Sean Lim - Page 2 - Peacemakers

Lessons from Negotiating with Children: Uncovering and Meeting Interests

by Ho Ting En

Have you ever thought that talking to children is either entertaining or just a chore? Well, turns out that one of the best learning opportunities to improve our negotiating abilities comes from negotiating with children. While parenting articles and books increasingly advocate negotiation with children as a way to teach them to think critically and weigh the value of options, such practice can actually also benefit us, the adults.

Negotiations with children allow us to better handle difficult situations, as they can similarly exhibit behaviour that mirror challenging adult negotiations. In this first part of a three-part series, we will look at how negotiation with children helps us obtain interests of the other party.

This series is developed according to 7 Elements of Negotiation, as espoused in the seminal book, Getting to Yes, by Roger Fisher and William Ury. This book focuses on principled negotiation, rather than positional bargaining. The latter is a negotiation strategy where parties hold on to a position and push for it, regardless of their underlying interests. On the other hand, principled negotiation focuses on looking at the interests behind the position taken. The 7 Elements – interests, options, legitimacy, communication, relationship, alternatives and commitment – offers us a framework upon which we can carry out principled negotiation.

Today, we will be looking at interests.

Behind every position taken, there is an interest. For example, “I want a pay raise” is a position, where the underlying interest could be wanting more recognition for the work done. Sometimes, it is easy to understand someone else’s interest, especially if it is obvious or if they offer to explain. However, often, most of us do not realise that what we are insisting upon are just positions, or we may just be unwilling to share our thoughts.

Given that children start requesting for things as young as 2, negotiating with them may have actually given us constant practice in trying to reach someone’s interest without sacrificing our own. Here are 3 tips to help you with your next negotiation:

(1) Ask questions:

Asking questions to children is second-nature to us because we know that they struggle to articulate their feelings. Hence, we take the initiative to ask, “Why are you sad?”

However, the inability to articulate is just as relevant to adults, whose interests can be intangible or difficult to be described. Asking “why” helps us understand what is important to the other party. With people who do not want to disclose their interests, William Ury suggests in Getting Past No that asking “why not” could indirectly achieve the same effect. This is because people who are reluctant to share their concerns may instead be willing to critique. By getting them to comment on your approach, you obtain valuable information on what their concerns could be. Therefore, if you ask, “Why not do it this way?” and the person replies, “No! I have two jobs and I have children to take care of!”, you would have received the information you needed.

If the other side still remains silent, you can offer what you think their interests are. Children may be unwilling to divulge information, but they can nonetheless be tempted to correct someone’s misunderstanding of their interests. From personal experience of teaching young children from 3 to 8-years-old, I find that gently asking sullen children questions such as, “Are you sad because this question is too difficult?” is usually more effective than, “What happened?” The former question may prompt a child to reply that it was not because of the work but because he is hungry, while the latter may generate no response. This instinctive urge to remedy others’ misunderstandings is just as strong in adults. Try bringing their interests up and invite them to correct you. Remember however, that this approach aims to encourage responses by making proposals of your own. The intention is to trigger reaction and to acquire information, not to accuse or to force the other party to say ‘yes’.

**(2) Do not let the other party negotiate around you:**

Negotiating around someone is different from negotiating with someone. Children commonly negotiate around adults when they want their way. A child might persist in going for a sleepover at a friend’s house by protesting, “You said I shouldn’t sit around the house doing nothing!” You might have concerns about her safety since she is still young, but she may then retort, “I am old enough!” or “You allowed sister to go for a sleepover.” By ignoring your concerns, the child is exhibiting behaviour of ‘negotiating’ around the parent. In reality, the parent says, “Yes,” not because she sees value in the proposal but because she is tired of arguing.

Likewise, it is important to realise when the other negotiator is in fact working around you, rather than with you. Sometimes, we may face negotiators who belittle our alternatives, “NO way that’s going to work,” make personal insults, “Are you stupid?”, or even just flat-out refuse to cooperate by repeatedly saying, “No.” It may be useful to consider if you are given room to genuinely discuss your interests and options. Otherwise, you may risk agreeing to a proposal which does not give sufficient consideration to your interests.

(3) Do not make important decisions on the spot:

Some parents advise not making important decisions on the spot as it will be difficult to change your answer later even if you want to. Changing from “no” to “yes” may lead the child to think that what he did in the interim, such as crying, was useful. In the same vein, changing from “yes” to “no” may cause you to break a promise. To prevent both situations, tell the child honestly that you need some time to think and that you will answer by the end of the day.

This similarly applies to the negotiations where some like to play tricks by sneaking in a proposal at the close of discussions. When the other negotiator says, “So I assume warranty is included?”, refrain from saying “yes” on the spot just because of the pressure. This is because in so doing, you would have undermined a fair treatment of your interests, and changing your answer after the negotiation risks jeopardising the deal. As Ury said in Getting Past No, your worst enemy is your quick reaction. In these situations, do not be afraid to point out that you have suddenly been presented with an important proposal and that you either need more time to consider or both parties should re-open the negotiation.

This is the end of Part 1, where I have hopefully shown how negotiating with children helps us develop skills to obtain the other side’s interests while addressing our own. In the next part, we will discuss the process of generating options.

To make sure you don’t miss out on regular updates from the Peacemakers Blog, please like us on Facebook and follow us on Instagram.

