Sights and Sounds
Gallery

SPEECH BY MR LIM SIONG GUAN, HEAD CIVIL SERVICE, AT THE PRA LAUNCH CONFERENCE, “BEYOND COMMUNICATION: STRATEGIC ROLE OF COMMUNICATION IN GOVERNMENT” ON FRIDAY, 28 JUNE 02 AT 12:30 PM AT RAFFLES CITY CONVENTION CENTRE

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS: CLEAR, COGENT, CONVINCING

Distinguished guests, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen

First Principle in Public Communications

 Allow me first to read you the Introduction to the Art of War by Sun Tzu.

“Sun Tzu’s Art of War brought him to the notice of the King of Wu. The King said to him: I have carefully perused your 13 chapters. May I submit your theory of managing soldiers to a slight test?

“Sun Tzu replied: You may.

“The King asked: May the test be applied to women?

“The answer was again in the affirmative, so arrangements were made to bring 180 ladies out of the Palace.

“Sun Tzu divided them into two companies, and placed one of the King’s favourite concubines at the head of each. He then bade them all take spears in their hands, and addressed them thus: I presume you know the difference between front and back, right hand and left hand?

“The girls replied: Yes.

“Sun Tzu went on: When I say “Eyes front,” you must look straight ahead. When I say “Left turn,” you must face towards your left hand. When I say “Right turn,” you must face towards your right hand. When I say “About turn,” you must face right round towards the back.

“Again the girls assented.

“The words of command having been thus explained, he set up the halberds and battle-axes in order to begin the drill. Then, to the sound of drums, he gave the order “Right turn.” But the girls only burst out laughing.

“Sun Tzu said: If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame.

“So he started drilling them again, and this time gave the order “Left turn,” whereupon the girls once more burst into fits of laughter.

“Sun Tzu said: If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders are clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers.

So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two companies to be beheaded.”

We have to leave the episode there, lest we stray from the focus of my speech. [Those of you who are interested should read Sun Tzu’s Art of War for yourself.] It is a harsh tale, which contains the first lesson in communications.

It is for the originator to ensure that his message can be easily understood.

Therefore, when you are frustrated that your policy intentions are misconstrued or your announcement misunderstood, it is the wrong question to ask, “Why don’t Singaporeans understand this policy?” Rather, your question should be, “Why haven’t I been able to communicate this policy clearly and effectively?” If the policy is understood but rejected, that is a different matter, for which you will have to address the nature and content of the policy itself. [This is not the subject of today’s conference.]

Too often, the lack of understanding is the result of unnecessary detail, jargon, and convoluted “civil service speak.” We need to ask ourselves, Can we make our communications simpler so that Singaporeans can understand not only the message, but also the rationale behind government policy? Simplicity and clarity of expression is particularly important because we have to reach out to a broad spectrum of people.

The Forum pages in our local media today reflect this need for good communication very clearly. Unlike a decade ago, Singaporeans today write to the papers for clarifications, provide suggestions, and even counter government explanations with facts and figures and arguments. Some recent examples that come to mind are the increase in bus fares and changes in the tax structure. The change in tone, content and context is a clear sign that Singaporeans are more discerning, have greater expectations, wish to be engaged and informed on government programmes and want to express their views on government policies.

Public communications has tended to be regarded as the purview of the PR officers and the corporate communications departments. This can no longer hold. Officers at all levels now make up the voice, the character and the personality of the organisation. Public communications has rightly become an integral part of policy formulation. Why? Because no matter how good our policies may be, if the public does not appreciate or accept them, we lose their support and understanding. It is good that we now have a rule that every policy paper must state the anticipated public reaction and the proposed public communication process.

Second Principle in Public Communications

 The second principle in public communications is:

The message must be clear.

If I were to ask you, “What is your point in this press release?” can you tell it to me in 5 words, or 7 words? In other words, tell me what is the point of the message in no more than the newspaper headline. If you say this is impossible, then don’t blame the audience for not getting the point. Of course, to be able to get the message across in 7 words is no easy task. But if you don’t do it, the newspaper will do it for you, the TV station will do it for you, the hawker will do it for you, and the taxi-driver will do it for you.

I am reminded of an exercise in clarity of message. Imagine yourself on the beach seeing some distance away a sign which says, “Fresh Fish Sold Here”. Think it over. Is the word “Sold” necessary? If you are running a charity, it is of course important to say “Free Fresh Fish Here”. But if you are not, there is nothing you add to the message by including the word “Sold”. So the sign can be cut down to “Fresh Fish Here”.

Next, is the word “Here” necessary? If the sign is to lead you to a fish stall 100 metres away, it would make sense to say “Fresh Fish 100m North”. But if the sign is where the action is, you don’t need the word “Here”. So your sign now has simply become “Fresh Fish”.

Think again. What are you doing inviting people to come see stale fish. So obviously the word “Fresh” is redundant. Thus you finally arrive at the ultimate: You don’t need four words “Fresh Fish Sold Here”. You only need one word or picture: “Fish”. Can you now imagine getting your message down to 5 or 7 words? Totally possible, I assure you, with effort.

