One of the stories that was going around the internet is a
story of how our President Madam Halimah Yacob became the first person to make a
donation to the Boy’s Brigade’s “Share-a-Gift” charity drive by scanning a QR
code from a banking app. This would under normal circumstances be a run of the
mill story. The President, in the Singapore context is a ceremonial figure, pretty
much like the Queen in the UK. Like the Queen, she makes the news for simply
being who she is and her role is pretty much, well limited to making public
donations, waving to the public on special occasions and sitting there and
looking pretty.
However, in this case someone decided to let the world know
how much the President was donating. It turns out that this was a donation of
$40 and it goes without saying that the Online media had a field day with it,
pointing out that our president, who receives around $1,589,900 a year from the
civil list (note that this is the President’s personal pay and not the other
costs like staff and so on) was donating a mere $40. The story can be found at:
When the internet was set ablaze with the news of the
President’s donation, there was a “clarification” the next day and it was
reported that the president’s donation was “symbolic.”
OK, I’m going to avoid talking about the merits of her
donation and focus on the inept handling of the media messaging. Simply put –
the people handling media relations for this president should be crucified for allowing
the President to be placed in a situation where the amount of her donation was
disclosed.
While one might argue that what she donates is her personal choice,
the fact of the matter is, the woman is the President and as they say, when you
become a public figure, particularly a well-financed one, you effectively
become public property. Everything you do is newsworthy and if you choose to
get involved with “charity” you need to be seen to be genuinely interested in
that said charity. The late Princess Diana was a master of this. She always
looked good for the media – if anything she looked a bit too good for anyone
who had has been working on the ground. However, she always appeared to care,
doing things like shaking hands of AIDS patients that elected politicians
wouldn’t touch. She spoke up about things like landmines. Once again, nobody seriously
thought Diana was going to clear landmines but the fact that she “championed”
the cause made her, appear genuine. Our President’s PR people by contrast, were,
well to put it charitably – lazy. Look, it’s no big deal if the President makes
a financial donation other than the fact that it’s the president doing it. However,
the inevitable reaction after that is to check if the amount because, well that
says a lot about how genuine the president is about promoting that particular
charity. I will also stress the point that while it was the President’s personal
money to give, the fact remains, the president is paid by the public, which in
turn means that the public has expectations of how the president will spend
that money.
Secondly, it looks like the president’s PR people are still
living in a world of one-way communications. They send a press release and a
few snaps and the mainstream media dutifully publishes whatever they’re told to
publish.
Well, it might have worked in the old days but these days,
there is competition from online media. If the mainstream doesn’t do something
interesting with a story, the online media will. The media landscape is no
longer about one-way communication. Online communication is a dialogue. I, for
example, do read the comments whenever a piece gets picked up by TRemeritus.
Sure, not all the comments are agreeable but I still read and engage because,
this is the nature of the world we live in. Comments will be made instantly,
unlike the mainstream, where readers will have to write letters, which go
through editors and so on and so on.
It looks like the President’s PR people didn’t take the fact
that online media exists. Surely, they would have been aware that the guys from
the online media would be willing to pounce on things.
I remember telling General Electric Commercial Finance that
it was better for them to spend $10,000 organising a charity event like a day
out for kids with ailments rather than giving the cash away. The client made
the point that this was still cash. My counter was the fact that they had to
remember they were part of GE, one of the world’s super large and wealthy
corporations, where a cash donation of $10,000 make them look cheap. My advice
to GE would apply to the President.
Then there was the clarification of this being “symbolic.”
Perhaps it was but it made the president look defensive.
Then there’s the fact that there are other ways to make a
difference. While the President has very little actual power, she does have
authority as a head of state. What’s stopping her from becoming a champion of a
good cause? She has the opportunity to do good for society in a non-partisan
and non-political fashion. Donating a few bucks and saying it’s just symbolic
is, well, if I’m being kind – pedestrian. Not enough for a head of state. Nobody
expects her to donate her salary but at least look like you’re trying.
Too many of the people controlling the image of our powerful
people appear stuck in the 1960s. Its time they realized that things have changed
and if they were really doing their jobs, they’d adapt and live in the present to
build the future instead of harking back to an old rule book, which may no
longer be relevant.
No comments
Post a Comment