Will The Indonesian Government end up like the one in Hong Kong – reviled, untrusted and ineffectual?

Communications, or lack of, is digging the government into a bigger hole than it is in because of issues surrounding the amends to the KPK and criminal Code laws, Papua, forest fires and the president’s family.

With public sentiment at best skeptical at worst critical of the government, communications can make the difference between people’s perception of the government as open, responsive and accountable – which would make it easier to quell tempers and protests – or as arrogant, tone deaf and defensive – which would only serve to escalate tempers and intolerance.

Minister Amran: Try being a minister if you like to protest. Source: Katadata.com.

The latest misfire came from Agriculture Minister Amran Sulaymaniyah commenting on the protests yesterday in which tens of thousands of students took to the streets in many cities through Indonesia to protest the amendments to the Criminal Code and other laws.

“Those who like to demo should become a minister,” he was quoted as saying by katadata.com. “Then they’ll know what its like to be a minister,; he said, adding “Enak Aja”, an Indonesian term that roughly translates into “you don’t know shit, so shut up.”

Obviously he hasn’t heard of the saying “heavy is the head that wears the crown.” Nobody forced him to become a minister, he accepted the job and is now bellyaching about how people don’t understand the difficulties of b ring a minister when confronting demonstrators?

Then there was Coordinating Minister for Legal, Political and Security Affairs Wiranto who told the press yesterday that the student protests were no longer relevant because the House of Representatives had heeded president Jokowi’s call to postpone the passage of the criminal Code and other controversial laws.

Again, this was a display of the lack of perhaps thee most vital skill in communications: listening. If he had listened to what the protesters had to say, he would have realized that what they were effectively saying was that they wanted amendments to these laws cancelled, not put aside like some unholy zombie to rise again when the public is distracted elsewhere.

Listening would also inform him that the subtext of the protesters is that they can no longer trust the  Legislative and Executive branches of government to do the right thing by them and the nation. The Legislature because they could originate amendments that seek to rob its citizens of the right to choose their own lifestyles, their freedom of speech and action. The Executive for being too weak to veto such atrocious amendments and then, belatedly, tried to band aid things with some Palau my about protecting the KPK’s rights, and a request to remove the article about insulting the President.

Furiously digging the same hole was the President’s Chief of Staff, who was who was quoted by CNN as saying that the student protesters should understand that the Executive and Legislature had decided to discuss further the legal amendments and that the President now had many important things such as Papu and forest forest to occupy his time.

If one were vulgar one would interpret his quote as effectively saying” We already threw you bone by postponing the  passage of the amendments, so fuck off and leave us alone. We have more important tasks than to cater to your sods.”

All this does not help.

Neither has the Legislature. The Leader of the House of Representatives Bambang Soesatyo was at his misogynistic best when during a meeting with the press in which a woman reporter asked several questions, he unctuously and patronisingly asked her “ada pertanyataan lagi, sayang?” This is equivalent in English to “any more questions, Honey?”

The reporter fell silent, probably from outrage. The men laughed and Bambang sought to make it up to her by saying “its OK because we are all family. I know you all….(illegible) you all young.” Think creepy uncle.

The public perception is that the legislature is definitely out of touch with the people’s aspirations. On top of that they are all entitled and voracious money grabbers who are uneducated, unsophisticated and unfettered by scruples and morals.

If the Executive is not careful and quickly acquire some communications skills and advice, it will be lumped in together with the Legislature. Then it will be too late. It will be like the Hong Kong Government  being tone deaf and committing a series of mistakes and inflaming the Hong Kongers to the extent that confrontation rather than accommodation becomes the norm.

And when things got really bad, the Hong Kong Government finally realized that it needs to communicate better. It invited several international Public Relations firms to help it communicate better but it was too late. Not a single PR firm took up its offer to pitch for the business. 