Ting En is a graduate of National University of Singapore’s Faculty of Law. She studied Negotiation as an undergraduate, as well as Mediation for the Singapore Bar Examinations. She has an avid interest in working with children and has participated in many related projects, from organising sports activities for underprivileged children to giving weekly tuition at a children’s home. During her time as an undergraduate, Ting En was also part of the committee in charge of the Innocence Project Singapore.

Peacemakers offers the services of internationally accredited mediators with extensive experience in resolving local and international conflicts. If you are involved in a dispute, let us know your requirements via email at mediate@peacemakers.sg, and we will recommend you the mediators that best meet your needs.

3 Ways Crisis Negotiation Skills Can Help Mediators Deal With Parties (Part 3)

by Therese Tiffany Ang

This blog post is the final of a three-part series focused on how crisis negotiation skills can be applied in the practice of mediation. For ease of reference and the convenience of readers, the links to Parts 1 and 2 are listed below:

In this entry, I would like to explore the influence techniques crisis negotiators use to disarm and redirect their parties in a relationship affirming way. By applying these techniques in mediation, mediators can help to transform conflict into collaboration, and options that previously seemed impossible can mutually be explored.

I end off the series by highlighting the importance of finding the “Black Swan” in any situation one faces. What are “Black Swans”? Don’t worry, this is something you will find out below.

Influence Techniques

The shift from being emotional or difficult to being collaborative must come from within the party himself. In trying to facilitate such a transition, influence techniques present a good indirect way of inducing change.

(1) Reinforcing movement towards resolution

The first influence technique is that of reinforcing any movement in the direction of a successful agreement – for example, a party’s cooperative behavior or a resolution of any ambivalence or opposition to an option. This subtly nudges parties to display more collaborative qualities.

There are a few ways in which one can reinforce movements towards resolution:

(a) Cheerleading/Comments of appreciation:

One way is to give clear comments of appreciation to parties for doing specific actions. For instance, in crisis negotiations, negotiators thank parties for lowering their weapons. Applying this to mediation, a mediator can thank a party for agreeing to explore an option suggested by the other side. As behaviour that is acknowledged tends to increase, doing so makes it more likely that the party thanked will start exhibiting more cooperative behaviour.

(b) Nominalising actions into qualities:

Nominalising the actions of a party into permanent qualities entails a strategic manipulation of language where the mediator changes the verb describing the action into an adjective describing an inherent character trait within the party himself.

For example, where an emotional party has calmed down significantly during the course of the mediation, the mediator can say, “I appreciate how thoughtful and deliberative a person you are. You are a calm person who really thinks things through.” This suggests that the rational behaviour is a characteristic of the person that can be expected throughout the mediation.

(2) Calibrated questions

Interest-based problem solving involves coaxing, not overcoming; collaboration, not defeating. Mutual agreements are more likely to be reached if parties are involved in the problem-solving process and come up with the solutions themselves.

In crisis negotiations, negotiators achieve this by using calibrated questions to involve their parties: “How can I help to make this better for us?”, or “How am I supposed to do that?”. In adapting such questions to the mediation context where the focus is on how the parties can help each other meet each other’s interests, one possible question mediators can ask could be: “What can [Party B] do to help you achieve [Party A’s interest]?”.

Through asking these questions, the mediator implicitly asks the party for help, triggering goodwill and reducing defensiveness. More importantly, this gives that party an illusion of control, prompting him to use his mental and emotional resources to think about the possible challenges and obstacles his counterparty might be facing and coming up with possible options that might overcome them. In this sense, the mediator helps to subconsciously educate the party on what the problem between he and his counterparty might be, without creating more conflict.

Finding the “Black Swan”

Before, crisis negotiators assumed that hostage-takers would not kill hostages on deadlines because they were needed alive as bargaining chips, until William Griffin became the first actor in US history to prove this wrong.¹ Today, many believe that even the most idealistic actors have underlying interests that can be negotiated with, but ISIS has encouraged its terrorists to take hostages not for the sake of negotiating any demands, but for the sole purpose of killing them.²

Every negotiation and mediation is a new experience, with new realities. We must let what we know guide us, but not blind us to other possible outcomes. In every dispute, there are likely to be pieces of information that, if discovered, would change everything. Voss, a former FBI hostage negotiator, refers to these pieces of information as “Black Swans”. For instance, in Griffin’s case, Griffin had no orthodox demands typical of most hostage-takers, and his note to the police included a line saying, “… after the police take my life …”.³ Because these facts were not uncovered, the negotiators failed to see this novel situation for what it was: that for the first time, they were facing a hostage-taker who did not need his hostages alive to negotiate for things like money or transport. They were facing a hostage-taker who wanted to be killed.

“Black Swans” certainly also exist in mediation. To uncover them, mediators must always challenge their assumptions, put them out on the table, and listen to the response of the party in question. For example, when a party refuses to agree to a solution that appears to be in his interests, one may assume that he is merely being irrational or difficult to please. But it may actually be that that party is simply ill-informed, constrained by promises already made, or has hidden interests (emotional, substantive or otherwise) that have not been addressed. A mediator must not let his assumptions shut him off to these possibilities. Rather, one must always strive to uncover the “Black Swans” hidden from plain sight in order to ensure effective facilitation of the problem-solving process.

Conclusion

Most mediations will likely never be conducted in life-threatening crisis situations. But by incorporating the skills explored in this series into one’s skillset, mediators can become better at connecting with and managing the emotions of parties in a way that positively influences them into behaving more collaboratively.

I hope that this series has provided a useful introduction for the exploration of crisis negotiation skills and that readers might take the time to practice the skills learnt. Have fun, and good luck!

