges are currently under probe. The amount in alleged corruption in the cases involves millions of ringgit.

It is a good start towards restoring public confidence in the rule of law and judicial integrity as the credibility of the country’s judicial systems is dependent upon the conduct and image of judges appointed to the exalted office.

As the ultimate custodians of public trust, the men and women who wield the gavel are expected to be persons of unsullied honor and high moral values.

They are expected to remain above suspicion and dispense justice with honesty, objectivity and fairness.

The Spanker says

The symbol of a balanced scale is not in vogue these days as people have become so political that they have become grossly unbalanced in their thinking. There isn't much fairness nowadays. Everything is political.

To boost their popularity, Opposition politicians have always been alleging that the impartiality of the judiciary has been compromised. Yes, I agree that there are some cases with rather mind-boggling verdicts. But how about the other cases when judges ruled against the government? The latest is yesterday's High Court quashing the MACC notice to lawyers Latheefa Bebe Koya and Murnie Hidayah Annuar. How come no one has said anything bad about the judiciary this time?

The government too appears to be imbalanced. When Perkasa chief, Ibrahim Ali did a war dance and called for the burning of Bibles, no action has been taken against him todate although lesser deeds by others would immediately have the perpetrators pulled in.

What has happened to our sense of fairness? Regardless of our political inclination, we must yet be fair. Give credit to others when credit is due, critique only when it is necessary to do so.

Knowing what not to post

With the elections looming large, there is simply too much politicking today. This has trickled down to involve every single thing that occurs now.

The catalyst for this phenomenon is social media, which has enabled anyone with a smart phone to scan the news and pass instant judgment on current issues.

However, social media has a Jekyll and Hyde personality. If you are constantly aware and use it consciously, you are safe. Overstep the boundaries and you pay dearly.

Apparently today you must take a side, otherwise how are we know which team you are playing for? The diplomatic art of agreeing to disagree is dead in today’s sociopolitical climate.

Today complicated issues can be summarized by a short phrase. A radical idea can be propagated by a rallying call. Truth be told, how many of those who willingly respond understand the overall facts of what they’re fighting about?

Very few decisions are a straightforward black or white. Is there room for an individual who questions your motives, and asks for depth in debate? Is there room for truly making an effort to understand the other’s point of view and then search for common ground? Or do we simply respond according to our emotions?

It is quite the norm for both sides to have made up their minds on the matter and neither to be interested in listening to the other’s view.

Unverified facts, badly chosen words and phrases were a pitfall in the infancy of social media even back in the early days when there was only blogging; but now with the mushrooming of online portals, Youtube  and micro blogging sites like facebook, twitter, Whatsapp and Viber, the resultant chorus of condemnation is unprecedentedly savage.

Digital media literacy is not simply the ability to own a smart phone and post comments. It is also about being able to discern what not to post.

Clearly, there is also manipulation of social media channels to form public opinion. Whilst Malaysians are quick in assuming that there are always hidden hands in every picture, we are also quick to judge on issues.

Have we had all the complete facts of the case to mull over and evaluate before commenting and judging?

The Spanker says:

I personally believe that a democracy should allow vigorous debate. The debate we want is the voice of reason, not the strident arguments that reverberate with dissent for the sake of automatically dissenting with your opponent or automatically agreeing to everything “your” side says.

"Corrupted" Court Rules In Favor of Anwar

The "corrupted" Malaysian High Court has ruled in favor of Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in his defamation suit against Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Bhd and its chief editor for publishing two articles on his comments about homosexual laws in a BBC interview.

Justice V.T. Singham ruled that the words in the article were defamatory and could bring down Anwar’s reputation and political standing by suggesting that he would not make a suitable leader of the federal government.

The defendants, he said, had also failed to prove justification in publishing the article, adding that there was no evidence that they did not intend to defame Anwar.

“They have also failed to prove fair comment. Public interest was not served as Utusan Malaysia did not publish and reproduce the plaintiff’s statement in full (from the BBC interview),” said Justice Singham.

Granting for damages to be assessed, Justice Singham also ordered the defendants to pay RM45,000 in costs to Anwar.

The Spanker Says:

Can we trust this "corrupted" Malaysian High Court judgement? Is Justice V T Singham "corrupted" ? Or are the courts impartial and fair only when it involves the Opposition?

Thumping Qurans and Burning Bibles

Perkasa’s Ibrahim Ali has gone too far when he suggested that Muslims burn Bahasa Malaysia Bibles.

According to lawyer Syahredzan Johan, Ibrahim Ali may have committed several offences under Sections 298 and 505 of the Penal Code. Section 298 states that it is an offence to utter words that deliberately wound religious feelings. If found guilty, an offender can be imprisoned for a year, or fined or both.

Section 505 meanwhile states that it is an offence to make statements that that are conducing public mischief. Those found guilty under this section can be imprisoned for a span of two years, fined or both.

Syahredzan added that there can be a case against Ibrahim under the Sedition Act as the act makes it an offence to raise discontent or feelings of ill-will. He, however, stressed that he personally was against the Sedition Act and its selective usage.

“Say something about Islam and we are so quick to act but in this case, why is there no investigation? Why is there an imbalance in treatment?” Syahredzan questioned.

He also pointed out that the Perkasa leader’s suggestion was against the norm of a civilized human. Burning books or holy books makes you anti-religion, anti-knowledge and anti-civilization,” he said.

The Spanker says:

If we respect other religions, people will in return respect our religion. Malaysians must ensure that the peace and harmony in our country is preserved. Do not let brainless politicians instigate us to fight with each other for their own selfish agendas.

Yes my friend Patrick Teoh is guilty of shooting off an fb rant hastily without stopping to consider its serious ramifications. Most Muslims have accepted his apology, but there are bigots, racists and haters who are over-reacting to the situation and are still fanning the fire, including issuing death threats against him. 

What does their reactions say about themselves?

This is what The Spanker says: