Charlie Pownall 查理·保诺

The Hong Kong’s government’s communications response to the Occupy Central protests met with a chorus of disapproval at a recent PR event I attended here in the SAR. According to the panellists, the authorities were unprepared, have had little concrete to say and appear woefully out of touch.

There’s much in this.

However, it is equally fair to say they have been dealing with an extremely difficult situation and that there are some things they have done reasonably well.

In note form, here’s my take on the HK government’s performance, focusing on its words rather than its actions:

The challenge

Highly emotional, polarized and volatile political environment
Unconventional and disciplined protesters
Lack of clarity about depth of support for the Occupy movement
A roudy LegCo and media
An ongoing background disinformation campaign by Beijing.

What went OK/well

The openness of the public TV debate
HK chief secretary (civil service head) Carrie Lam’s performance as lead government negotiator and debater
Keeping HK chief executive CY Leung in the background (largely)
Vocal support from pro-Beijing politicians and, rather more intermittently, business and community leaders.

What could/should have been better

Inadequate explanation of Beijing’s nomination decision
Insufficient communications preparation for the ensuing crisis
- Slow/reactive initial response, enabling protesters to dominate the media agenda
- Should have got protesters to the negotiating table – public or private – faster
Lack of effective spokesperson
- CY is a poor natural communicator, typically appearing overly scripted and exhibiting poor body language and lack of eye contact
- Video analysis indicates CY exhibits ‘very low substance and low authenticity’
- The almost total absence of the HK police leadership
Inappropriate tone of voice
- For example, CY Leung’s terse, accusatory call for a stop to the protests
- Or police chief Andy Tsang’s belligerent – rather than calm and professional – condemnation of protesters
Poor quality and inconsistent messaging
- For example, the lack of support for claims about foreign influence
- CY Leung’s gaff over the CE nominating committee being only for the rich
- Inconsistent claims eg ‘HK in chaos’ and ‘dwindling numbers of protesters’, sometimes in the same statement
Poor storytelling
- Little use of video, photos etc to tell the government story, rebut rumours etc
- Only recently has the government made a concerted effort to illustrate its side of the story
Inadequate use of social media
- Social media is the communication tool of choice amongst young Hong Kongers, and has been used heavily to organize and mobilize the protests
- But the HK government appears not to have a social media strategy, using it in an ad hoc manner to push its communications
- Nor does it have a social media crisis communications strategy – its use of Twitter, Weibo and other social media to communicate the government’s position during the protests has been minimal.

Anything you disagree with? Or feel I have missed?

Two months into his job and with a string of scandals under his belt concerning illegal basements and alleged ministerial and property tycoon bribery, Hong Kong’s chief executive CY Leung efforts to persuade local citizens of the merits of ‘patriotic education’ have blown up in his face.

Why?

For one, the government’s efforts to convince citizens of the merits of patriotic education were minimal, with little attempt to engage or build a consensus amongst schools, academics and other educational opinion-formers.

Second, pro- national education advocates in politics, education and civil society, who the government should have rallied, were conspicuous by their silence, certainly relative to the cacophony of anti voices corralled by the activist group Scholarism.

Perhaps more important, the government was seen to have failed to listen to and understand the concerns of its people, not least those who would be most immediately impacted – youngsters and students – who formed the backbone of the street protests.

CY’s eventual dismissal of the national education plan as being ‘not something of our making‘ may account for his government’s half-hearted approach to selling it – and as such could be construed as clever politics.

But it also sends the message to Hong Kongers that he seems to have little control over their destiny. Research indicates that people across Asia trust ‘earned’ forms of marketing and communications more than in other parts of the world, notably personal recommendations, online reviews and mainstream media articles.

It was also uncomfortably reminiscent of the mistake made by Henry Tang, his adversary earlier this summer for the chief executive job, who opportunistically blamed his wife for their illegal basement, holing his credibility and ending his campaign.

Meantime, Hong Kong today held its elections to the Legislative Council (aka LegCo). If, as expected, pro-democratic candidates do well, then demands for greater accountability and more transparent decision-making will only likely accelerate.

The Hong Kong government will need to be on top of its communication game.

Interesting times ahead.