Therese is a graduate student from the National University of Singapore’s Faculty of Law. During her time as an undergraduate, she studied both Mediation and Negotiation as elective modules and trained youth in peer mediation at the Peacemakers Conference.

To make sure you don’t miss out on regular updates from the Peacemakers Blog, please like us on Facebook and follow us on Instagram.

Mediation / Mediators / Skills - 08/08/2018

3 Ways Crisis Negotiation Skills Can Help Mediators Deal With Parties (Part 2)

by Therese Tiffany Ang

This blog post is the second of a three-part series focused on how crisis negotiation skills can be applied in the practice of mediation. For ease of reference and the convenience of readers, Part 1 can be found here:

3 Ways Crisis Negotiation Skills Can Help Mediators Deal With Parties (Part 1)

In this entry, I would like to explore two more micro-skills of active listening – emotional labelling and summarising.

(6) Emotional labelling

It is hard to separate people from the problem when their emotions are the problem. This is why, instead of trying to remove emotions from the picture, crisis negotiators strive to identify with and understand the feelings of their parties. In doing so, the aim is to increase their influence over those parties and guide them towards more collaborative problem-solving behaviour.

One active listening micro-skill that crisis negotiators rely on in this aspect is that of emotional labelling. This skill is an additive empathetic response that validates someone’s emotions by identifying and acknowledging those feelings, rather than judging or minimising them.

There are two steps to emotional labelling -

(a) Detecting feelings: A lot of information can be gleaned from a person’s words, tone and body language. Crisis negotiators detect a party’s feelings by paying close attention to any changes these three areas undergo when that party responds to external events. For instance, if a party’s voice goes flat when a colleague is mentioned, there could be some animosity between those two.

(b) Labelling: Labels generally start with “it seems/sounds like …” instead of “I’m hearing that …”. The latter puts people’s guards up as it suggests that the asker is more interested in himself and is superimposing his impressions on them. It also makes the asker take personal responsibility for the words used and any offence they might cause. Conversely, when phrased as a neutral statement of understanding, an emotional label encourages a party to be responsive and elaborate on his feelings. Even if he disagrees with the label, the asker can distance himself from it by saying, “I didn’t say that was what it was, I just said it seemed like that”.

By giving emotions a name, the mediator shows that he empathises with how the party feels. This operates as a shortcut to intimacy - it establishes an emotional connection between the mediator and the party without the former having to agree with the validity of those feelings. Additionally, if the party’s negative emotions are running high, exposing those feelings to “broad daylight” defuses them as it makes them less frightening. When people engage in the task of labelling their emotions, the raw intensity of those emotions is lessened, and this helps to bring back a degree of calmness and rationality into the mediation.

If used well, emotional labelling enables a mediator to influence the party to become more collaborative and trusting. Labelling a negative feeling and replacing it with polite, solution-based thoughts induces the party to appreciate that the mediator understands what he is feeling and is making efforts to empathise with him. Indeed, such displays of tactical empathy have helped veteran police talk angry, violent people out of fights or get them to put down their weapons. By empathising with the parties involved, these police know that they can use those negative emotions as a platform to influence people to become more cooperative.

(7) Summarising

Summarising is a combination of paraphrasing and labelling - it is rearticulating the meaning of what was said and the emotions underlying those meanings. Through this, the party will know that he has truly been heard and understood by the negotiator, fortifying the rapport and trust that has been built throughout the entire process

The ultimate goal of using all the micro-skills discussed above and in Part 1 is to get the party to say, “That’s right”. In crisis negotiations, this has been observed to mark a crucial point in the negotiation where the party feels heard and acknowledged, showing that a connection has been established between him and the negotiator. This is when the negotiator gains the party’s “permission” to persuade him, opening the door to previously impossible solutions. The more a person feels understood and is positively affirmed in that understanding, the more his urge for collaborative behaviour takes hold. This is because sometimes, underneath all of the substantive demands and positions, people actually just want their feelings to be understood.

Jeffrey Schilling’s case is an illustrative example. Schilling was a 24-year old American who had been taken hostage after travelling near the base of the Abu Sayyaf in 2000. Sabaya, the rebel leader, demanded US$10 million in war damages for the oppression Muslim Filipinos had went through. No matter how negotiators tried to reason that Schilling had nothing to do with the war damages, Sabaya refused to listen. Then the negotiators changed their approach – they empathised with the group’s predicament, used mirroring, encouraging, and labelling to soften Sabaya up and begin shifting his perspective and finally, summarised his story and emotions. Sabaya was silent, and then he spoke, “that’s right.” From then on, the war damages demand disappeared, and Schilling ultimately escaped from the camp and was rescued by Philippine commandoes. ⁴

This concludes Part 2 of the series, and I hope that what we have explored thus far will prove helpful in helping you build rapport and trust with parties. In Part 3, I will be concluding the series by looking at some influence techniques crisis negotiators have used to help them disarm and redirect parties in a relationship-affirming way such that conflict is transformed into collaboration.

To make sure you don’t miss out on regular updates from the Peacemakers Blog, please like us on Facebook and follow us on Instagram.

