- This topic has 17 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 2 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (Singapore)
Lee Hsien Loong’s speech on 8 February 2020 demonstrated clear and compassionate leadership. He spoke early in the crisis, showing timeliness (be first) and reassuring the public that the government was prepared, drawing on Singapore’s experience with SARS. His message was accurate and fact-based, reflecting transparency about what was known and what was being done (be right).
His tone and manner brought credibility and empathy. He acknowledged public fears directly and urged Singaporeans to stay calm, united and rational. By using inclusive language such as “my fellow Singaporeans” and “we will get through this together,” he built trust and a sense of community.
His message was also actionable advising citizens to maintain hygiene, avoid panic buying and follow official updates. Importantly, his speech was relevant, tailored to Singapore’s culture of collective responsibility and discipline. He managed to fix both confidence and caution.President Donald Trump (United States)
President Trump’s national address in March 2020 had a very different tone and structure. While it aimed to project authority and confidence, it fell short in several key areas of effective crisis communication. Although he spoke as the virus spread widely across the world, his message was not among the earliest official communications, so it was only moderately timely.
In terms of accuracy and credibility, Trump’s statements were sometimes inconsistent with information provided by health experts and agencies such as the CDC and WHO. Trump often made the virus seem less serious, saying it was “under control” and that the risk was “very low.” This made people trust him less (less credible). He did not show much care for people’s feelings, talking more about government actions and the economy than about public worries. His tone sounded defensive instead of kind, so people found it harder to connect with him. The speech also didn’t give clear advice on what people should do, like wearing masks or keeping distance. Finally, his message was broad and generic, making it less relevant to the diverse American population, where different regions faced varying levels of risk.Comparison and Conclusion
Lee Hsien Loong’s speech was closed to all the main communication principles. He spoke early, gave facts, showed care and stayed calm. His clear and balanced tone helped people stay calm and work together.
Donald Trump, although confident and visible, did not fully follow these rules. His mixed messages and too optimistic tone made him seem less reliable and less caring.
Overall, I think Lee Hsien Loong was the better communicator. He built trust and unity, while Trump’s speech lacked the clear and caring tone needed during a health crisis. -
PM Lee Hsien Loong (Singapore)
In his speech, he establishes leadership, shows that he acknowledges external shifts and is setting a direction rather than reacting. For example, he begins by addressing “My fellow Singaporeans” and immediately references the broader context: the changed world, Singapore at a crossroads.”, showing “BE FIRST”. His framing reflects realistic assessment of both internal strengths and external threats. In his speech, he acknowledges real global risks: “New conflicts have broken out. Geopolitical tensions have deepened. Barriers to trade are hardening”, showing strong “BE RIGHT”. In his speech, he leverages institutional trust and narrative of past success; personal commitment, by saying “I will serve you with all my heart”, positioning his leadership as part of continuity, enhancing his strong “BE CREDIBLE”. In his speech, he shows the inclusive language and recognition of collective experience help create empathy, by saying “Not everyone will find the transition easy” and “no one will face these challenges alone”, expressing deep “EMPATHY”. In his speech, he effectively promotes action and motivates the audience to participate, by saying ‘We must move faster, adapt quicker and innovate smarter’, showing strong “PROMOTE ACTION”. Finally, his speech shows respect through inclusive language and recognition of diversity and shared responsibility, by saying “We may come from different races, speak different languages, and hold different beliefs. But we are bound by something deeper, shared commitment..”, showing “DEEP RESPECT” to the audience.
Overall, PM Lee’s speech is well-crafted, communicates a clear vision, invites participation, fully respects the audience, and builds trust, showing strong 6-principles of CREC view. Hence, he is a good communicator.
President Trump (United States)
In his speech, he opens by addressing “my fellow Americans” and immediately frames the topic “our nation’s unprecedented response to the coronavirus outbreak”. He sets himself up as the first voice in the matter, which helps frame the issue as urgent and his role as central. Although he takes the lead in framing the crisis scenario, the speech was on 12 March 2020, led to weaken “BE FIRST” principle, compared to the PM Lee.
