Our public institutions can do better in responding to on the ground feedback
I found The Straits Times move to shift “Forum” from the Singapore section to the Main section a good one. The real estate on the Main section is now better utilised for voices that (also) matter — regular Singaporeans and residents who are looking for a bigger platform to be heard. Frustrated individuals need an outlet, however we must be careful to not bucket every person who rants as a ‘complain king or queen’. For these people who write in, what they experience is real to them, based on assumptions and expectations of the society as they know it. In fact, I think such public letters give organisations a very good opportunity to communicate to the public about how a decision was made and what could be done more.
I singled the article below as an example of a reply which I felt was defensive. While he explained the rational, he missed the opportunity to demonstrate empathy of how the author of the original letter might have felt. I felt his reply appeared to invalidate the feedback and ‘as a matter of fact’, the students could have done so-and-so instead.
Just when I thought it was all doom and gloom about how representatives from public institutions responded, in the same week, I encountered a reply by a representative from PMO. Three things which I liked: (1) Use of statistics/data to demonstrate efficacies of policies (+ and admitting that not all has worked to same degree), (2) Agreeing with some points that the original authors made to show active listening (even in a static “reply” setting), (3) Showing what future commitments government has made to improve this situation. Building a good relationship with the community starts by responding with empathy, even in small ways like this.
On the other hand, there are some letters which I have been waiting to read the reply for. For example, the letter below. I know someone who wanted to visit one of the malls stated below, however on the morning she went, entry restrictions kicked in with no warning nor explanation. Who would compensate the businesses who suffered losses when their food went cold because none of their customers could come in, or the man-hours of staff waiting to provide services to their customers who made appointments but eventually could not? The original author made a very valid comment — “what additional restrictions have been implemented on Velocity@Novena Square…”? We don’t always expect the Taskforce to explain why they do things when it happens, but when the dust has settled and we look back, if there is inequality in the way certain issues and locations were handled, then I think it is fair and a good opportunity for the Taskforce to explain to the public the differences in treatment.
In all, I enjoy reading The Straits Times Forum for giving me a slice of what people think about in their daily lives. I applaud their bravery for writing in, for not merely venting their frustrations to their friends, but making the effort to write in, and ensure their voices are heard. A very good reminder — We cannot stay silent anymore. Speak up to stand up for what you believe in.
Teochew Mui, 10 May 2021