Mediation / Mediators / Skills - 08/03/2018

Why Mediation Is The Link Between All Forms Of Dispute Resolution

by Alexandra Piscionere

In recent years, Singapore is demonstrating to the world its global prowess in becoming a hub for arbitration. With the mass expansion of Maxwell Chambers and other projects to create new dispute resolution centers, Singapore is preparing itself for an even larger increase of international dispute resolution cases than it has already seen. According to Singapore's Second Minister for Law, Indranee Rajah S.C., "One of Singapore's key strengths as an international dispute resolution centre is our legal system which is neutral, stable, has high quality jurisprudence and is trusted by businesses.” The choice for the June Summit between leaders Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un to be held in Singapore has more than likely been the extra exposure that the global dispute resolution arena needed to see Singapore as an ideal forum. Although the Singapore government has primarily emphasized arbitration as the country’s specialty, it is now in an ideal position to allocate its resources and efforts into all aspects of dispute resolution, particularly mediation. In fact, mediation may be an essential key to a successful arbitration or even to preventing unnecessary arbitration.

The four most common forms of dispute resolution are negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and litigation. Each of the types varies in cost, structure, and end result, among other aspects. There are therefore advantages and disadvantages to choosing one form of dispute resolution over the other. Although arbitration rules differ among jurisdictions and forums, the process typically mirrors courtroom procedure in the respect that the determination is ultimately made by an arbitrator. One key advantage that arbitration has over litigation is that arbitration awards can be enforced in any countries that are signatories to the NY Convention, while court judgments are generally only enforceable in the country in which the judgment was rendered. However, the advantages of arbitration often have more to do with the perspectives of the parties than with the forum itself. For example, a perceived advantage of arbitration is that it is speedier and less expensive than filing a lawsuit. However, depending on the complexity of the matter and, more importantly, the parties’ willingness to either settle the matter efficiently or to mutually agree not to intentionally delay the process, the advantages of arbitration could be minimal. This is where mediation comes into play.

In a mediation proceeding, a mediator acts as a facilitator in a mutually agreed-upon settlement, which is binding to the extent that the parties decide. In the U.S., for example, many courts use court mediators as a first and primary course of action before proceeding to trial in an effort for the parties to have the opportunity to craft a solution of their own choosing. It is also a way for the court to “take the temperature” of the parties to understand the complexities of the matter and the willingness of the parties to cooperate. On many occasions, these matters are settled before this initial pre-trial mediation. In other instances, mediation occurs concurrently with the court case, saving time and money for the parties, as a settlement will often be reached before the trial is finished.

Furthermore, mediation can serve as a tool to maximize the benefit of other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration. Mediation is generally lower in cost than arbitration and is tailored specifically to the needs of the parties. Through the mediation process, the parties can gauge whether mediation is likely to be successful, whether arbitration is their best option, or even whether another avenue is better suited. Ultimately, the one aspect linking all of these avenues is mediation. It is the essential problem-solving tool that provides the clarity necessary to all parties involved which occurs uniquely when they can sustain a dialogue towards crafting solutions tailored to their needs. Laying out all cards on the table, so to speak, not only allows the parties to understand each other but also allows the parties to understand themselves and gain a better sense of what they would like to get out of the process. Even if the parties ultimately decide to proceed with arbitration or litigation, they are still in a better place after mediation because of the clarity they gain just by going through the process. Sometimes just the agreed-upon decision to go through mediation alone could be the first step towards conciliation.

In promoting Singapore as a global frontrunner for arbitration, it would be a disservice to count out mediation as an essential tool to facilitating both successful settlements and successful arbitrations. Forums such as the Singapore Mediation Centre and the Singapore International Mediation Centre are a welcome beginning to turning the country into a hub for successful alternative dispute resolution. However, it is only when we associate mediation with successful dispute resolution in all its forms that Singapore will begin to reach its full potential in becoming a global hub for dispute resolution.

Alexandra Piscionere is a New York attorney who served as Director and Investigative Counsel of the Westchester County Human Rights Commission and clerked for a New York Supreme Court Judge. She honed her mediating skills in these roles and specialized in sensitive topics such as divorce and discrimination. She is also the co-chair of the International Human Rights Committee of the New York State Bar Association. She is currently based in Singapore.

Arbitration / Mediation / Singapore - 07/27/2018

3 Ways Crisis Negotiation Skills Can Help Mediators Deal With Parties (Part 1)

by Therese Tiffany Ang

A meeting over the direction of a startup is going badly. A team member refuses to buy into the vision that the management has crafted, and it seems that the dispute will not be resolved. Just then, the CEO steps in. In a shift that seems almost magical, the member comes around and fully supports the new vision. I ask the CEO what he did, and he replies, “It’s something I read about in a book by an FBI hostage negotiator.” ⁵

Many of us have struggled to deal with difficult or emotional parties when trying to resolve disputes. When I read the above excerpt for the first time, it struck me that there was something that could be learnt from how crisis negotiators deal with their parties in high-stress situations. Crisis negotiations typically involve situations where parties are driven by heightened negative emotions (like anger and fear) at the detriment of rational thinking. Rather than aiming to separate people from their emotions, crisis negotiators place an emphasis on using skills that not only elicit the verbalisation of interests, but that manage and mould parties’ emotions in order to guide them towards collaborative problem-solving behaviour. Using this approach, many peaceful resolutions have been reached with hostage-takers, barricaded subjects and with those involved in suicide attempts.

This series of blog posts aims to see how crisis negotiation skills can be applied in the practice of mediation, and more specifically, how such skills can be applied to help mediators better deal with emotional or difficult parties in mediation.

As in the traditional interest-based approach, crisis negotiators typically begin by identifying a party’s interests by building rapport and trust. This first entry focuses on one commonly used technique – active listening.

What is Active Listening?

