The State Information Commission has instructed the Food Safety department to appoint senior-level staff as State Public Information Officers. This directive comes after the Commission observed that many offices within the department had clerical staff serving in these roles, which is not in line with proper protocol. State Information Commissioner A. Abdul Hakkim emphasized that by August 31, the Food Safety Commissioner should ensure that the second highest-ranking officer in each office is designated as the State Public Information Officer, while the head of each office will serve as the First Appellate Authority. This change aims to enhance accountability and improve public access to information regarding food safety matters.

Original article

Here is my analysis of the article's value to the reader:

Actionable Information: The article does not provide specific steps or instructions for the reader to take. It informs about a directive from the State Information Commission, but it does not offer any immediate actions for the general public. There are no tools or resources mentioned that readers can utilize.

Educational Depth: While the article shares a directive and its rationale, it does not delve deeply into the 'why' or 'how' behind the changes. It does not educate readers on the historical context, the specific issues with the previous system, or the potential long-term effects of this new protocol.

Personal Relevance: For the average person, this article may not have an immediate personal impact. It primarily affects the internal operations of government departments and offices. However, over time, the changes could potentially impact the public's access to information and the efficiency of food safety matters, which could indirectly affect people's daily lives and health.

Public Service Function: The article serves a public service by informing readers about a government directive that aims to improve accountability and public access to information. It does not, however, provide any immediate safety advice, emergency contacts, or tools for the public to use.

Practicality of Advice: As the article is not directed towards the public and does not offer advice, the practicality of advice is not applicable in this context.

Long-Term Impact: The long-term impact of this directive could be positive, as it aims to enhance accountability and improve public access to information. This could lead to better-informed citizens and potentially more efficient food safety practices.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article is unlikely to have a significant emotional impact on readers. It is a straightforward informational piece without any dramatic language or emotional appeals.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not use sensational or clickbait-style language. It presents the information in a factual and neutral manner.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article could have been more helpful by providing a clearer explanation of the issues with the previous system and how the new directive aims to address them. It could have included examples of how the public might benefit from these changes or how they can access information more effectively under the new system.

In summary, while the article informs readers about a government directive, it does not provide immediate actionable steps or deep educational value for the average person. It serves a public service function by sharing official information but could have been more helpful by offering clearer explanations and practical guidance.

The text shows a bias towards a certain group and its power. It emphasizes the importance of appointing senior-level staff as State Public Information Officers, suggesting that only those with higher ranks are capable and trustworthy. This idea helps the powerful by making them seem more important and qualified. For example, "the Commission observed... which is not in line with proper protocol." Here, the use of "proper protocol" implies a strict and formal process, favoring those in authority.

The text conveys a sense of urgency and importance regarding the appointment of senior-level staff as State Public Information Officers. This directive is presented as a necessary step to rectify a protocol violation, which implies a degree of frustration or dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. The emotion of concern is evident as the State Information Commission expresses its observation that clerical staff have been serving in these roles, indicating a potential lack of expertise or authority.

The strength of this emotion is moderate, as it is not overtly expressed but rather implied through the language used. The purpose of this concern is to highlight the importance of having qualified individuals in these positions, as it directly impacts public access to information and, by extension, food safety. This emotion guides the reader's reaction by creating a sense of shared responsibility and awareness of the potential consequences if the directive is not followed.

To persuade, the writer employs a formal and authoritative tone, using words like "instructed," "observed," and "emphasized" to convey a sense of power and urgency. The repetition of the deadline, "by August 31," adds emphasis and a sense of impending action. The use of the phrase "not in line with proper protocol" subtly implies a breach of standards, which can evoke a sense of unease or discomfort in the reader.

Additionally, the writer's choice to highlight the specific roles and responsibilities of the designated officers ("the second highest-ranking officer" and "the head of each office") adds a layer of detail and credibility to the message. This level of specificity can help build trust and confidence in the reader, as it demonstrates a thorough understanding of the issue and a well-thought-out plan for improvement. By combining these persuasive techniques, the writer effectively guides the reader's emotional response, encouraging them to view the directive as a necessary and beneficial change.