Evaluating PSR Propaganda

Okay. This is interesting. The supporters of the Penang South reclamation project have released a PR video in response to my clip in which I expressed my opinion that I thought the project was a very bad idea. So I'd like to actually review their clip, their video, because I think it's a good example of corporate propaganda, which is not to say that it's an example of good corporate propaganda. What the young man in the clip does is basically just reiterate the project's basic sales pitch.

It's essentially a brochure in video form. Okay. So first by calling my video mysterious, he creates an impression that I must be some sort of agent provocateur who's been hired to sow doubts about the PSR project, as if there isn't already massive widespread criticism and opposition to this project by locals, by fishermen, by anyone with common sense. But because I am a foreign white guy, it's a pretty good way to activate suspicion about the interference of foreigners. But from a PR perspective, I don't know if it's a great strategy for the PSR itself, because the project is seeking to attract FDI from people who look like me.

So I don't know if it's a great idea as a PR strategy to try to ignite distrust of foreigners. Now he uses the term fake news with regards to my clip, even though my clip was just me expressing my opinion. But this is part of the attempt to portray my clip as being, you know, part of some shadowy conspiracy plot to undermine the PSR initiative. It's not a bad move on his part. And of course, by calling my opinion and my clip fake news, he sets up the assumption that he's about to set the record straight, and the information that he's gonna present is factual because he's contrasting it with what he calls fake news, so therefore whatever he says, it must not be fake, it must be factual.

That's a pretty clever little PR move as well. It's particularly a useful tactic to employ when the information you are about to give is actually fake news. Now he says that my suggestion that the PSR initiative or the PSR project will benefit rich people, destroy the ecosystem, and that it is vulnerable to rising sea levels. He says that all of that's fake. I mean, first of all, I don't know if you really wanna say that an investment project is not gonna benefit rich people.

Of course, will. It's not philanthropy. It's an investment project. Rich people are putting their money into it because they wanna get a return. So, obviously, it will benefit rich people.

What you wanted to say was, it's not gonna benefit only rich people. But in my opinion, this is kind of a common flaw in corporate propaganda. They try to present themselves as if they're humanitarian organizations or relief organizations or environmentalist organizations when everybody knows that your business is making money. Unilever does this all the time, and it always comes across as disingenuous. You're you're taking it a bit too far.

Don't insult people's intelligence by trying to present an investment project like it's a charity. Okay. So, anyway, he says that all of these things are false that I said. He says that it will not benefit rich people, it will not destroy the ecosystem, and it will not be vulnerable to rising sea levels. Okay.

How does he substantiate this? So here is where he just kind of goes into brochure mode. This a robotic repetition of the sales pitch. This project is good for long term development, and it will make Penang more livable. These are just claims and buzzwords.

There's nothing here about how it will achieve those objectives. He says that this project is necessary in Penang because Penang is so small, and they need it for industrial development. But, I mean, this project is gonna build roughly seven square miles of land, one square mile of which is gonna be dedicated for industrial use. But I mean, there's already, like, nine square miles of land in Sabarang Parai that are earmarked for industrial development. That could be developed instead.

So no, this doesn't solve a problem of lack of space. So what are the other six square miles of the PSR gonna be used for? Just to build more luxury real estate to add to Penang's property overhang? Who's gonna live there when you already have so many empty properties on the market already? You can't just throw in nice sounding claims, you know, from the brochure.

When you have thousands and thousands of people who have legitimate specific concerns about this project, at some point, you really do have to provide some answers. You need to put a little more into it. Okay. So then he name drops the United Nations, which is a pretty good PR move. He does this to dismiss concerns that the fake islands are gonna get swallowed up by the ocean.

But of course, the rising sea level is only part of the problem, isn't it? I mean, fake islands sink, especially the ones that are built by dumping sand, which as I understand it, that's how the PSR islands are gonna be built through. They're gonna be based on sand. This is, like, literally the most unstable method for building artificial islands. So you have the rising sea levels combined with inevitable sinkage.