He gives statements about the outbreak, about actions being taken, etc. For instance: “the outbreak that started in China and is now spreading throughout the world.” He tried to be fact-based, but the complexity of the issue and broad statements limit “BE RIGHT”. He references his role, mentions emergency actions, acknowledge the seriousness. For example, “I will soon be taking emergency action to provide financial relief.” He maintains a credible posture, though the depth of evidence, giving full “BE CREDIBLE”. In his speech, he recognizes the seriousness and addresses all Americans, which helps create a sense of shared experience, expressing EMPATHY. In his speech, he provides clear instructions on hygiene and behavior, which makes audience participants rather than passive.Hence, he gives good actionable guidance for the public, fully “PROMOTE ACTION”. Finally, He shows respect at a basic level, but the depth of respect is somewhat limited because his speech addresses “Americans” broadly, includes mention of roles everyone must play, but there is less acknowledgement of vulnerable populations, limiting “DEEP RESPECT”.In summary, President Trump’s speech shows good communication, particularly for setting agenda and mobilizing action.However, from a 6-principles of CREC view, it lacks in deeper empathy and respect for all audiences, and the “BE RIGHT” principle is left behind in a fast-moving crisis.
-
-
PM Lee Hsien Loong (Singapore)
On February 8, 2020, as Singapore raised its risk level (DORSCON) to Orange, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong delivered an address designed to be a stabilizing force. His speech was a textbook execution of crisis communication, prioritizing credibility and promoting action.He understood the urgency of the moment, mastering the CERC principle of Be First. By speaking immediately following the DORSCON upgrade, he preempted the inevitable vacuum of fear and rumor. His message was relentlessly clear, establishing a high degree of credibility. He was transparent about the new local clusters but immediately followed this with a firm, factual assertion that the situation was “under control.” This balance was essential to Be Right offering facts without alarmism.
Crucially, the PM did not talk to the people; he spoke with them as partners. He immediately sought to Express Empathy by acknowledging the public’s anxiety and thanking them for their “social and psychological resilience.” This validation built a foundation of mutual respect. The address culminated in specific calls to Promote Action such as personal hygiene, monitoring one’s health, and avoiding large crowds. There were no grand claims of victory, only a sober, pragmatic appeal to the citizens to shoulder their civic duty.
In conclusion, PM Lee Hsien Loong demonstrated excellent crisis communication. His address was structured, empathetic, and highly effective in fostering national trust and cooperation, setting a clear path for collective action.
President Trump (USA)
Weeks later, as the global threat intensified and the WHO was set to declare a pandemic, President Donald Trump addressed the U.S. nation (likely on March 11, 2020). His nine-minute address was a powerful statement of authority and decisive action, yet it was undermined by inconsistencies in its core public health messaging.
The President successfully fulfilled the CERC principle of Be First by delivering a major prime-time address that detailed an unprecedented policy action such as the immediate suspension of most travel from Europe. He also clearly provided specific instructions to Promote Action, advising the public on essential hygiene, washing hands and staying home if sick.However, the effectiveness of his message faltered in the key areas of accuracy and emotional connection. The principle of Be Right was weakened by minimization, as he repeatedly characterized the crisis as “a temporary moment of time” and asserted that the risk to Americans was “very, very low.” This conflicted with the gravity of the policy actions he was announcing, leaving the public confused about the true severity of the situation.
This minimization also compromised his Credibility. The speech heavily focused on economic strength and national capacity (“the greatest economy anywhere in the world”), blending political assurance with public health advice. This intermingling of unrelated themes made the health warnings feel secondary. Furthermore, the speech contained little emotional outreach. The principle to Express Empathy was largely absent, with the focus on the government’s decisive actions rather than on the public’s fear, suffering, or loss.
In conclusion, President Trump’s communication was mixed. While he effectively communicated specific actions, the messaging violated key CERC principles by minimizing the threat and lacking empathy. The result was a communication strategy that was decisive but failed to unify the nation behind a clear, trusted, and consistent public health narrative.
