Week 4 Topic discussion 1

[Lokachet Tanasugarn]

Please watch VDOs of public communication regarding COVID-19 situation from the leaders of two countries: Singapore and the USA. Then try to observe whether the two leaders are good communicators or not. When watching the VDOs try to look for the six principles of CREC, recommended by the CDC:

[Soe Wai Yan]

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.

[Wah Wah Lwin]

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.

[Author]

Posts