He mentions a report by the IPCC, but this report has nothing to do with fake islands. But that's okay from a PR perspective because he knows most people are not gonna fact check that. They're not gonna investigate it. So PR wise, it's a little bit reckless, but probably a good manipulative tactic because, you know, people aren't gonna check. This is also common practice in corporate propaganda.

Then he uses the general approval for land reclamation projects to validate this project, which is a pretty clever misdirection. I mean, no one is actually saying that land reclamation projects in and of themselves are a bad thing. They're saying that PSR is a bad thing. Just because other land reclamation projects are good, it doesn't mean that all land reclamation projects are good. But I'll give him credit on this one.

It's a pretty good PR tactic for avoiding the real issues. Now in the next part of the video, he totally skips over, comparisons to Dubai's land creation, island creation debacle while pretending to address those comparisons. Nicely done. He explains it by saying, no. It's not like Dubai at all because in this project, there's gonna be 700 acres of land dedicated to industrial use.

That has nothing to do with the comparisons to Dubai. That's like this delusional fantasy mega project isn't like that delusional fantasy mega project because this delusional fantasy mega project will have more office space. What? I don't know if such an obvious non answer, can really work PR wise. This next part of his video gets a little bit muddled.

He says that fishermen will benefit from losing their jobs as fishermen because they'll be trained to do other jobs, and maybe those jobs will pay more. I mean, okay. Maybe. That also means fewer fishermen and less fresh fish for the population, but okay. And does it really make sense to channel people out of stable careers into jobs that may or may not be stable?

And then he's like, yeah, but they'll still be able to fish though. And we'll even buy them new boats. I mean, this is where it gets muddled. Are you moving fishermen into other careers or not? Are they gonna do other jobs that you're training them for, or are they gonna still fish with new boats?

Which one is it? And are they happy about that? I mean, I know that there's at least 5,000 of them that aren't. This one, I have to say, is a bit of a PR fail. And then he addresses the ballooning costs of the transit project, which is supposed to be funded by the PSR project by saying that, well, yeah, the costs of the transit project have gone up because we added more stuff to it.

Well, okay. But did you add more stuff to it because it needs more stuff or because inflating the cost of the transit project creates a greater impetus for making sure that the PSR project will go through? I mean, maybe you'll decide that the transit project needs even more stuff. Maybe it needs helicopters. Maybe all of the vehicles used in the transit project need to be electric and self driving vehicles.

I mean, this is exactly how you inflate costs by adding stuff. I mean, when I think about it, all Penang wanted to do was get some more bus routes, and now suddenly it's turned into dredging up the shoreline, dumping sand, building islands, making, luxury high rise apartments, putting fishermen out of the job, buying them new boats, giving financial aid. They just wanted some buses. So you can see how things can just quickly get out of hand when people start to smell the possibility of making money. Now one relatively good PR trick that he uses throughout this video is to refer to anyone who opposes the PSR project as being anti development.

That's a pretty good slur that you can use to mischaracterize people who are pro fishermen, pro environment, and pro sensible sustainable development. Because, I mean, is the PSR the only development project in Penang? Did these same people oppose every other land reclamation project in Penang? No. Of course not.

So, obviously, they're not anti development. They're not even anti land reclamation. They're anti this project. But that's a useful label to slap on anyone who opposes the project because it makes them look backwards and, like, they're not interested in the economic well-being of Penang. But I would say that any public relations, any propaganda, any PR that relies on the gullibility of the audience, that takes it as a given that the audience is not informed and is not particularly intelligent, that's risky propaganda.

Because, I mean, from what I've seen, the people who are opposing the PSR project are well known people in Penang. They are respected people, they're academics, intellectuals, NGOs, grassroots activists, people who are known. Maybe not be a great idea to demonize them. All in all, I would grade this PR as relatively low quality. There's a number of amateur missteps in it, but it's a good effort.

With all the money that's behind the PSR project, I honestly would have expected a bit better, but I guess it just shows you how hard it is to sell a bad idea.