But of course the headline is not enough. We have to expand on the policy. So the next requirement to our message being clear is that you must convey the policy to the audience within the first 3 sentences of your statement. This is quite a standard rule for newsmen. It is how computers are able to pick the message in newspaper articles and quickly summarise the points to you, delivered efficiently and effectively to your desktop via the internet. It is not the computer that is smart: it is the writer who writes in such a way that the first 3 sentences convinces the reader it is worthwhile reading the rest of the article. If you don’t get your audience in the first 3 sentences, you can be sure you will not get him at all. You have to write in a way which offers answers to the questions: Why must I know this? How will it benefit me or my family? How will it benefit Singapore and my future?

Having enunciated my view about drawing attention in 7 words and gaining interest in 3 sentences, it is well for us to run our minds through how we have been drafting speeches or press releases or replies to newspaper forum pages. Do our press releases carry titles which suggest the kind of headline we should like to see? If they do not, it means we have not thought enough about the impact we want to create or the attention we want to draw. Do our replies to forum page letters similarly carry titles or do we simply repeat the title of the forum page letter itself? Clarity of thought and clarity of intention. These should be our clear aims.

How many times have we drafted press releases which describe a policy in terms of the chronology of development of the policy or the step by step considerations that led to the policy? Why should the Singaporean be interested in how we go about developing policy? Their interest is how it affects them, or how it affects Singapore . And if you do not interest him in the first 3 sentences to read the rest of the press release or the rest of the reply or the rest of the speech, you would have failed to communicate. Getting his eyes and getting his ears is the starting point to hoping to get the message across. And if you cannot get the first 3 sentences past him, the remaining 100 sentences may as well not be there.

Third Principle in Public Communications

 As a government, we have the reputation of being pragmatic, practical and rational. Policies always are for the good of Singapore and Singaporeans. Where they do not benefit the individual member of the public, they certainly are intended to benefit the collective public. Where they do not directly benefit the individual, they certainly are meant to indirectly benefit him. Where they do not benefit the public immediately, they certainly are meant to benefit the public in the medium term or the longer term. If therefore our intention is invariably to do good by the public, isn’t it then the more amazing and distressing that the public does not always perceive it that way. Would not the reason be more a failure in communication than a defect in the policy itself?

Given the basic objectivity and rationality in our policy development process, I would put the third tenet of public communications as:

Convince the public that the policy is reasoned and reasonable.

That a policy may have been rationally developed, and therefore “reasoned”, far from automatically makes it “reasonable” to the public. “Reasoned” is a matter of the mind. “Reasonable” is a matter of the heart. Often, we fail in the communication process because we think “reasonable” is a matter of the mind. Well, we think wrong. We have to convince our audience that the policy is reasoned and reasonable, with an emphasis on “reasonable”. If the public cannot see the policy to be reasonable at all, no amount of reasoning will get you anywhere.

Fourth Principle in Public Communications

The fourth principle I should like to put to you today is:

Start with the target audience in mind.

Perhaps it should have been the very first tenet. Nothing new or earthshaking in it. Except that it is more often forgotten than practised. We must set out to convince the public that the policy position is sound and deserves their understanding. We must here address the heart, not just the head. Our starting position should not be the policy; our starting position must be where the audience is at this time. How do we convince the public of the need for the new policy, on the need for change, on why the change is good for him or for his family, if not immediately, then for the years to come? Each situation, each target audience, deserves careful thought. There is no substitute for empathy, no excuse for not caring to reach out.

Conclusion

Which brings me to enunciate my final thought today on public communications:

Communication is Intention; Implementation is Policy.

What do I mean? It means it does not matter what staff paper you have written, how well you have argued the case with your minister, or how clever your arguments and rationale have been. What you communicate to the audience is the intention of the policy so far as the audience is concerned. Communicate wrongly, communicate inadequately, and all the misreadings and unintended distrust is your fault.

Similarly, what and how you implement is what defines the policy. It is not what you have written in the Cabinet paper. As far as the public is concerned, it is what they see or perceive of the implementation which is the policy.

In a nutshell, effective Public Communications is about being Clear, Cogent and Convincing. If you are the originator of the message, it is your responsibility to make sure the message can be easily understood. Simple words. Clear message. Draw attention with 7 words. Interest people with the first 3 sentences. All policy must come across as Reasoned and Reasonable. Convince the mind. Persuade the heart. Start with the Target Audience in Mind – always. As far as the public is concerned, Communication is Intention, Implementation is Policy.

So there you have it: Originator, Message, Reason, Audience. Do it right the first time, and you enjoy the results. Do it wrong the first time, and you give yourself untold amounts of headache and heartache.

The PR Academy could not have come at a better time. I trust this conference will offer you insight, inspiration and energy, as we seek not only to delight our customers but, very importantly, to connect with all citizens.

Sun Tzu on the Art of War, translated from the Chinese with introduction and critical notes by Lionel Giles