Active listening is listening and responding to a person’s feelings in a manner that shows genuine concern and empathy. In mediation, this skill is helpful in two ways:

(1) Informative: The mediator can collect vital information about the party’s interests and strategies.

(2) Affective: The mediator’s demonstration of empathy helps to defuse any negative emotions the party might have. It also builds rapport and trust so that the mediator can subsequently influence a collaborative behavioural change in that party.

Micro-skills Used in Active Listening

In order to optimally benefit from the informative and affective effects of active listening, negotiators use a large variety of micro-skills. We will explore five of them in this entry.

(1) Open-ended questions/statements

Open-ended questions and statements can be used to clarify information and to help mediators demonstrate to the parties that attention is being paid to them and their feelings.

A good open-ended statement is non-judgmental and shows interest in the party’s story. Questions like, “Sounds like you had a rough time. Can you tell me your side of the story?” are more likely to build rapport between the mediator and the party so that the former can gain more information about the latter’s interests and concerns, which are crucial for facilitating collaborative problem-solving. In contrast, factual questions like, “Did you really supply a defective good?”, typically diminish rapport significantly and tend to only result in unhelpful “yes/no” answers.

(2) Effective pauses

Silence can be extremely helpful if used strategically. For instance, if used after an open-ended question, an effective pause allows the party to collect his thoughts and encourage sharing. As crisis negotiators have found, this is particularly important when parties are overwhelmed with emotions. This is because people in such circumstances tend to have more to say, but need a longer time to process their thoughts.

Effective pauses can also be used after an emotional outburst to defuse heightened feelings of anger, hurt and frustration. When utilised strategically, such pauses can sometimes be more helpful than direct intervention because they give parties the space to ventilate their emotions. Eventually, like a swamp being cleared out, even the most emotional people can be calmed down.

(3) Minimal encouragers

Brief, well-timed encouragers like “and” and “yes” indicate that the mediator is paying full attention to the party and wants to know more. They help create room for explanation without forcing parties to close-up to defend their position.

(4) Mirroring

Mirroring is a sign that people are in sync and developing the kind of rapport that leads to trust. Crisis negotiators focus on mirroring the last few words said by party. This has proven to be effective in facilitating bonding and in getting parties to keep sharing information, because it triggers their instinct to sustain the process of connecting by elaborating on what they just said.

(5) Paraphrasing

While mirroring is effective, using it too often may give a party the impression that the mediator is merely parroting his concerns. To prevent this, another technique that mediators can use is paraphrasing, whereby the mediator uses his own words to repeat what the party said.

Paraphrasing goes one step further from showing that one is listening – it demonstrates that an active effort is being made to understand and connect.

This brings us to the end of Part 1 of the series. I trust that it has given you some food for thought. In Part 2, I will further look at two other essential micro-skills of active listening – emotional labelling and summarising.

To make sure you don’t miss out on regular updates from the Peacemakers Blog, please like us on Facebook and follow us on Instagram.

Mediation / Mediators / Skills - 07/14/2018

35859306_1549662335161068_1463622780284043264_o

Peacemakers Conference 2018 - Report

By Mark Lim, on behalf of the organisers of the Conference

The ninth iteration of the Peacemakers Conference took place from 20 to 22 June 2018, where a total of 91 students attended the three day workshop-cum-competition to learn how to resolve conflicts amicably. With 14 secondary schools taking part this year, this was the biggest turnout since the Conference first started in 2010!

Listed in alphabetical order, the schools that took part this year were: Anglo-Chinese School (Barker Road); Clementi Town Secondary School; Commonwealth Secondary School; Evergreen Secondary School; Holy Innocents' High School; Jurong West Secondary School; Kent Ridge Secondary School; Montfort Secondary School; NUS High School of Math & Science; Pasir Ris Secondary School; Paya Lebar Methodist Girls' School; Peicai Secondary School; Raffles Girls' School; and Yishun Town Secondary School.

Lessons on Peacemaking through Mediation

Over the course of 3 days, participants were introduced to the principles and processes of mediation and encouraged to consider how they can apply them in their daily lives to resolve disputes amicably. Through lessons and interactive exercises, participants learned how to manage the emotions of disputants, inspire confidence in the mediation process, explore underlying interests, and much more! In addition to practicing these new skills in hypothetical but realistic role-play scenarios, participants were introduced to how these concepts they were learning about could make crucial differences in real life situations through inspiring accounts shared by Master Mediator Mrs Chia Swee Tin.

Participants also had the opportunity to learn outside of the figurative classroom on a field trip to the Supreme Court of Singapore. There, they were introduced to the judicial system of dispute resolution, and learned from representatives of the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) about how even warring litigants have been able to seek out win-win solutions to their problems through mediation.

Creative Application of Lessons

Applying the lessons learnt, participants took part in two friendly competitions: a mediation metaphor exercise; as well as a series of mock-mediation sessions where participants were assessed on their ability to co-mediate day-to-day disagreements.

In the mediation metaphor exercise, participants were encouraged to work in groups to create a visual metaphor that best encapsulates what mediation is to them. The sheer creativity and imagination of the participants were astounding! While every group presented on unique and outstanding metaphors, the team that ultimately emerged first place shared that to them, “Mediation is like a Camera Tripod”. In their presentation of their design, the team demonstrated their grasp of key mediation concepts of neutrality, confidentiality, flexibility, party autonomy, and a focus on the other party’s interests instead of just their own. Special mention also went to the group that shared that “Mediation is like a Toilet”, which parties are free to use however they like without judgment, and because “whatever is made in the toilet, stays in the toilet”. Indeed the creativity and wisdom of the young often puts all of us to shame.

