.png)
WHEN Communications Minister Datuk Seri Fahmi Fadzil said members of the government's communications team had become depressed from reading hateful comments on social media, the statement sparked debate.
Some people sympathised while others were less forgiving.
The truth is both reactions are understandable.
Nobody should be subjected to personal attacks, threats or online abuse. Reading thousands of angry comments every day can take a toll on anyone. Government communicators are human too.
But Fahmi's remarks also raise a bigger question. Why is the government's communications team facing so much anger in the first place?
Social media can be cruel but not every negative comment is hate. Some are expressions of frustration from people struggling with rising costs, policy changes and concerns about their future.
When electricity tariffs, subsidy rationalisation or other sensitive issues were announced, many Malaysians want clear answers.
If those answers come late, confusion grows. And when confusion grows, anger follows.
This is where communication becomes important.
Good communication is not just about responding after a controversy erupts. It is about explaining policies clearly before people become angry. It is about helping the public understand what is happening, why it is happening and how it affects them.
Too often, government announces a decision first and explain it later. By then, the damage may already be done.
The communications team is left trying to calm a public that has already made up its mind.
That is a difficult task for any government.
The Madani administration has often been praised for introducing reforms and policy changes. But it has also been criticised for not always explaining those changes in a way that ordinary Malaysians can easily understand.
The result is a gap between what the government thinks it is delivering and what the public thinks it is receiving.
No amount of social media monitoring can close that gap if trust is missing.
People do not get angry simply because they lack information. They get angry when they feel their concerns are not being heard.
A press statement may provide facts. An infographic may provide numbers. But neither automatically creates trust.
Trust comes when people believe that their leaders understand their struggles and are being honest with them.
Fahmi's comments should therefore be seen as more than a discussion about mental health in government communications.
They are a reminder that communication is not just about defending policies. It is about building confidence in those policies.
The government's communications team may be feeling the pressure of social media but it is only where the frustration appears.
The more important question is what is causing that frustration in the first place.
Angry comments are often just the symptom. The deeper problem is the trust deficit that fuels them.
