There was a time when political press conferences were relatively straightforward affairs.
A leader called for a press conference, journalists arrived, questions were asked, answers were given, and the event ended there.
Today, however, communication from public officials exists under a far harsher and faster spotlight.
We now live in an era where almost every public remark is amplified across social media within minutes, often stripped of context and repackaged as entertainment. A short clip can become a meme before a press conference has even concluded.
That was exactly what happened recently when a politician responded to a reporter’s question with the now-viral phrase: “six-seven-scuba”.
Within hours, the clip had spread across TikTok, Threads, X and Instagram.
Some users laughed at the randomness of the response, while others transformed it into memes, parody edits and reaction videos. For many younger social media users, particularly Gen Z audiences familiar with absurd internet humour, the phrase fit neatly into a digital culture where randomness itself often becomes comedy.
That is the reality of online trends today.
In many cases, the more confusing or nonsensical something sounds, the faster it circulates online.
Yet beyond the jokes and memes, the incident also triggered discomfort among many Malaysians who questioned whether such responses were appropriate during official political functions.
Social media has fundamentally changed the way public figures communicate.
Politicians are no longer speaking solely to journalists in a press room. They are effectively speaking to millions of people online, many of whom may only encounter a 15-second clip detached entirely from its wider context.
In such an environment, there is growing pressure for leaders to appear witty, relatable and capable of generating viral moments.
But virality and leadership are not always compatible.
Communication matters deeply in politics because politicians and ministers are not ordinary influencers or content creators. Their words carry institutional weight.
The way public officials respond to questions reflects not only on their personal image, but also on the offices they hold and the governments they represent.
As journalists, we understand that politicians are human.
Many are warm, humorous and relaxed during private interactions. Some casually joke with reporters before press conferences begin, while others openly laugh about trending topics or speak in a more laid-back manner away from official settings.
There is nothing wrong with that.
However, experienced leaders also understand the importance of context.
There is a time for casual conversation and there is a time for seriousness. Once cameras begin recording and questions are being asked in an official capacity, communication becomes part of governance itself.
Communication is not merely about speaking. It is also about demonstrating respect for institutions, responsibilities and the public seeking answers.
Journalists do not ask questions for personal amusement.
Questions raised during press conferences often reflect broader public concerns, political developments or issues affecting governance and policy. Even when politicians choose not to answer directly, the manner in which they respond still shapes public perception.
If I were the journalist asking that question and received a “six-seven-scuba” response, I would likely be taken aback.
Not because politicians must answer every question perfectly, but because there is a difference between declining to comment and turning a legitimate question into a viral spectacle.
An overly dismissive or unserious reaction can create the impression that important questions are not being treated with the seriousness they deserve. Many members of the public appear sensitive to that distinction as well.
While some social media users initially found the chaotic humour amusing, many others expressed discomfort online over how the situation unfolded.
Some argued that the incident reflected poorly on the professionalism expected during official proceedings.
The issue is not humour itself, but appropriateness.
In today’s digital culture, absurd humour dominates many online spaces. Random phrases, ironic reactions and intentionally meaningless jokes frequently become trends. Sometimes the humour exists precisely because something makes little sense.
However, governance cannot operate entirely according to internet logic.
Public office still requires a degree of decorum because institutions rely heavily on credibility, trust and public confidence.
Once political communication becomes excessively performative, there is a risk that the public slowly begins viewing politics itself as theatre rather than responsibility.
Perhaps that is what many Malaysians are increasingly exhausted by.
Beyond social media timelines and viral clips, ordinary people are dealing with rising living costs, financial pressures and uncertainty about the future. They want reassurance that leaders remain focused on governance rather than internet attention.
Being modern, relatable or digitally savvy is not inherently negative. In fact, effective communication has become essential for political leaders in the digital era.
However, there remains a clear difference between being relatable and trivialising serious settings.
Because while “six-seven-scuba” may trend for a few days, credibility lasts far longer.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at mvoon@swinburne.edu.my.