In the mock mediation competition, participants role-played as mediators, demonstrating to our guest judges their ability to creatively resolve conflicts they are likely to encounter in real life, such as disputes among classmates in group projects, and emotional fights between long-time friends. After four grueling rounds of competition, NUS High School of Math & Science and Jurong West Secondary School emerged as the top two teams.

The finalists had the unenviable task of mediating in front of our distinguished panel of judges at the final round of the competition. This year, we were honoured to have our judging panel consist of Judge of Appeal Judith Prakash, Mr Loong Seng Onn, and Professor Joel Lee. Set in the beautiful David Marshall Moot Court at the Singapore Management University’s School of Law, our finalists were given the challenge of mediating a dramatic and emotionally-charged school conflict, with the added pressure mediating in front of an audience of all the facilitators and participants of the Conference.

Both teams rose to the challenge and put up solid performances worthy of the occasion. Commenting on the outstanding performance by the two finalists, Executive Director of SMC, Mr Loong Seng Onn, noted to an agreeing audience how the caliber of the student mediators was akin to even that of professional mediators with many years of practice. Justice Prakash also commended the finalists for their ability to grasp such difficult concepts and apply them with such proficiency in such a short space of time. After a lengthy process of deliberation, Jurong West Secondary School eventually emerged as the champions for the second consecutive year – the first time any school has won the Conference twice in a row!

Aside from the finalists, five participants were recognised for demonstrating great spirit in learning and growing as mediators. They are Schifra Na'lya Bte Roni (Peicai Secondary School), Jayden Heng (Anglo-Chinese School (Barker Road), Nur Kaisah Bte Abdul Kadir (Evergreen Secondary School), Liu Yunting (Raffles Girls’ School), and Stella Tan Si Xuan (Yishun Town Secondary School).

While winners had to be declared for these aspects of the Conference, it was the unanimous opinion of all the judges and facilitators that the participants this year were exceptionally talented, and that we are confident that they will go on to be effective peacemakers in their respective communities and spheres of influence.

Thank You!

The organisers would like to express our sincerest appreciation to the many people who helped to make this Conference a great success. First and foremost, we would like to thank Judge of Appeal Judith Prakash, as well as Professor Joel Lee and Mr Loong Seng Onn, who kindly took time out of their busy schedules to judge the final round of the competition.

Next, we would like to thank Raffles Girls’ School for being such gracious hosts over the course of the entire Conference. Special thanks go to RGS Principal, Mrs Poh Mun See, and teachers, Ms Audrey Chen and Mr Joseph Toh. We also wish to thank Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy and Singapore Management University for hosting our Finals at their beautiful campus.

The Conference would not have been a success without our many sponsors and supporters including the SMC, the Singapore International Mediation Institute, the Community Mediation Unit, Lim Siang Huat Pte Ltd, our guest judges for all the qualifying rounds, as well as the teachers and schools of all of the participants.

Finally, we would also like to thank the participants of the Conference, who have demonstrated impressive and inspiring amounts of creativity, tenacity, and eagerness to learn. It is our hope and belief that they will go on to bring great change to the lives around them not just as peacemakers today, but as the Peacemakers of tomorrow.

For more pictures and videos of the Peacemakers Conference 2018, please visit the Peacemakers Facebook Page.

As Singapore’s leading peer mediation experts, Peacemakers has an extensive track record of managing and delivering conflict resolution training for youth at both local and international levels. If you would like to train your youth to better manage conflict, let us know how we can help via email at mediate@peacemakers.sg.

Peacemakers Conference - 06/28/2018

What Street Fighting Can Teach Mediators

On 17 April 2018, Marcus Lim published a blog post on the Kluwer Mediation Blog entitled “What Street Fighting can Teach Mediators”. His blog post is reproduced in full below.

Today I want to talk about why mediators should care about EVO Moment #37.

For those of you new to the eSports (“electronic sports”) scene, there is an annual tournament, the Evolution Championship Series (“EVO”), that focuses exclusively on fighting games. Such games typically have players battle each other with unique characters, with the first player able to deplete the opposing character’s health bar being declared the winner for that round. Inspired you might say, by humanity’s historical fascination with arena entertainment.

EVO Moment #37 is the name of a video clip that refers very specifically to one such fight between two legends in the field of Street Fighter, Daigo Umehara (Japan) and Justin Wong (USA), that took place during the semi-finals of EVO 2004, almost 14 years ago.

Deviating slightly from the usual trend of just reading a blot post, I’d like to invite you, the reader, to take just about 1 minute of your time to watch the clip in question. I would advise you to watch with your volume tuned up to not more than 50%, since there is a deafening roar from the crowd towards the end.

But before you do – here’s some quick context for readers who have no interaction whatsoever with fighting games.

This is a screenshot of the first few seconds. There is a picture-in-picture of the actual players and venue, although you can ignore that for the most part of the clip.

There are a couple of important elements on-screen that newcomers should take note of:

First, keep in mind that Daigo plays Ken, the character on the left of the screen while Justin plays Chun-Li, on the right.
There are two small “V”s under each of the health bars, indicating that each player has won 1 round already for this match, which is set as a best-of-3. Thus, whoever wins this round, will take the match.
On either side of the huge number “47” (the countdown timer) are two long bars that stretch to the end of the screen. These are each character’s health bars. The first character to have his or her health bar deplete completely loses the round.
You will see that Chun-Li has a significantly longer yellow portion of her bar than Ken’s, which means she has almost close to 100% of her health remaining, while Ken is close to being knocked-out.
Basically Daigo (Ken) is in a terribly disadvantageous position. All Justin (Chun-Li) needs to do, is land a few more hits and even if Daigo tries to ‘block’ all of them, he will still take some damage, likely knocking him out.