-
Hi everyone,
After watching these video clips, I have some opinions about the communications between the two leaders. Using the six principles of CERC (Be First, Be Right, Be Credible, Express Empathy, Promote Action, and Show Respect), the communication styles of PM Lee Hsien Loong and President Donald Trump during their COVID-19 addresses reveal key differences in effectiveness.
PM Lee had strong crisis communication. He was among the first to address the nation early in the outbreak, ensuring the public received timely updates. He was right in providing evidence-based information about the virus and acknowledging what was still unknown. Lee was credible, maintaining transparency and honesty, which built public trust. He expressed empathy by recognizing citizens’ fears and emphasizing unity, saying that fear and panic could do more harm than the virus itself. His speech promoted action by offering clear steps. Finally, he showed respect by speaking in a calm and inclusive manner, addressing Singaporeans as partners in overcoming the crisis. Overall, Lee’s message aligned closely with all six CERC principles.
In another communication, President Trump emphasized the importance of decisive action and national strength. While he was initially first in making major announcements, such as travel restrictions, the U.S. government’s initial delay in consistent communication weakened this principle. His message aimed to be accurate, but some statements later required clarification, and his earlier minimization of the threat affected the accuracy of his message. Trump’s credibility suffered due to these inconsistencies, limiting his ability to be credible. He expressed limited empathy, focusing more on economic impacts and national resolve rather than acknowledging public fear or loss. Although his address promoted action through policy measures, it offered few clear personal steps for citizens. Finally, his tone was authoritative but seemed to be less respectful in addressing the shared emotional burden of the crisis.
PM Lee Hsien Loong communicated effectively across all six CERC principles, fostering public confidence. President Trump, while showing leadership and resolve, communicated less effectively under CERC standards due to delays, mixed messaging, and limited empathy.
-
In my opinion, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and President Donald Trump showed very different communication styles during the COVID-19 pandemic when viewed through the six principles of CREC.
I think PM Lee was a strong communicator. His speeches were clear, calm, and easy to understand. He avoided technical terms and explained the situation in a simple way. His messages were highly relevant, focusing on public concerns such as safety measures and government actions. He also showed empathy by acknowledging people’s fears and reassuring them, which helped reduce public anxiety. PM Lee provided good context by comparing Singapore’s situation with other countries, and his credibility came from using facts and maintaining a consistent, confident tone. Overall, his communication helped build public trust and a sense of stability.
In contrast, I think President Trump’s communication was less effective. Although he clearly announced major policies like the travel ban, some parts of his speech were vague and lacked explanation. His messages focused more on policy decisions rather than addressing people’s immediate concerns. I think he showed little empathy, as his tone was more formal and less reassuring. While he spoke with authority, some of his statements were later questioned by experts, which affected credibility. Moreover, his administration’s communication was often inconsistent, creating confusion among the public.
Comparing both leaders, I think the key difference lies in tone and focus. PM Lee emphasized empathy, clarity, and consistency, while President Trump focused more on authority and policy. However, both aimed to maintain public confidence during a crisis. Overall, PM Lee’s approach was more effective in connecting emotionally with the public and promoting trust, while President Trump’s approach showed strength in leadership but lacked the personal connection that helps people feel secure.
-
In Singapore, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong demonstrated strong alignment with all six CERC principles. He communicated promptly and consistently (Be First), providing accurate, science-based information supported by health authorities (Be Right). His calm, transparent demeanor enhanced credibility and public confidence (Be Credible). Lee also expressed empathy toward citizens’ anxieties, acknowledged frontline workers’ efforts, and called for social unity (Express Empathy). His messages included clear behavioral guidance, such as hygiene practices and social distancing (Promote Action), and were delivered respectfully in multiple languages to reach all communities (Show Respect). Consequently, Singapore’s communication strategy fostered public trust and compliance.
In contrast, U.S. President Donald Trump’s public addresses showed partial adherence to the CERC principles. Although he communicated early in the pandemic (Be First), his messages were often inconsistent or factually disputed (Be Right), which weakened public trust (Be Credible). Empathy and respect were inconsistently conveyed, with politicized rhetoric overshadowing reassurance (Express Empathy, Show Respect). Furthermore, conflicting statements regarding preventive measures, such as mask use and testing, undermined public understanding and compliance (Promote Action). These gaps reflected limited integration of the CERC framework into national communication efforts.
