Singapore. (21 July 2010 2150 hrs). It's Day 4 and so far slightly over 3,000 comments have been posted on Yahoo News. The MHA has continued to remain silent on the incident.
It appears that the public outrage has generally run its course and, pending any further developments, the incident will remain in the "background." It now remains to be seen how the incident has affected the reputation and credibility of the Singapore Police Force.
Singapore (20 July 2010 2200 hrs). No new developments since this morning's blog. Comments on Yahoo News have climbed to over 2,900 posts. As anticipated, the comments have started to spin in multiple tangents with some taking on a political dimension.
As advocated in my research paper, a Crisis Communication plan must be proactive. This is to allow the Crisis Communicator to frame the crisis and keep it focused on the issue at hand.
Singapore. (20 July 2010 0900 hrs). The crisis continues with a Member of Parliament (MP) questioning the arrest of the photographer at yesterday's parliamentary sitting. Responding to the MP's query, the Minister for Environment and Water Resources replied that he photographer was arrested for safety issues and not privacy issues. It is interesting to note that the response came from the Minister for Environment and Water Resources and not the Minister for Home Affairs.
Once again my take is that the MHA's PR Dept has failed to do a proper stakeholder analysis. As a result, the Minister's (albeit the wrong spokesperson) response once again failed to address the correct stakeholder concern about the possible "abuse of authority."
In addition, as I advocated in my research on the perfect information environment, other cases of alledge police misconduct is coming to light. A comment by "Shawn Tan" was posted on 20 July 2010 at 0857 hrs citing his own personal experience.
Singapore (19 July 2010 2200 hrs). Comments on Yahoo News have reached 2,400+. The majority of netizens continue to be enraged over the incident.
Aside from the press statement released yesterday in response to The Straits Times and Lianhe Wanbao queries, the MHA's PR Dept doesn't appear to be interested in responding.
While the MHA may be refraining from commenting on the incident as they are allowing internal investigations to take place, this may prove dangerous as the comments are beginning to spin in multiple directions. This is always dangerous as it may lead down a path of no return.
Singapore. (19 July 2010. 1100 hrs). The print edition of The Straits Times reported the incident today. While the report was factual and carried both sides of the story, the report still left doubts in the mind of readers on the possible abuse of authority. Yahoo News followed up on their earlier report stating over 1,500 comments were received with the majority expressing outrage over the arrest.
One of my key takeaways is that the police statement addressed only the arrest and that the concerns of other stakeholders were not addressed. As part of the Crisis Communication plan, the PR Dept of MHA should have done a stakeholder analysis to identify key stakeholders and their issues and concerns. The Press Statement should then be tailored to address these concerns.
My assessment is that netizens are concerned about the possible abuse of authority and the MHA's Press Statement should have taken the opportunity to reassure stakeholders that the police had in place the necessary measures to prevent abuse.
Singapore (18 July 2010 2300 hrs). I just checked the web for more information on the above incident and I noticed that the online edition of the Straits Times expanded on the SPF's statement clarifying that the photographer had been warned repeatedly to stop taking photographs as he was "endangering" himself. It was only when the photographer "struggled" with the police officer was he handcuffed. It is interesting to note that the MHA website still did not carry the police's official statement on the incident.
So what can we learn from this ...
In Crisis Communication, the affected organisation must get its side of the story out. While replying to reporters' questions is one way, this makes the facts subject to intepretation before publication. In addition, print space is limited and it is likely that the story will be edited and para-phrased. Once this happens, pertinent facts of the case may unwittingly be ommitted. Hence, in a Crisis Communication plan, the affected organisation should use its website to tell the full facts of the case.
Singapore (18 July 2010 1100 hrs). Yahoo News today reported that a Lianhe Wanbao photographer was arrested and detained by police for allegedly taking photographs of Saturday morning's flood. In the police statement concerning the photographer's arrest, the police stated that the photographer was arrested for safety reasons as the officer felt that the photographer was in danger and would hurt himself while taking photos. Netizens have expressed outraged over the police officer's decision to detain the photographer for essentially doing his job.
It will be interesting to see if this turns into a crisis. Based on my ongoing research, I think the chance is high as it falls into the category of "abuse of authority".
As for the Singapore Police Force's Crisis Communication plan, they have so far fulfilled 1 of the 5 characteristics of an effective Crisis Communication plan that I have advocated in my research paper i.e. the timely acknowledgement of the incident.
It is interesting to study how the Home Team's PR Department handles this.
RSS Feed