This is a classic PR strategy when public opinion has turned against you and you are no longer able to hold your position. The concept behind the strategy is to "diffuse" or "share" responsibility with another party by essentially saying "they started it", "we responded" and upon reflection, "we could have done better". By acting magnanimous and accepting responsibility for ones role in the crisis, the strategy is designed to force the other party to reciprocate, or be seen in a negative light.
The problem with this strategy (in this instance) is that the other party in the fiasco is the YMCA and not the government - the target of the protest. Thus, I am not too sure why (or even how) Roy and Hui Hui think the government will feel the pressure to reciprocate. And as the YMCA holds the high ground as a non-partisan charity whose event for special needs kids was disrupted, I doubt that the YMCA will feel any pressure to reciprocate.
In light of Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui confrontational approach thus far, the only thing we can be sure of (from the crisis communications perspective) is that Roy and Hui Hui must believe that their actions have back-fired and they are losing supporters. They are thus now acting in an attempt to save a shrinking support base.
It is this crisis communications consultant's opinion that Roy and Hui Hui have lost their political capital and are a spent force. Unfortunately, Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui are delusional and it remains to be seen what antics they will be up to.
The key lesson for crisis communicators here is the proper application of the diffuse/ share strategy.
What every Singaporean must know ....