Overall, Singapore’s leadership demonstrated a comprehensive application of CERC principles, resulting in clear, credible, and empathetic communication. The United States’ approach, by contrast, suffered from inconsistency and diminished credibility, which weakened public confidence and adherence to health measures. This comparison highlights the importance of consistent, transparent, and empathetic communication in managing public behavior and trust during health emergencies.
-
PM Lee communicate with the public as early as possible 2 weeks after the new situation while President Trump shared the information only after declaration of Pandemic by WHO.
PM Lee clearly mentioned who was taking leading role for handling the Covid 19 situation and relieved the public not to be panic by comparing the past experience.
President Trump directly talked about the serious health threat in modern history, not considering about the feelings of public. PM Lee mentioned the practical detail points to care about corona virus but President Trump only focused to do personal protective measures.
In doing the right way, PM Lee clearly show authoritative leadership type and communicate with Singaporeans to gain sense of ownership. President Trump relieved the working citizens not to worry about their wages if they have to take leave due to virus and repeatedly talked about the economy rather than the infection. He also guaranteed to find solutions not to suffer financial hardship due to medical bills.
PM Lee did not confine the movement in the country because the mortality was not high in that situation and President Trump took immediate action for travel and trad restriction from Europe and China to reduce the imported cases. So, both of them are credible to be good communicators in emergency risk communication while the empathy can be easily felt in PM Lee’s speech compared to President Trump.
Both leaders promoted the action to follow by citizens but President Trump used some technical terms and sense of showing paternalistic form. PM Lee encouraged to show empathy and share responsibilities for vulnerable groups and medical professionals when the infection became serious.
Both PM Lee and President Trump made the cooperation with community and did rapport building about mentioning their preparedness on investigation, treatment and prevention strategies to fight the novel corona virus. -
-
After watching the public communication on COVID-19 of the two leaders, I think the (former) Prime Minister of Singapore is a better communicator than the President of the United States. Here are the reasons why PM Lee Hsien Loong is better in my opinion:
1. Be First
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong addressed the nation on February 8, 2020, a day after raising the Disease Outbreak Response System Condition (DORSCON) level from Yellow to Orange and people started panic-buying instant food and toilet paper in Singapore. On the other hand, President Donald Trump’s announcement was made on March 12, 2020, a day after WHO declared COVID-19 as pandemic. During that time, COVID-19 has already reached alarming levels and severity.2. Be Right
PM Lee Hsien Loong presented accurate and verifiable information about COVID-19 in his speech. For example, he compared the current mortality rate of COVID-19 (0.2%) to SARS (10%) and seasonal influenza (0.1%). On the other hand, President Trump only mentioned in his speech that “the risk is very, very low”, without saying what “very, very low” means and what kind of risk he is pertaining to. People may have different interpretations of what this means, and may lead to misinformation.3. Be Credible
Because PM Lee Hsien Loong presented facts about the status of COVID-19 in his country, I think he sounded more credible than President Trump. He was also honest about the current possibility of the virus infecting a large number of people, and its possible effect to the healthcare system.4. Express Empathy
In his speech, PM Lee Hsien Loong acknowledged the fear and anxiety that people were feeling, which he said are “natural human reactions”. He smiles occasionally and was calm during the delivery of his address, which I find reassuring. On the other hand, I found President’s Trump speech as monotonous. I also think that his speech was more focused on addressing the people’s fear of financial hardship caused by COVID-19 restrictions, and the people’s fear on COVID-19 was not emphasized and acknowledged very well.5. Promote Action
Both leaders mentioned that each citizen has a role in preventing the spread of the virus. However, PM Lee Hsien Loong instructions to practice good personal hygiene were more specific. For example, he told people to take their temperature twice daily, and when not feeling well, avoid crowded places and see a doctor immediately. On the other hand, President Donald Trump mentioned in his speech that if people are sick, they should stay at home. Consulting a doctor was not mentioned.6. Show Respect
Both leaders were respectful in their speech. However, PM Lee Hsien Loong was the only one to acknowledge the efforts of volunteers, students, healthcare workers, and other frontline workers in keeping their country running amidst the threat of COVID-19. For me this shows that he sees these people with respect and was grateful to them. -
-
Based on CERC, PM Lee was a more effective communicator. His statement was delivered at the initial phase of the outbreak and stated what was already known by bringing up the scientific evidence, such as the infectivity and mortality comparison, which built the strong credibility. He also expressed empathy and showed respect for public reaction by addressing the public fear, reassuring them that anxiety is a natural human reaction. He provided simple, clear, and actionable steps, suggesting basic preventive measures that people can follow.
