Prudence alone will not win the day<\/p>\n
Ong Hock Chuan, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Things are different in Indonesia now. Like it or not,
\nReformasi has unleashed a dynamic and free, if often cavalier,
\nmedia. One of the characteristics of a society with a free media
\nis that influence goes to the party that can successfully court
\nthe media, and through it, public opinion.<\/p>\n
Those that can mount a successful Public Relations (PR) or
\ninformation campaign via the media come out on top; those who
\ncan't are seen as weak and ripe for further bullying, extortion
\nattempts or plundering.<\/p>\n
Two high-profile cases over the past two years argue the case
\nthat it is imprudent for companies to maintain the stiff upper
\nlip if they should go to court.<\/p>\n
The first involves Manulife. There are many uncanny
\nsimilarities with Prudential. They are both insurance companies
\nand they share the same court, the same lawyer for the plantiffs
\nand the same controversial bankruptcy law.<\/p>\n
Manulife began to mount a litigation PR campaign after it was
\ndeclared bankrupt and forced to close down by the courts. It
\nadopted a high profile in the media and began actively pushing
\nits messages and information to journalists. At the same time it
\nalso applied diplomatic pressure and lobbying.<\/p>\n
The combination of all these efforts resulted in the Supreme
\nCourt overturning the Commercial Court's decision, but one can't
\nhelp wondering whether the lower court's decision could have
\nbeen different if Manulife had resorted to Litigation PR when the
\nhearing had begun in the first place?<\/p>\n
Another high profile case was when the Anti Monopoly
\nCommission (KPPU) found a host of companies, including Deloitte
\nTouche Financial Advisory Services, \"guilty of conspiracy\" to
\nsell Indomobil shares on the cheap. The offended parties took the
\nKPPU to court. They engaged the best lawyers but they also
\nrealized that without effective public relations public opinion
\nthey would be unlikely to receive a fair trial.<\/p>\n
This was because the KPPU was staffed by prominent Indonesians
\nwho were known for their integrity. The plaintiffs needed to get
\nthrough the message that while the KPPU members were full of the
\nbest of intentions, their decision was just plain wrong because
\nit ionwas based on erroneous \"facts\" and was arrived at without
\ndue process of law.<\/p>\n
Working with their lawyers and public relations consultants
\nthe plaintiffs mounted an aggressive legal and PR campaign
\nagainst the KPPU. Result: Both the District Courts and the
\nSupreme Court ruled for them and chastised the KPPU.<\/p>\n
Again, the question that needs to be asked is whether these
\ncompanies could have influenced a decision to their favor if they
\nhad acted earlier, before the KPPU had made its decision?<\/p>\n
There are no definite answers here but it is helpful to note
\nthat one of the objectives of Litigation PR is to deter the
\nopposing party from taking the matter to court in the first
\nplace. By mounting a PR campaign early companies can send a
\npowerful message to the other side that they are in for a
\nbruising time, both in the courts of law and of public opinion,
\nif they persist in taking the matter to court.<\/p>\n
If the campaign is successful then the other side backs down
\nand the problem goes away. Sun Tzu, who believes that the
\ngreatest victories are the ones achieved without having to go to
\nwar, would be happy. Your lawyers would not though, because this
\nwould result in vastly reduced billings.<\/p>\n
If the case still goes to court then you stand a better change
\nof a fair ruling when the media limelight is focused on the case.
\nIt will give the judges reason to pause and consider very
\ncarefully the implications of their decisions. The Manulife
\njudges, for instances, were banished to outposts shortly after
\nthe scandal died down.<\/p>\n
It is perhaps time for companies, especially multinational
\nones operating in Indonesia to consider Litigation PR as part of
\nthe legal arsenal against bad debtors and even worse judges. What
\nis clear is that the old approach of softly, softly doesn't work
\nany more while the still unconventional approach of enlisting the
\nmedia to influence the outcome of a court case has been known to
\nshow some results.<\/p>\n
The writer is Partner of PT Maverick Solusi Komunikasi, a PR
\nconsultancy specializing in crisis\/issues management as well as
\nbrand communications.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/prudence-alone-will-not-win-the-day-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}