Friday, May 23, 2008

Are we pleasure seekers or pain avoiders?

Think about it...

You're on your way to a meeting, and a beautiful band is playing in the public park. What's the odds you'll stop to listen for the pleasure of it?
How about if you're on your way to a meeting, and you remembered you may not have locked your car. What's the odds you'll walk back to your car to avoid the pain of losing it?
Most people, faced with the prospect of seeking pleasure, may or may not grab the opportunity. Faced with the prospect of avoiding pain, however, they usually respond.
This is an interesting element of humanity, and one that can explain why some cases get settled and others don't. If it's a matter of getting a settlement now (pleasure) as opposed to getting a bigger settlement later, chances are a party may opt to wait. This is more so if there is no urgency for the party concerned.
However, faced with the prospect of limiting the loss now, as opposed to facing a much bigger loss later, parties who are financially able may opt to limit the loss to avoid the pain and uncertainty of a later verdict. This is the entire basis on which the insurance industry is built, pay now (medical premiums) to avoid a bigger pay later (hospitalisation costs).
Understanding this basic psyche can help mediators structure and suggest settlements. When 1 party sees it as merely a case of winning small now vs winning big later, his gambling instincts may motivate him to maintain the dispute. Somehow, a mediator needs to point to the fact that prolonged disputes is a pain for both sides, regardless of the outcome. If the pain is adequately painted, the settlement becomes so much closer.
__________________________
To receive a free booklet, Introduction to Mediation, send me an e-mail at khenghoe@mycounsel.com.my.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Tough talk permitted?

Mediators are always positive, always cheerful, always encouraging, right? Well, not necessarily.
Fact is, there are diverse types of mediators, just as there are diverse types of lawyers, coaches, CEOs, etc. Some are the perpetual cheerleaders. They keep a broad smile while the chips are down. Good for them. Others though, are more directive and involved in the discussions and process. It may even be necessary at some point for a mediator (usually in a private session) to be assertive with parties, perhaps even to the extent of telling them they are wrong.
How do we know which type of mediator is suitable? Actually, it is not so much the mediator but the parties involved. The style of the mediator has to be adapted to the personalities of the parties. A very strong personality in a party would not accept aggressive language and tactics from the mediator. He would have to be in charge of the process. A party who is very indecisive, on the other hand, may very well appreciate a mediator who tells him enough is enough- it is time to make the deal.
Is tough talk permitted? Sometimes, when it will work.
____________________________
If you have questions or comments, drop me an email at khenghoe@mycounsel.com.my

Friday, May 9, 2008

How can we talk about race sensibly?

Tun Dr Mahathir, the former PM, has recently become a blogger. And what is his 2nd piece of article? He opines that in a multi-racial country, you need a strong (read: strong-handed) government to keep the peace.
That is such an outdated BN model. Here's what BN used to say (before the last elections): We are a multi-racial country; We can explode into riots anytime; Leave everything to us (your leaders) to talk behind closed doors; You shut up and mind your own business.
Well, the last elections showed us that we Malaysians do not want to shut up and mind our own business. We want to mind our collective businesses as a nation, and that includes participation in an effective manner in the administration of our country. We are no longer content to allow our leaders to speak behind closed doors (especially since UMNO's voice is always shouted out publicly, whilst it is anti-UMNO voices that must go behind closed doors).
In the new reality that faces us as a nation, how can we talk about race sensibly? One possible avenue would be the Parliament, of course. With more than 1/3 opposition members in Parliament for the first time in 5 decades, there is now an opportunity for race relations to be discussed, by our leaders (as advocated by BN), in Parliament, provided the BN representatives opt to discuss rationally.
(Note: When Lim Kit Siang tried to raise the article "Let's send Altantuya's murderers to hell" in Parliament, he was heckled primarily on the basis that heaven and hell is Allah's domain not to be discussed! Considering that the BN reps were well-educated and not simpletons, clearly they were merely attempting to divert the issue)
Then there is the alternative media (as well as the mainstream media, once in a while). Columnists and bloggers can discuss to a certain extent our race relations, relying on the new-found albeit fragile freedom thanks to the 12th elections.
And finally, there is the informal avenue in the context of our own relationships. Sometimes, those who shout the loudest about race relations in fact do not have many friends from other races. I guess cultivating friendships with all races would do as a good start.
_________________________
Kheng Hoe is excited as a mediator living in Malaysia, where cultures and faiths collide.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

We're featured

It has just been brought to my attention that we are the first Malaysian mediation site to be featured on the global ADRblogs list. Thank you, thank you, thank you for featuring us...