Meanwhile, President Trump also made an early statement. Although he shared some facts about the risks, some of them were more like claims rather than measurable evidence, such as trying to reassure that the U.S. was more prepared than other nations. Empathy and respect were not clearly demonstrated, although the actionable preventive measures were mentioned.
-
-
Comparing the speech of PM Lee and President Trump, I think both are good communicators. Both illustrated that they would do the best for their nations. They are calm and credible for citizens.
Regarding PM Lee – I prefer his speech because he do not assume or claim crisis, instead he provided facts, real situations and academic evidence. He showed respect and appropriate gestures during his speech. He also linked with previous emergency of SARS for better public understanding and insight of the condition. He provided detailed response plans for citizens and clearly instructed them empathetically on how to do personal protection measures. In his speech, he also considered and tried to reduce the burden of healthcare workers, which is important to avoid the heath system collapse with over workload during health crisis.
Regarding President Trump – He is also a good communicator. He clearly promoted actions to disrupt disease transmission. But he claimed the situation and the possible outcome even though no one can know the real potential of the outbreak and consequences for sure. He didn’t show enough respect and empathy for citizens. He emphasized national strength while blaming China, which seemed inappropriate in such a sensitive context.
-
PM Lee Hsien Loong opened his remarks by acknowledging the situation. Continuously, he provided information about the DORSCON level to Orange. And his message was transparent as he explained what he knew about, what remained uncertain, and why certain measures were taken. He also showed empathy by acknowledging the public’s fear and anxiety and by expressing appreciation for grassroots healthcare workers and communities. He clearly explained practical steps to prevent and seek care. He showed respect and treated the public as responsible partners in managing the outbreak.
President Trump’s speech did not meet the “Be first” principle, as the speech came out after the global agencies had declared a pandemic. His message included travel restrictions, national emergency powers and federal actions but some statements were overly optimistic. Then, the speech outlined government actions, but it followed earlier periods of inconsistent messaging, which had weakened public confidence. Empathy was present, but did not strongly address the emotional impact on health workers and communities. The speech did mention travel limitations, increased funding, and emergency measures, but fewer clear instructions for individuals. Although he showed respect, the tone remained authoritative than collaborative.
In conclusion, PM Lee Hsien Loong’s speech met six principles of CERC, but President Trump’s speech did not fully meet.
-
After review the two leaders speech,
PM Lee (Signapore) speech contains six core principles of Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) which are
1) Be First PM lees press the news after two week of outbreak, released the information every day
2) Be Right- shared right the information about what the nation prepare and conducting to deal with the situation
3) Be Credible- Well prepare and explore the information with fact (fast speed of infection) compared with SARS
4) Express Empathy- Advice the civilian and encourage what they should do, burden of health care staff
5) Promote Action- Postponed the unnecessary event to control the event, stock supplies, well plan to manage
6) Show Respect- Motivate to the community with actions, Consider all aspects of units ( Health staff, civilian, workforce), stable life, workforces, stay clamIn Trump Speech, The following three principle is more highlighted. The rest three (Be first, Express Empathy, Show respect) are faint.
2) Be Right- Smart action will prevent the spread, precautions
4) Express Empathy- Billing about vaccination, health cares expense, elderly consideration, not to travel crowded area
5) Promote Action- Restriction travel, declared PHEC, Information about how will conduct restriction, conduct screening, stay home
In summary, PM Lee communication is more persistent and inline with six core principle of CERC.
-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login here