Now off you go, here’s the link to the YouTube video of the clip. I’ll wait.

Done? Awesome wasn’t it? Oh, you’re not sure what happened? Didn’t we establish Daigo was likely to lose, how did he avoid getting hit for so long?

You see, in this version of Street Fighter, there is a special game mechanic called ‘parry’, that allows any character to negate all damage from an incoming attack, only if the defending player hits either the ‘forward’ (for high and middle attacks) or ‘down’ (for low attacks) command input on their joystick at the exact moment of impact.

That’s right – not only are there two types of parry commands, you have to time it just right as well with no margin for error. In addition, the flurry of moves that you saw Justin (Chun-Li) pull off at the end is known as a “Super Art”, a long string of multiple attacks with varying height that is executed in an instance. Failing to block or parry the first attack means you will automatically be hit by the remainder of the 10+ attacks in the Super Art.

With this new knowledge in-hand, you might want to take another look at the clip – this time, with an even deeper appreciation for why the crowd went wild the way it did, watching live a first-hand display of amazing split-second reaction and timing.

Whew – that was a lot of work just for a 14-year old clip. Hopefully you found it entertaining and insightful (if you never knew about the intricacies of fighting games before) but hang on, how is this relevant to mediation again?

3 Moves made by Masterful Mediators & Street Fighters

With Ready Player One hitting the screens recently, I was hit by a huge wave of nostalgia and then I came across EVO Moment #37, a clip that I had watched umpteenth times in the past.

As I read more about the iconic moment, I realised that what looked like a display of impromptu reaction was actually just the natural conclusion of hours upon hours of preparation work.

You see, Daigo knew that there was a strong chance going into the tournament in 2004 that he would have to fight at least one or more players using Chun-Li. He also knew that his character, Ken, would be at a disadvantage trading blows with Chun-Li, whose attacks were faster and had a longer reach. So Daigo invested hours into his preparation to ensure that he would be able to parry Chun-Li’s Super Art, should he find himself needing to do so.

This then, is the first move – preparation.

Whenever I observe my mentor and friend, Professor Joel Lee, teach or train mediation at the National University of Singapore, or in his capacity as an Affiliate Partner with CMPartners, I will always remember his emphasis on preparation. Good preparation is about knowing one’s strengths and weaknesses; where likely points of conflict will arise and how we plan ahead what moves we will make to deal with them.

The second move is framing.

It would not do Daigo much good being able to parry Chun-Li’s Super Art, if she never used it in a position that would win him the round. Remember I mentioned before that Daigo and Justin had already won one round each? It is actually worthwhile going back to watch those two rounds in detail, or read about it here. Daigo was only able to pull off his magnificent counter-attack because he had already primed Justin over the two earlier rounds into specific reactions. In this case, Daigo wanted to set a strong frame that whenever Justin thought he was in a stronger position, Justin should take the initiative. This is not strictly speaking the most sensible move for Justin since his health advantage allows him to wait out the timer and win on a timeout.

Likewise, as mediators, a lot of our best moves are made well in advance, when we frame issues and concerns well. As Joel likes to say, an ounce of framing is worth a pound of re-framing (I think that’s right, I grew up using the metric system but using grams and kilograms doesn’t have quite the same poetic effect). As mediators, if we want parties to get comfortable saying yes to the bigger issues, then we should start working on getting them agreeing on smaller ones. On this note, we often refer to the agenda as the parties’ first agreement and this has a lot more meaning to it than many people realise.

The third move is patience.

The problem with planning is that we never end up using them the way we planned. Often there are too many variables that get in the way and we give up our preparation for the sake of wanting to be relevant to the moment. Daigo could have abandoned his strategy at any time during the match, especially when his health dropped precariously low. I know I would if I was in his position. You can barely see Daigo’s health at all, it is a sliver of a pixel when Justin unleashes Chun-Li’s Super Art! Thankfully, Daigo did not panic and had the patience to wait it out, placing his faith in his preparation and framing.

As mediators, how often do we tell ourselves right after hearing the opening statement from the parties, “This is hopeless”? I have had co-mediators who would turn to me right after the opening statement to say, “The parties’ opening positions are too far apart; this will never settle we might as well call it off”.

We must be patient. We are brought in to help parties when they are in conflict – is it any surprise they would not be anywhere near settlement at the opening stages of a mediation? Remember our training, explore the parties’ interests, treat all responses as information and maintain curiosity. Sometimes it may seem that we are close to running out of options, just like Daigo’s health bar, but it is in that precise moment that we may find the right opportunity to get a settlement.

Preparation, framing and patience. By placing these familiar concepts in an unfamiliar light, hopefully you might derive some new insights of your own.

Here’s to each mediator having your very own EVO Moment #37.

Mediators / Skills - 05/14/2018

4 Steps In Preparing For Your Mediation Session

By Lam Zhen Yu

So you’ve agreed to submit your dispute to mediation, the mediation session has been arranged and is coming up soon. How can you prepare for the mediation session to make it worth your while? Here are 4 simple steps to guide you in your preparation.

