HOW TO RESOLVE GOVT COMMUNICATION WEAKNESSES
A strategy must be developed with analysis grounded on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
NUMEROUS problems in this world — misunderstanding, headache, ill-will, losses, conflict and anger — are caused by poor or bad communication.
There is a general perception, which even Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad seemed to acknowledge, that several (not all) of our ministers are not good at communicating properly with the public since the new Pakatan Harapan (PH) government took shape last year.
One problem is that our ministers are not communicating properly why they cannot follow strictly the PH manifesto drafted about a year ago.
A manifesto is only a guide on what a party or alliance intends to do and stands for. With dynamic factors, especially external, beyond our control, it is hard for the government to keep strictly to the manifesto and not adapt to the new environment.
Manifesto or not, the measurement of the performance of any government should be on the real improvements made in the delivery of public services and on the benefits to the people and the country by the spending on large infrastructure projects.
It is not only about the frequency and how to effectively use the various channels of communication, but more importantly, it is the content of the message. Ministers should not “undercommunicate”, neither should they “over-communicate”, such as making promises that they cannot deliver.
These components form part of a “communications strategy”, which should be developed only after a proper SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) Analysis.
Here are some real-life examples of major communications crises.
About four years ago, I was asked by the then deputy home minister to do a study and proposal on improving the poor public image of our police force despite a reduction in the crime rate at that time.
Like many police forces around the world, I discovered that much of the public relations problem was in “attitude training” required for rank and file police personnel to be more civil minded. The other problem I found was that there was hardly any communications strategy to explain to the public what the police were doing to address weaknesses and to improve performance.
We must never take public relations for granted, no matter how successful the organisation may be.
I was previously engaged as the Strategic PR Adviser to help the world’s largest software firm communicate better to the public about its seemingly “monopolistic” product versus an emerging and “free” open source software which belongs to the global commons.
Part of the problem was that this firm became “too successful” practically overnight and was perceived as an arrogant global monopoly and a threat to other IT firms, thus creating much resentment, dislike and envy. The open source software became a platform for opponents and competitors to rally around and to challenge its dominant position in the market.
I realised that much of the problem lies in the confusion surrounding what open source software was all about. As part of the communications strategy to clarify this issue, I authored a handbook published in 2003 entitled “The Great Software Debate — Open, Free & Proprietary?”, which has helped significantly to clear the confusion, lessen the attacks against my client and moderated the animosity between the major software players.
In the early nineties, as the CEO of the Malaysian Timber Council, I was put in charge of countering the anti-tropical timber campaign in Europe.
After addressing some internal weaknesses in our forest management, we managed to neutralise this campaign using a multichannel communications strategy with the right content to inform the NGOs, media, public and policymakers in Europe, to hear our story and understand better the facts of our case.
On improving communication with the public, our ministers must first recognise that it is a “problem”. The “problem” is that several ministers are perceived by members of the public to be aloof, inaccessible, not doing enough or doing the wrong things and not communicating properly to the public issues and complaints under their purview.
It is impossible for a minister to see everyone but well-trained aides should be able to filter out the more important cases for their ministers and pass the rest to the relevant officials of the ministry to deal with.
A minister, who is a policymaker accountable to the public, is entrusted by the law with the powers to make discretionary decisions. Civil servants, on the other hand, are implementers but some have special powers delegated by the minister.
A minister should also hear out any serious complaints or abuse of power about officials in the ministry.
Most ministers, as the CEO of ministries, are very busy with little available time. Deputy ministers should be made and trained as the chief communications officer, assisted by the press secretary.
Deputy ministers are also politicians and policymakers who are accountable. Therefore, they would be in a good position to undertake this important task to keep the public informed of what their respective ministries are doing.
Another idea is for the mainstream press to play its role to improve communications between the government and the people; it should reintroduce a “Hotline” or “Actionline” section with not just complaints but also important questions directed at the ministers and deputy ministers. This would give them a new platform to communicate with the public.