One thing is certain, the language was ineffaceably stamped upon my brain, though for a long time no one knew it, least of all myself.
– Helen Keller, American author and disability rights advocate
Some gripes now going around are, “Government ajak ka dapat bonus? Kamek kerja private sik dapat.” (Literally: Government servants only get bonus? We in the private sector get don’t get any.)
These are among the reactions from the people on social media when the annual announcement of bonus payment to civil servants is announced.
It is like clockwork – it is predictable, routine and actually rather saddening.
It is not saddening because bonuses are not paid to those besides civil servants; rather it is because people still couldn’t wrap their heads around the concept of bonuses.
Annual bonus payments to civil servants are meant to be as the word suggests, some sort of reward or incentive paid to the employees for their performance.
It is meant to come from the employer and paid to the employee, the employer in this instance is the government and the employees, civil servants.
It is the same concept as a multinational company handing out generous incentive payments to their employees.
Of course, we wouldn’t question that, that is the matter between the employer and the employees.
Those not working for that particular company has absolutely no business bickering about why they are not getting similar handouts, because they are not employees to begin with – that simple.
And the same concept applies to non-civil servants – me included.
The point I am making is this – that the timely disenchantment around the issue of bonuses to civil servants are not addressed.
Don’t get me wrong, not only do the layman often get confused on this concept, politicians themselves too.
I think this is where the role of the mainstream media along with the less contemporary media must be played to great effect.
Essentially it is to defuse the situation, not by indoctrination, but rather by explanation and routine education.
If we do that, perhaps in a few years, there would no longer be a situation where people get upset over things that do not concern them.
Leave nothing to ambiguity
One of the cardinal sins in strategic communications or rather its Achilles heel by the leaders is often not being able to be articulate and definitive in their statements.
This is because a statement can be interpreted in many different ways. It can also be misinterpreted in just as many ways.
Take the issue of the overlapping claims by a number of nations on an area in the South China Sea which was blown out of proportion recently.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim during his visit to China has addressed this by saying that Malaysia is ready to negotiate the matter. The area in question is within the Malaysia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Just the mere mention of the word “negotiate” may come as polarising to concerned Malaysians who are suggesting that the matter should not arise at all.
I share the same view that there is nothing, absolutely nothing to negotiate. The resource-rich area in question – the Luconia Shoals – is ours according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Perhaps “discuss” is better word to use rather than “negotiate”, but then again, the ship has sailed.
The point here I think Wisma Putra is trying to make is that Malaysia is taking a diplomatic approach to the situation rather than allowing it to escalate. This is an international dispute we are talking about, not just some inter-kampong dispute!
Ambiguity is a problem, especially when tricky situations where clarity is needed.
Setting the right narrative
That is probably where strategic communications are recognised as one area crucial to rendering of government service.
The federal government is taking it seriously – in fact so seriously that they deemed that a Community Communications Department (J-KOM) is necessary.
Recently, for Sarawak, the word is that a certain politician from the Pakatan Harapan party is appointed to occupy the director’s post. This was later refuted by the federal Digital Communications Minister.
While I rather not deliberate on the appointment, what is important is to fully utilise the facility to educate and illuminate the public on matters that are important.
However, to some, party politics and brainwashing fits into the equation. That is not the purpose.
To realise its objective of disseminating information on government policies, we must take politics out of it.
Rather, we explain these government policies, how it will benefit the people as well as obtain feedback on how to improve service delivery. This involves community-level engagement as well as constant two-way dialogues.
While the area of communications is hardly science, there should be a performance indicator of sorts – that is the discussion that people are having each and every day.
If we can steer the people away from nasty political bickering and focus on policy-based discussion, that is a measure of success.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.