As things stand it is still not too late for the Jokowi Government. The President still has a lot of social capital from his past performance but that is depleting fast at this rate unless he does something about his cabinet’s communications. He needs to seek professional help soon or end up looking like Hong Kong’s Carrie Lam – reviled, untrusted and ineffectual.

 

KPAI isn’t all wrong about PB Djarum

Something important is lost in the rancour against KPAI (The Commission for the Protection of Children) for calling out PB Djarum’s (Djarum Badminton Association) badminton auditions.

KPAI, as we know has accused the cigarette maker Djarum of using its foundation, PB Djarum (Djarum Badminton Association) to exploit children.

To be sure, KPAI has chosen its accusation poorly, using the word manipulate instead of exploitation or a more neutral used. It has caused a groundswell of opinion and invective against its stand, drowning out the one important issue that should be addressed: how should corporations discharge their Corporate Social Responsibility?

If KPAI had been more measured it could have advanced a more persuasive argument against Djarum because it does have a point. Djarum is indeed using PB Djarum to give it visibility in the youth segment where the Djarum tobacco brand has been forbidden to enter.

PB Djarum has undoubtedly contributed immensely to Indonesia’s domination of badminton worldwide/ But setting up a foundation or creating an event that is seemingly divorced from the parent brand’s activities, yet giving the brand a high visibility is one of the oldest tricks in the book of corporate communications.

Why else, you might ask, would the foundation still carry the logo and brand name of the parent brand? In this instance, you cannot look at the PB Djarum logo

Without being reminded of the tobacco company’s parent brand.

Why can’t Djarum (and other Indonesian companies). for instance, adopt the route taken by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that is in part funded by Microsoft Stock dividends. The Foundation’s logo.

And why, among all the gin joints and causes, does Djarum have to alight on a cause to do with the target demographic for continuing tobacco sales? Why can’t it, instead, channel its vast resources in, say, helping improve the lot of tobacco farming families?

Study the marketing campaigns and events of other Tobacco companies and you will see the same cynical insertion of their branding elements.

On the other hand, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation can never be accused

Can never be accused as a vehicle for Microsoft.

The problem in Indonesia, I think, is that most corporations have not thought through the role of business in helping the nation develop economically and socially.

What is their role? How should they go about it? In which causes or issues? And will they have credibility and trust if they proceed.

Many corporations Here grasp at the most convenient concept around: Corporate Social Responsibility.

It’s a concept that sounds nice but is dated and ineffective, especially during these times when trust in business is at an all-time low.

Harvard Business Professor Michael Porter have argued convincingly that CSR doesn’t quite work because it does not reconcile a business’ imperative to make profits with the need to contribute to economic or social development in the Harvard Business Review on Creating Shared Value. Here is a video of Michael Porter speaking on CSV to business leaders

To me CSV makes more sense. It posits the notion that businesses are aware that unless the communities with which they work with prosper, neither can they. As such, the corporations – because of the resources at their disposal – should take the lead in helping these communities generate economic or social value in their activities. By doing this they are effectively creating shared values.

This will help them to rebuild the trust that Business Has been losing ground on. An with this trust comes greater social capital with which they can achieve more and perform better. It’s a virtuous circle.

The KPAI-PB Djarum issue has given us a chance to reexamine and review the role of business in society, especially the businesses in controversial industries such as tobacco, alcohol, large-scale agriculture and mining. because of their huge revenues they are under scrutiny by many activists, NGOs, social organizations and regulators.

Business has a great opportunity to do it right and embrace CSV, or they can continue to dwell in their comfort zones and keep plugging away at CSR – and then wonder why, after all the money and effort they have altruistically committed to an activity, people still distrust them.

