TermsOfEngagement

The panelists:

	Ms Teo Hee Lian is an associate trainer with the Civil Service College and former director of the Institute of Public Administration and Management.
	Mr Liew Kim Siong is director, Southeast Asia, of UpstreamAsia, an integrated marketing and corporate communications firm.
	Mr Gerald Giam is an IT consultant and deputy editor/writer for socio-political website The Online Citizen.

EMPATHETIC OR CONDESCENDING, ENLIGHTENING OR UNHELPFUL... AGENCIES' WRITTEN REPLIES TO PUBLIC FEEDBACK OFTEN ATTRACT A WHOLE RANGE OF REACTIONS. As Ms Teo Hee Lian, associate trainer with the Civil Service College, points out: "Once a reply has met the basic requirements of content which is accurate and relevant; a structure that gets to the point clearly and contains an apology early if required; and language that is fluent and clear; any reader's response to it is subjective. Some will praise it, while others will attack it."

Ms Teo was invited by Challenge to comment on samples of letters written by public officers. She is joined by public relations practitioner Mr Liew Kim Siong and Mr Gerald Giam, who provides the man in the street's perspective.

While agreeing to provide Challenge with her "subjective impressions", Ms Teo emphasises the need to also look at the overall context of the letter. "I am wary about responding to any piece of writing in a vacuum, and about focusing just on the writing (a surface level issue) instead of the context," she says.

For example, public officers may sometimes have to read between the lines while responding to a letter. She gave the example of a member of the public who had written in to an agency to complain about the public in general being given the runaround, without giving details. The agency realised that the writer was the brother of someone who had dealings with it, and referred to this in its response, assuring the writer that his brother's case would be resolved soon.

Ms Teo also points out that complaints are sometimes "occasions for officers to question the status quo, and to suggest changes if these are necessary" (See Rules keep construction noise levels reasonable). There are instances when the inability of an officer to respond "adequately" to a letter could reflect a policy or management issue rather than a writing issue. "If no rules have been broken, some writers obviously feel that the rules are at fault, and should be tightened or otherwise changed. What do you do when policies, rules or standards are questioned by the public?" To surface these and other issues, our panelists give their feedback on the following samples of letters written by public agencies.

Replying right

Ms Teo Hee Lian gives her take on the art of crafting responses.

• There are no model answers. For one thing, readers do not like receiving a standardised reply. Relying on model answers also means that the officer cannot handle new, complex or ambiguous situations.

• Good officers know their ground so well that they are able to anticipate feedback. So no feedback should come as a shock.

• Good officers can also distinguish what the real issue is, and respond to that instead of what was written in the original letter. So two letters with the same words/request will get two different replies, based on what the officer knows of the background to each case, and the writer's real intention.

• Replies have to come from the heart and not just the head. They have to address the emotions and not just logic.

• Replying right (which is also the name of a course IPAM runs on replying to letters) is not about replying to any particular letter, but about building up cumulatively public trust and confidence in the Public Service for the long term.

The "Replying Right" course is available upon request for in-house customised classes. Enquiries can be addressed to cscollege_ipam@cscollege.gov.sg.