Silence Is Not Always Golden (Commentary by Farrell Tan)

For years, silence has been treated as a kind of corporate virtue. Say nothing. Wait it out. Hope it passes.

In theory, it sounds disciplined. In practice, it usually does the opposite of what brands intend.

Silence is not neutral. It is interpreted. And in a real-time media environment, it is almost always interpreted badly.

---

Why Brands Choose Silence

Most decisions to stay quiet come from a reasonable place. Legal risk. Global sensitivities. Incomplete information. Fear of saying the wrong thing.

In major M&A activity, restructuring, or crises, local communications teams often have limited room to move. Messages are cleared centrally. Words are scrutinised. Restraint is necessary.

But somewhere along the way, restraint gets confused with disappearance.

When nothing is said publicly, brands often tell themselves they are being careful. What they are really doing is outsourcing interpretation to everyone else.

---

What Actually Happens When Brands Stay Silent

Silence does not stop stories from being published. It simply ensures they are published without you.

Journalists still file. Sources still talk. Context still gets assembled, sometimes from people who no longer have any reason to protect the brand.

The gaps get filled. Rarely kindly.

I was reminded of this again following recent agency restructuring across Southeast Asia.

In Malaysia and Singapore especially, there have been familiar patterns over the past few years: months of internal uncertainty, followed by quiet exits of senior leaders and teams. Often there is no public acknowledgement at all. No thanks. No recognition of contribution. Sometimes not even a line admitting people were affected.

The result is rarely dignity. It is discomfort.

This is not a criticism of local marketing and communications teams. Global restructuring is complicated and tightly controlled. But even within constraints, silence is still a choice. And it carries consequences.

---

Silence in a Crisis Is Worse

When stakes are high, silence is often read as absence of leadership.

Telecommunications disruptions across Southeast Asia offer plenty of cautionary tales. In several high-profile service outages in Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, brands stayed quiet for hours, sometimes days, while customers, regulators, and the media speculated in public.

In Malaysia, Unifi and Telekom Malaysia’s major broadband disruptions over the past few years stand out. The outages themselves were frustrating, but what escalated public anger was the initial lack of clear, visible leadership from a communications perspective. Updates came late, were highly technical, or felt disconnected from customer anxiety.

In almost every case, the damage came less from the outage itself and more from the lack of visible leadership when reassurance was needed most.

In moments of anxiety, people are not looking for legal perfection. They are looking for acknowledgement, clarity, and proof that someone is actually in charge.

---

“But Apple Does It” Isn’t an Argument

Apple is frequently cited as proof that silence can work. It is also the most overused excuse in corporate communications.

Under Katie Cotton, access to Steve Jobs was tightly controlled. Media engagement was selective. Statements were rare.

But Apple was never actually silent.

It was disciplined, deliberate, and backed by extraordinary product strength and brand loyalty. Silence worked because everything else was working.

Most brands are not Apple. And even Apple paired its restraint with absolute message control.

Silence without strength, trust, or discipline is not strategy. It is wishful thinking.

---

The Real Problem: Binary Thinking

Too many organisations treat communications as a choice between speaking publicly or saying nothing at all.

That is not how effective communications works.

There is a wide spectrum between a full press conference and total silence:

• Acknowledgement without detail

• Background briefings

• Stakeholder-first communications

• Sequenced responses

• On-record empathy paired with off-record context

Choosing silence is simply the easiest option on that spectrum.

It is also often the most damaging.

---

What Works Better Than Silence

Clear, timely responses do not need to be comprehensive. They need to be human.

The brands that come out of difficult moments with trust intact tend to do a few things consistently.

They acknowledge the situation early, even if all facts are not yet known.

They separate empathy from liability, understanding that expressing concern is not the same as admitting fault.

They use background intelligently to provide journalists with context, not spin.

And they remember that audiences are made up of people, not just headlines.

Silence rarely protects reputation. It just delays damage.

---

Saying Nothing Is Still Saying Something

Every communications decision sends a signal. Including the decision to say nothing.

If you are not actively shaping the narrative, you are choosing to let others do it for you.

Silence is not dignity. It is delegation.

And in today’s environment, it is a delegation that brands can rarely afford.

---

Orchestrate Change Before Silence Costs You

At Orchan, we specialise in orchestrating change -- helping brands take control of their narrative, guide their communications, and transform potential crises into opportunities.

Reach out to us today and start shaping the story on your terms.

Email: changenow@orchan.asia
Phone: +603-7972 6377