Bullshit in the S’pore religious teacher says he had talks with WP, urged party to prioritise rights of Malay/Muslim community | The Straits Times
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...alaymuslim
The "bullshit" (i.e., misleading, exaggerated, or poorly substantiated aspects) in the article, here’s a breakdown of the most problematic elements:
### **1. Unverified Claims Presented as Fact**
- The entire premise hinges on **one man’s unverified statement** (Ustaz Azhar Yusof) with **zero confirmation from the Workers’ Party (WP)**.
- If WP was not contacted for comment, this is **irresponsible journalism**—it’s just hearsay framed as news.
### **𝟐. 𝐕𝐚𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 "𝐓𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐬"**
- 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 "𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐬" 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧?
- 𝐖𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠? 𝐀 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐭? 𝐀 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐐&𝐀?
- 𝐍𝐨 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝐧𝐨 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐖𝐏 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐧𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭—𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚 **𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦** 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠.
### **𝟑. 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐖𝐏 (𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐍𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐲 𝐄𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭)**
- 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐖𝐏 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 **𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐛𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝** 𝐭𝐨 "𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞" 𝐌𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲/𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭:
- 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐖𝐏 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬.
- 𝐍𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 "𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬" 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐬.
- 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞 **𝐚 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧** 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞..
### **𝟒. 𝐒𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 (𝐃𝐨𝐠 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐞?)**
- 𝐁𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚 **𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫** 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐖𝐏, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬:
- 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐖𝐏 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 (𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐞).
- 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐖𝐏’𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 (𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟).
- 𝐈𝐟 𝐖𝐏 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬?
### **5. Missing Context on WP’s Actual Track Record**
- WP has Malay MPs (Faisal Manap, Raeesah Khan previously) and has spoken on issues like tudung policies.
- Ignoring this makes it seem like WP is being "called out," when in reality, they’ve already engaged on these topics.
### **6. Why Is This News? (Possible Agenda-Pushing)**
- Is this just a **hit piece** to paint WP as either:
- **Out of touch** with Malays/Muslims?
- **Too close** to religious figures (playing into secularism fears)?
- No clear public interest—just **drama-stirring**.
### **7. No Follow-Up on What WP Actually Thinks**
- If ST did basic journalism, they’d ask WP:
- *"Did these talks happen?"*
- *"Do you agree with Ustaz Azhar’s views?"*
- But since they didn’t, this is just **one-sided gossip**.
### **Conclusion: The Biggest BS in the Article**
- **Unverified claims** treated as facts.
- **Vague, loaded language** ("prioritize rights") with no specifics.
- **Missing WP’s side** (basic journalistic failure).
- **Possible insinuation** that WP is either ignoring Malay/Muslim concerns or being swayed by religious figures.
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠—𝐢𝐭’𝐬 **𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬**, 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞.