Towards a more effective Opposition

Even whilst the elections are ongoing, it seems like a foregone conclusion that Barisan Nasional would win, and most likely with its 2/3 majority intact. Under such circumstances, how can there be a more effective Opposition when the new Parliament is formed? Let me suggest a few ways:

First, the Opposition must drop the notion that the BN government is solely self-centred, and does not concern about the rakyat. If the Opposition continually harps on the BN being self-centred, corrupt, etc, can anyone expect the BN to even give the Opposition a fair chance to say what it wants to say, much less to be heard? If on the other hand the Opposition work on the premise that the BN is out to do its best, albeit imperfectly, then BN may be more willing to listen to its own shortcomings once in a while.

Second, democracy generally and Opposition politics specifically cannot be merely about making demands. Demands to abolish NEP are non-starters, because to even agree to have a discussion on this issue would jeopardise BN's interests. The Opposition may do better by addressing the peripherals. For example, bargaining for more opportunities to participate in Government tenders, even under limited circumstances, may be more productive than issuing ultimatums for open tenders to be held.

Third, the Opposition must stop focusing on proposals that do not take into consideration BN's legitimate interests. BN wants to stay in power. BN wants to be respected as the duly elected government. Proposals to help them become a better government would be taken in a more positive light than proposals construed to embarrass then or run them down.

Fourth, the Opposition must give due regard to the process of democracy and the conduct of Parliament. Are the odds stacked against the Opposition? Of course. But can one Opposition member take up the challenge to gain enough respect from the Speaker and from the Government in order to be given the space to ventilate his views? Possibly. There must therefore be an end to walk-outs and shouting matches, even when the BN MPs behave badly. After all, seeing a monkey in the zoo does not compel us to behave like one.

Fifth, don't just harp on the negatives. To be accepted as a credible Opposition, and to achieve productive results despite the odds, there must be some co-operation with the BN. The BN, regardless of how bad they can be, are not always bad. Compliment them when they do well. Work with them to improve areas that are lacking.

Sixth, resort to talking instead of walking. Serious issues cannot be resolved on the streets. It must be resolved with patience and persistence, always with integrity and rational discussion. It may even be more fruitful to seek for change in less pressing items than the big ones, to seek incremental progress and build the foundation of co-operation that can be useful when addressing the bigger issues. Hard work? Definitely, but in public issues, the shortest distance may not necessarily be a straight line.

Finally, a bigger picture is at stake. If elections are perceived to be unfair and a mere pretext to bring BN back to power, then we are truly on the brink of a revolution. If the Opposition thinks this is the case, they should boycott all future elections, refuse to take office, and agitate in the streets. If however elections are perceived to be lopsided, but nevertheless a reflection of the voice of the people, then the Opposition should accept its mandated role- help create a better government, not necessarily to overthrow it.

Yes, politics is about power. But more than power, it is about effecting change and improving lives, and this can be done behind the scenes as well.

__________

I'll be glad to take your questions or comments. Drop me an e-mail at khenghoe@mycounsel.com.my.

Judging Negotiation Styles

There are different kinds of negotiation styles employed by different people. Obviously one person's personality, character, upbringing and a whole plethora of factors come into play when one adopts a particular negotiation style over another.

One party could be a hard negotiator. (S)he sets a high demand, and reduces it slowly. Another could be a bottom-line negotiator. Go straight to (or close to) the bottom line, and refuse to budge. One party could adopt an aggresive stance, but conceals a kind heart. Another could be sweet and smiling, but is internally hard as steel.

Is any one negotiation style better than another? If we're merely talking about styles, then I guess to each his own. Perhaps a better way to gauge negotiation styles is by looking beyond the style to the substance.

Is the negotiator bringing value to the table? That value may not be in the form of a compromise, but can be something entirely different altogether. A lateral solution, if you like. As long as a negotiator is bringing value to the table, then I would think that is a good negotiation. On the contrary, a negotiator who only seeks to chip away another person's interest without offering any value in return would be a less than desirable negotiator, no matter how sweet and smiling he/she may be.

________________________

If you have any questions or comments, I would love to hear from you. Drop me an e-mail at khenghoe@mycounsel.com.my.

The answers are in the questions

If you have ever tried to communicate adult concepts to young children, you would understand a little of the frustrations a mediator goes through. Try explaining the concept of "credit", "democracy", "shares" and a thousand other things we adults take for granted, and you'll be amazed at how difficult the explanation process can be.

There is however a simpler way to explain the concepts to the child, and that is by asking the child specific, and guided questions. By asking open questions to draw on what the child already knows, and seeking to link the child's background knowledge and information to the abstract concepts we hope to communicate, we sometimes see the child quickly grasp the very adult concepts. In fact, the child can end up teaching us a new perspective we have yet to see.

Would the answers be wrong a lot of times? Definitely, from our perspective, but that's not the point. The important thing is the process. The art of continually questioning in order to help the child clarify more and more of his/her understanding. Eventually, the child "gets it", and at that point in time, so do we.

______________________________

If you have any questions or comments, or would like to subscribe to my free e-newsletter, drop me an e-mail at khenghoe@mycounsel.com.my.

The top 3 ways to avoid a lawsuit are to...talk, talk and talk

Thinking as a mediator, there are some assumptions I make in life. Some of these would include:

a. Assumption #1: Problems do not usually start out as monetary problems;

b. Assumption #2: Courts can only make monetary awards;

c. Assumption #3: If the source of problems is not monetary in nature, and Courts can only make monetary awards, then regardless of who wins the Court process, the parties will not be fully satisfied.

Think about it for an instance. Why would someone sue? A wife sues for divorce because she feels she has been handed the short end of the stick in the marriage. An employee sues for unjust dismissal because he feels he has been un-appreciated. A contractor sues for monies due under the contract because he feels he has earned it. (If he thinks he did a lousy job, he would surely take a smaller sum as settlement instead). On the other hand, the employer of the contractor is not paying because he has run into cashflow problems which he expects to be solved in 6 months, but he's too embarassed to tell the contractor about that. If he has informed the contractor, the contractor may be willing to take some instalment payments.

The crux of most claims therefore, is not about money, but about a breakdown in trust, understanding and communication. When one side thinks they have been treated unfairly, or were disrespected, they get angry and starts acting in ways, sometimes unreasonably, which angers the other party in return. Soon, this tremendous amount of negative energy results in a lawsuit, which ultimately becomes the only way to legally "get back" at the other person, or to get what is perceived to be one's own dues.

If a breakdown in trust, understanding and communication lies at the back of most problems, how then can businesses reduce this breakdown in order to prevent lawsuits? The answer could be simply to increase two-way communication. Businesses need to implement systems that would help increase communication with their employees, suppliers and customers. In other words, there need to be more talk, talk and talk.

____________________

To know more about a three-step system of dispute resolution that would help encourage communication, minimise misunderstandings, and promote trust, email me at khenghoe@mycounsel.com.my.

The Peace Symbol- 50 years on

Mediation is, at its heart, an effort to make peace. It is a realisation and belief that no matter what the circumstances, there is more to be gained in a negotiated alternative as compared to a prolonged dispute. It is the firm conviction that for proper closure, parties need more than the dollars and cents that can be meted out by a court of law.

It is pertinent therefore for us to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the global peace symbol. Did you know the peace symbol started out as a symbol for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in England? In 1958, the peace symbol was drawn by activitists on home-made banners and badges, and was officially launched in a public meeting in London.

Since then, the symbol has been appropriated by various different protest movements, from hippies in America protesting the Vietnam War to feminists and even anarchist punks.

Today, in a move back to its roots, the peace symbol is now re-used at anti-nuclear demonstrations the world over, just as it was 50 years ago. What goes around always comes around.