Public Relations - Crisis Management 101
On 3 May at a lunchtime rally, Prime Minister-elect Lee Hsien Loong said,
"Right now we have Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong, Steve Chia. We can deal with them. Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?"
The opposition candidates all seized on his words, asking him to clarify what he meant by fixing the opposition and buying supporters over.
The next day, his press secretary released the following statement:
"At the lunchtime rally in UOB Plaza on Wednesday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong addressed the issue of opposition MPs in Parliament. He said that if the opposition were to hold 10 to 20 seats in Parliament, he would have to spend much more time thinking what was the right way to "fix" them. What PM meant by his remark was that if there were many more opposition MPs in Parliament, the government and opposition would spend all their time and energies countering each other, and Singapore would be worse off for it. He used direct language to get this important point across to a mass rally crowd. If the exact words he used offended, he is sorry.
Chen Hwai Liang
Press Secretary to Prime Minister
5 May 2006"
I don't know about you, but this reminds me of the time when Mrs Goh Chok Tong made the statement that NKF's ex-CEO Mr TT Durai's annual pay package of some S$600,000 was "peanuts". What happened subsequently? If you remember, her husband, the Senior Minister, had to step out on her behalf to say that she now regretted her comments.
He added: "When she told me what she said at home, I told her immediately, you're in trouble. There'll be negative reaction and sure enough the next day, Singaporeans reacted generally quite critically to her remarks and it's understandable because NKF is a charity and Singaporeans contribute to the NKF and they don't earn much.To educate her I showed her the letters and emails and now I think she understands better what she said was not quite in order but she explains why she said it. She told me that she was thinking of the organisation, she said that if you look at the organisation, the right person must be paid the right wage, but of course she put it across that way, the rest is history."
Goh Chok Tong had to clean up the mess his wife had made. He did all the talking, while she kept silent. In any first world country, would that have been acceptable? Certainly not! She would have been taken to task by the media and she would have to make her own clarification. Even in communist China, Vice-Premier Wu Yi (yes, China has a female Vice-PM!) would have to clean up her own shite. No counting on husbands.
In the same way, LHL's "clarification" is highly unsatisfactory for the following reasons:
1. The statement was issued by his Press Secretary.
Why didn't he speak to the media himself? Did the media chase him for further clarifications? Why was his clarification glossed over in the media even though the opposition made a big deal of it?
2. The Press Secretary's statement only clarified what LHL meant by fixing the opposition. And on buying over votes? Total silence!
I think it is obvious LHL needs to address the voters!
Meanwhile, Low Thia Khiang has taken Irene Ng to task for saying
"Let me ask you - do you think the ministers will listen more carefully to a PAP MP than to an opposition MP out to make trouble? No, I think they'll listen to me, a PAP backbencher."
and demanded an apology from her. In Today's Straight Times, this was her response:
"I was making a very general point, hence my surprise and slight amusement that Mr Low would take it so personally... There's really nothing to apologise for... If he took that personally, perhaps he thought that was true."
Considering there are only TWO opposition MPs in the Parliament, I suppose Irene Ng was referring to Chiam See Tong if she was not reffering to Low Thia Khiang?
And just when you thought they haven't said enough wrong things, my eyes almost popped out this morning reading what Goh Chok Tong said in today's Straight Times:
Mr Goh then threw up the possibility of 'cutting a deal' with those voters who wanted more than three opposition voices in Parliament, by reviewing the NCMP system.
'How many more do you want, you tell me. If you say 10, and thereafter you are always going to vote in the PAP with 84 seats, I'll do a deal with you,' he said.
[And then as if he realised he said something stupid] But he said later that he thought the deal could not be done.
For a more incisive analysis of PAP's own goals and the media's unfair coverage, read this article on Yawning Bread.
"Right now we have Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong, Steve Chia. We can deal with them. Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?"
The opposition candidates all seized on his words, asking him to clarify what he meant by fixing the opposition and buying supporters over.
The next day, his press secretary released the following statement:
"At the lunchtime rally in UOB Plaza on Wednesday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong addressed the issue of opposition MPs in Parliament. He said that if the opposition were to hold 10 to 20 seats in Parliament, he would have to spend much more time thinking what was the right way to "fix" them. What PM meant by his remark was that if there were many more opposition MPs in Parliament, the government and opposition would spend all their time and energies countering each other, and Singapore would be worse off for it. He used direct language to get this important point across to a mass rally crowd. If the exact words he used offended, he is sorry.
Chen Hwai Liang
Press Secretary to Prime Minister
5 May 2006"
I don't know about you, but this reminds me of the time when Mrs Goh Chok Tong made the statement that NKF's ex-CEO Mr TT Durai's annual pay package of some S$600,000 was "peanuts". What happened subsequently? If you remember, her husband, the Senior Minister, had to step out on her behalf to say that she now regretted her comments.
He added: "When she told me what she said at home, I told her immediately, you're in trouble. There'll be negative reaction and sure enough the next day, Singaporeans reacted generally quite critically to her remarks and it's understandable because NKF is a charity and Singaporeans contribute to the NKF and they don't earn much.To educate her I showed her the letters and emails and now I think she understands better what she said was not quite in order but she explains why she said it. She told me that she was thinking of the organisation, she said that if you look at the organisation, the right person must be paid the right wage, but of course she put it across that way, the rest is history."
Goh Chok Tong had to clean up the mess his wife had made. He did all the talking, while she kept silent. In any first world country, would that have been acceptable? Certainly not! She would have been taken to task by the media and she would have to make her own clarification. Even in communist China, Vice-Premier Wu Yi (yes, China has a female Vice-PM!) would have to clean up her own shite. No counting on husbands.
In the same way, LHL's "clarification" is highly unsatisfactory for the following reasons:
1. The statement was issued by his Press Secretary.
Why didn't he speak to the media himself? Did the media chase him for further clarifications? Why was his clarification glossed over in the media even though the opposition made a big deal of it?
2. The Press Secretary's statement only clarified what LHL meant by fixing the opposition. And on buying over votes? Total silence!
I think it is obvious LHL needs to address the voters!
Meanwhile, Low Thia Khiang has taken Irene Ng to task for saying
"Let me ask you - do you think the ministers will listen more carefully to a PAP MP than to an opposition MP out to make trouble? No, I think they'll listen to me, a PAP backbencher."
and demanded an apology from her. In Today's Straight Times, this was her response:
"I was making a very general point, hence my surprise and slight amusement that Mr Low would take it so personally... There's really nothing to apologise for... If he took that personally, perhaps he thought that was true."
Considering there are only TWO opposition MPs in the Parliament, I suppose Irene Ng was referring to Chiam See Tong if she was not reffering to Low Thia Khiang?
And just when you thought they haven't said enough wrong things, my eyes almost popped out this morning reading what Goh Chok Tong said in today's Straight Times:
Mr Goh then threw up the possibility of 'cutting a deal' with those voters who wanted more than three opposition voices in Parliament, by reviewing the NCMP system.
'How many more do you want, you tell me. If you say 10, and thereafter you are always going to vote in the PAP with 84 seats, I'll do a deal with you,' he said.
[And then as if he realised he said something stupid] But he said later that he thought the deal could not be done.
For a more incisive analysis of PAP's own goals and the media's unfair coverage, read this article on Yawning Bread.