Maverick’s views on the Garuda fiasco

This is what I co-wrote with my colleague Marsha Imaniara on the fiasco surrounding Garuda after it issued a circular banning passengers from taking photos and video clips on board its airplanes.

https://m.kumparan.com/marsha-imaniara-1563432131140003103/alasan-garuda-indonesia-terjepit-akibat-menu-tulis-tangan-1rUXfXMLbKX?utm_source=Mobilesite&utm_medium=copy-to-clipboard&utm_campaign=Share

And this is the English version in the Maverick blog

https://maverick.co.id/the-reason-why-garudas-in-a-tight-spot-over-hand-written-menu/

Maverick now in select circle of crisis and litigation communication experts

CLCA.PNG

https://maverick.co.id/maverick-admitted-to-international-alliance-of-crisis-and-litigation-specialists/

 

Leica ad draws heat in China for a photo shot by a Nikon

The advertisement below is dramatic to say the least. It depicts how journalists risk their lives to bring us the images that will change the world.

One of the most iconic images in the world is one shot in Tiananmen  Square on June 4 1989 when a lone man carrying shopping bags stopped a column of tanks by standing in their way. It came to stand for the students defiance against an authoritarian regime and was dubbed the Tank Man.

tank man

Leica released an advertisement last week telling a story of what it must have been like for the journalist who took the photograph. All powerful stuff and expertly shot and quickly drew the ire of the Chinese Government and other Chinese.

The Tiananmen Incident remains till today one of the most sensitive issues in Chinese society. The Govenment has banned all mention of the incident. Other Chinese, however, have hailed the ad as something that needs to be said. Still other point out that by airing the ad, Leica is jeopardizing Huawei in a sensitive time, because Huawei uses Leica lenses in its handphones.

Leica has since disowned the ad, saying that it was unsanctioned by Leica and it was the fault of the agency that produced it for loading it onto the net. Yeah.

The political fallout is one thing but what strikes Unspun as ridiculous is that the journalist depicted were almost certainly using Nikons than Leicas. There were actually four journalists that managed to snap photos of the tank man.

Three of them told The New York Times that they were using Nikons. The fourth did not say but there is no evidence he used a Leica.

So you decide whether the Leica ad was a good ad that spoke truth to power, an ad where poetic licence was more important than facts, or a needless provocation of the Chinese Government and some of the Chinese?

 

The Biden affair: emerging stock phrases for harassment allegations?

Since the #MeToo movement, one of the dreaded developments for male politicians in America must be to be accused of inappropriate behavior toward women colleagues.

Former US Vice President Joe Biden was accused last week of “inappropriate behavior” by a Nevada politician. She said he tried to kiss the back of her head.

190331094527-lucy-flores-exlarge-169.jpg
Nevada politician Lucy Flores started the ball rolling by accusing Joe Biden of inappropriate behavior

This was followed by another woman who also alleged that Biden acted inappropriately toward her.

Was this it for Biden, who may still want to run in the upcoming presidential elections? Has Uncle Joe morphed into Creepy Joe almost overnight? And what is one to do in the face of such potentially damaging allegations at a time when men in high and powerful have regularly been outed for inappropriate behavior toward women and have had their careers destroyed, sometimes deservedly, sometimes not?

Biden’s carefully crafted response to the allegations is worthwhile looking into for crisis managers looking for clues to handle such situations.

In many years on the campaign trail and in public life, I have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort and not once — never — did I believe I acted inappropriately. If it is suggested that I did so I will listen respectfully. But it was never my intention.

I may not recall these moments the same way, and I may be surprised at what I hear. But we have arrived at an important time when women feel that they can and should relate their experiences, and men should pay attention, and I will.

I will also remain the strongest advocate I can be for the rights of women. I will fight to build on the work I’ve done in my career to end violence against women and ensure women are treated with the equality they deserve. I will continue to surround myself with trusted women advisors who challenge me to see different perspectives than my own.

And I will continue to speak out on these vitally-important issues where there is much more progress to be made and crucial fights that must be waged and won.

It is a clever response. Not apologizing and not admitting to any wrong doing or inappropriate behavior yet not dismissing the allegation. In fact he paid lip service to the importance of how we have “arrived at an important time when women feel that they can and should relate their experiences, and men should pay attention”

All reverential and paying tribute to women and their views. Then he moves on to his track record of defending women’s rights and how he will continue to do so.

