What is the key mistake of Lawrence Wong's recent speech on China and Japan that drawn many criticisms?
- Gain the heart first (respect, love, emphathy to gain trust),
- then Give the reasoning to gain the mind,
- and then Get the agreement for actions.
We have to earn the right to speak. i.e. gain their listening ear.Any speech starts with the listeners and not the speaker.
Here is ChatGPT's
You are absolutely right — and you’ve put your finger on a core principle of persuasion and diplomacy that Wong overlooked:
Persuasion begins with the listener, not the speaker.
Lawrence Wong’s biggest mistake was not the intention behind his message, but that he delivered a message to an audience whose trust he had not earned.
Here’s why your point is so important:
1. No trust = no influence
It does not matter if the speaker believes he is correct.
It only matters whether the listener is ready to receive.
China has deep historical trauma with Japan.
Many Chinese people do not see Singapore as having “earned the right” to advise them on this issue.
Without trust:
- Advice sounds like interference
- Good intentions sound like bias
- Neutral commentary sounds like siding with the other side
No trust → No listening → Only backlash.
2. You cannot persuade people who feel misunderstood
When Wong said “put the past aside,” people heard:
- “Forget your suffering.”
- “Your pain doesn’t matter.”
- “Why are you still stuck in history?”
Even though that’s not what he intended.
Because he didn’t start with empathy, the message failed before it even reached the brain — it hit the emotions first.
3. Diplomacy requires “earning the ears” before speaking hard truths
Countries like China (and any nation with historical wounds) respond best when they feel:
- respected
- understood
- acknowledged
- not lectured
Wong did not create that emotional foundation before giving advice.
And without that foundation, advice — even wise advice — feels like provocation.
4. Effective persuasion starts with: “I understand you.”
He could have set up the conditions for listening by acknowledging:
- The real pain of history
- China’s legitimate sensitivities
- The emotional weight of wartime atrocities
Only after validating someone’s experience can you ask them to consider moving forward.
This is true in diplomacy, leadership, relationships — even parenting.
Without empathy first, logic is useless.
5. Strategic lesson:
If you have not earned trust, your “truth” sounds like arrogance.
If you start with empathy, your “truth” becomes influence.
note:Perfect — here’s a side-by-side comparison of Wong’s original speech versus the heart-first, reframed version I just created. This shows exactly why the reframed version is more respectful and persuasive.
Aspect
Original Speech (Simplified)
Heart-First Reframed Version
Why the Difference Matters
Acknowledgment of history
“It’s also because of the overhang of the history of the Second World War which still remains between the two countries.”
“We recognize the historical pain that continues to shape the relationship between China and Japan. These memories are strong, and we understand why they matter.”
Original mentions history factually; reframed validates emotion and significance, opening the listener’s heart.
Empathy / emotional connection
Not clearly expressed
“We understand why they matter.”
Original is neutral/logical; reframed signals understanding and respect, creating trust.
Introducing cooperation
“We hope the two countries will find ways to resolve these very complex issues and move forward.”
“At the same time, we hope both countries can explore ways to de-escalate tensions and cooperate for regional stability.”
Original jumps to “move forward,” which can feel directive; reframed balances acknowledgment with a gentle, shared goal.
Use of examples / Southeast Asia
“Southeast Asia has done that with Japan. … we have put the history aside and we're moving forward.”
“Many Southeast Asian nations, while remembering the past, have found ways to work constructively with Japan — perhaps China and Japan can also find a path that honors history while building a secure and prosperous future together.”
Original uses Southeast Asia as implicit “lesson,” which can feel like lecturing; reframed observes and invites, avoiding condescension.
Closing / shared purpose
“And so Singapore and all the Southeast Asian countries support Japan playing a bigger role in our region.”
“Perhaps China and Japan can also find a path that honors history while building a secure and prosperous future together.”
Original emphasizes support for Japan, which can feel like bias; reframed keeps the focus on shared goals, not taking sides.
Key Insights from the Comparison
- Heart-first matters — the reframed version opens by validating history and emotion.
- Gentle suggestion vs. directive — “perhaps … can find a path” feels collaborative, not condescending.
- Observing rather than instructing — Southeast Asia example is used as evidence, not moral instruction.
- Neutral and inclusive — avoids signaling bias toward Japan or lecturing China.
My view:
- Good: Factual(But Selective). Logical. Addressing the Mind. Our typical error on persuasion by address the mind only. (people's feelings, values, face, respect etc).
- Bad:
- Did not address the Hearts(people's feelings, values, face, respect etc) to gain support. In fact, he hurt the hearts – Minimising Suffering of Japan’s atrocities.
- Comment on Japan create ‘siding with Japan’ bias.
- Small nation teaching large nations what to do and in fact saying he had done it in a way insulted the large nations. I think the worse part is "Southeast Asia has done that with Japan" ....implying "we have done it so you could and should" that drew a lot of firing. Citing Japan is the number one trusted great power of SEA add salts to wound.
- Wong' statement on SEA trust Japan more could be misleading.
I told ChatGPT tha "the key is as trade with china increase and china influence get more, you want to have other alternatives like japan or US. So Wong's reasoning is defective. It is because of China that SEA want more of Japan."ChatGPT said:
You’re right — PM Wong’s line of reasoning is incomplete. Saying “Japan is the most trusted major power, therefore SEA supports a bigger Japanese security role” mixes perceptions with causal explanation. The stronger, more convincing story is:
China’s growing economic and strategic weight is the driver — not trust alone.
Southeast Asian states are deepening trade ties with China, and at the same time they are hedging by seeking alternatives (Japan, the U.S., Australia, India, EU) for security, diplomacy and capacity-building. In short: rising China → anxiety/dependence → hedging → openness to Japan/US, rather than trust → openness.Quick evidence-backed points:
-
Economic dependence on China is real and increasing. China has been ASEAN’s largest trading partner for years, and trade volumes have continued growing — an economic reality that makes ASEAN states pragmatic about Beijing. The Star
-
States respond to Chinese assertiveness with concrete security cooperation, not just words. Recent joint drills and trilateral security initiatives (e.g., Philippines–Vietnam coast guard cooperation, US–Japan–Philippines drills) show behaviour consistent with hedging/balancing. These are actions, not just survey answers. Reuters+1
-
Scholars and policy studies label ASEAN policy as “hedging” or “strategic multi-alignment.” The literature and think-tank analyses conclude ASEAN pursues economic ties with China while cultivating other partners as an “insurance” strategy. purehost.bath.ac.uk+1
-
Surveys about “trust” matter — but only as part of the explanation. Polls show Japan scores high on trust, which helps explain why Japan is preferred as a hedging partner; however, the root cause of hedging is China’s power rise and regional frictions. ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute
Bottom line: PM Wong’s descriptive claim about Japan being “most trusted” can be true and simultaneously his causal framing can be misleading. The political logic is better stated as:
In other words:Because China’s economic weight and strategic assertiveness are growing, Southeast Asian countries — even while trading heavily with China — seek alternatives (Japan, the U.S., etc.) for security and insurance. Japan’s high trustworthiness makes it a natural candidate for that role, but trust is an enabling factor, not the primary cause.
It is because of China’s rise that ASEAN wants more of Japan — not because Japan is “most trusted.”Wong’s explanation focuses on sentiment, but the real logic is strategic hedging driven by China’s influence.
For the Data Source of Wong's "Trust in Japan" See Mr Goh's FB post
-
No comments:
Post a Comment