The rest of the response was in the hands of his defenders – co-workers and colleagues. There is little else that he can do really. To try to defend himself more would make him sound defensive and only third party voices would have credibility at this stage.

One of his defenders was Susan Rice, the US’s Ambassador to the United nations during the Obama administration. Her choice of words was also interesting and her words, taken together with Joe Biden’s statement, seems to suggest that some new stock phrases for facing allegations of inappropriate behavior may be in the making.

Rice tweeted:

I respect every woman who chooses to share her uncomfortable (and worse) experiences with men. Their perspectives must be heard and taken seriously. I have worked closely with @JoeBiden for many years. In my experience, he is warm and affectionate with women (and men). But never have I found his actions inappropriate or uncomfortable. I have always appreciated his kindness and warmth.”

Most importantly, I know @JoeBidento be a dedicated ally, champion and defender of women and all of our rights. There is no one I would rather be with in a foxhole. He is one of the most decent, honorable men I have been privileged to work with.

There it is again. That reverence (I respect every woman who chooses to share her uncomfortable (and worse) experiences with men. Their perspectives must be heard and taken seriously) before stating her position supporting Biden.

So you have it, expect to see more of the  reverence-denial stock phrases cropping up more in the future.

 

Did Bukalapak’s Achmad Zaky really apologize?

For years we have been using Achmad Zaky interview tapes to demonstrate to media training clients what not to do when speaking to the Press or, in his case, to anybody really.

That’s because when he speaks before cameras the performance is usually cringeworthy for any PR professional. he usually comes across as cavalier, gruff and unpolished and saying things that aren’t always relevant and sometimes comes across as offensive.

Now, of course, Achmad Zaky has outdone himself.

Yesterday he took to Twitter to rail against the Government’s allocation to R&D:

Bad enough that he implicitly criticized the government for paying lip service to Industry 4.0 (if anyone knows what 4.0 is supposed to mean please let me) without providing the funding for it.

The biggest mistake in his Tweet, however, is when her seeming attacked the president personally in this sensitive runup to the president elections. “Hopefully, the next president would be able to increase (the funding).”

This Tweet caused a Tweetstorm from Jokowi’s supporters using the hashtag #uninstallbukalapak They feel particularly betrayed because Jokowi recently graced Bukalapak’s anniversary celebrations and appeared side-by-side with Zaky before the Press.

This is a favor, according to industry insiders, that Ahmad Zaky has been clamoring for. They say that Zaky has been envious his rival, Tokopedia’s William Tanuwijaya who seem to get much more attention from the media and the President than Zaky. So when Zaky was seen criticising the president and asking for his ouster with the “next president” reference, it hurt particularly bad.

When the criticisms started raining down on him Zaky tried to explain his way out of it with another Tweets:

It’s one of those non-apology apologies where he explained how his intent was misconstrued and misrepresented.

He then tried the maaf  word, but here again it was a non-apology apology. “Sorry to Jokowi’s supporters if there was anything amiss in my words has caused any misconceptions. I know Jokowi as someone who is good whom I consider like my own father (we’re both from Solo). Recently he visited us at our anniversary. There is certainly no ill will in my Tweet.

It is apologies like this that infuriate people. Explanations and justifications instead of an admission of wrong doing followed by an absence of proper contrition. It would not be surprising if it inflames rather than abates the fury of Jakowi’s supporters toward Zaky.

Indonesia has few unicorns as it is and Bukalapak provides a good challenge to Tokopedia and other other players. It would be a pity if Zaky’s lack of communications skills sinks his promising business.

He should get professional help, or at least listen to his professional PR advisors if they are any good, before he utters the next public statement or Tweets his thoughts. And while he’s at it he would do well to also whether his gruff communication style has rubbed off on the rest of Bukalapak, resulting in his minions treating their vendors and partners with the same perceived lack of care and respect.