1. Know your alternatives

First, you need to consider what professional negotiators term as your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). Put simply, what would you do if the mediation were unsuccessful? Since mediation can be conducted either before or in the course of legal proceedings (e.g. before the Court, an arbitral tribunal, or public tribunal such as the Employment Claims Tribunal), the answer is usually simple: commencing or continuing legal proceedings.

Counting the costs of legal proceedings will help you make an informed decision on what are acceptable settlement terms to you. Below is a (non-exhaustive) list of the key costs involved:

Financial: A successful party to legal proceedings will usually be awarded “costs”, which would have to be paid by the losing party. However, contrary to popular belief, such costs awarded will rarely, if ever, compensate you for your lawyers’ fees - it is common for costs to be half (or even less) of lawyers’ fees. Further, a successful party may even be required to pay costs to the losing party in certain instances, such as failing to accept a reasonable settlement offer made formally. You should ask your lawyers for an estimate of their fees and third-party costs in anticipated legal proceedings.
Time: It is often said that time is the most precious commodity. Even if you have lawyers assisting you, participating in legal proceedings requires significant investment of time and energy. For instance, cases before the Court tend to stretch for a year at least for simple matters and can take years before full resolution of the dispute. Settling the dispute at mediation can bring early closure and allow you to focus your time and energy on other matters.
Emotional: Participating in legal proceedings is often stressful, as you will find yourself worrying about the possibility of losing. Revisiting details of the dispute at multiple stages of legal proceedings can also be distressing if the dispute is personal to you. Particularly, being cross-examined by an experienced lawyer at trial is an unpleasant experience to say the least.
Risk: Every legal proceeding comes with a certain degree of risk, regardless of the strength of your case. Even if you are successful, it is also possible that you are not granted your full claim. Unfavourable evidence which you were unaware of being adduced, witnesses making devastating concessions, unfavourable developments in the law – these are merely a few examples in a long list of things which can go wrong.
Reputational: Court proceedings are part of the public record, and basic information relating to the case is readily available. It is very common for businessmen to face difficulty obtaining loans simply because they are defendants to a case in Court with high exposure (regardless of the strength of their defence).

2. Decide what you want

Assessing your BATNA will help you decide the limits of what an acceptable settlement is. For instance, if you have a claim against you, it may be worthwhile to pay a settlement sum which will help to bring closure and peace of mind, even if you feel that you are not liable for the claim. One key feature of a settlement agreement would therefore be for parties to discontinue and/or to refrain from commencing legal proceedings in relation to the dispute.

A key advantage of mediation is that parties can be creative and propose solutions which are non-binary and effectively address parties’ concerns. In contrast, a Court or tribunal is restricted in the rulings that it can make, which largely take the form of upfront monetary compensation.

Below are examples of questions you can ask yourself:

Can you agree to payment by instalments over time? Bear in mind that if your counterparty is unable to pay and is bankrupted/wound up, you may only receive payment after several years, and the payment may not even be your full claim sum.
Can you accept an apology by a formal letter or by a social media post?
Where your counterparty has submitted a complaint against you to the police/regulatory authorities, would it help if he/she submits a letter requesting for investigations against you to be terminated?

3. Consider what your counterparty wants

Similar to Step 2 above, you can creatively propose solutions which address what your counterparty really wants. This can help soften your counterparty’s position on key issues which are important to you. For example: Might your counterparty be open to receiving less compensation from you if you agree to give him a stake in your business?

4. Prepare your opening statement

After considering all of the above, it is important to share these to the mediator in your opening statement, rather than merely repeating your prior stated position all over again. If lawyers are helping you prepare your opening statement, you should ensure your lawyers are well apprised of your concerns and proposed solutions and include them in the opening statement.

This is simply a matter of helping the mediator to help you – when the mediator understands what you want, he/she will be empowered to channel the discussion to areas of agreement rather than the areas of disagreement. You may be surprised to realise that mediators, with their wealth of experience, may help you develop very viable solutions which you may not have thought of!

With its effectiveness in bridging gaps between disputing parties and the rising costs of legal action, mediation has become the alternative dispute resolution mechanism of choice. Preparing well for your mediation session will go a long way in helping you reach an acceptable settlement, and in bringing early closure to your dispute.

Zhen Yu has a wealth of experience in a range of commercial disputes, having practised at one of the largest medium-sized law firms in Singapore. He has participated in mediations at the Singapore Mediation Centre and as lead counsel at the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution.

General / Guides - 04/04/2018

Who Should Attend Mediation?

If you are an individual involved in a civil dispute, you are always encouraged to attend the mediation in person. But what if your company/organisation is the party involved in the dispute?

If your company/organisation has an upcoming mediation, something important to think about is who should attend the mediation. Here are 3 points to consider when making this decision:

1) Authority

Your representative at mediation must be able to make judgment calls on behalf of the company, to negotiate and settle the matter. The goal of mediation is to resolve the dispute at hand. In order for mediation to be productive, the representative must therefore possess a sufficiently flexible mandate to negotiate with the other party, and to be able to sign off should an agreement on terms be reached.

Without sufficient authority, there will be limited room for negotiation between parties. This will likely result in a frustrating experience for everyone. Imagine if parties spent all day hammering out an agreement, only for discussions to fail because someone whose consent was needed failed to participate or cannot be located in time. Infuriating.

If for whatever reason a person whose consent is needed for settlement is unable to attend the session, he/she should be available and contactable in real-time to avoid the above scenario. This will show sincerity in wanting to resolve the matter, and reduce any allegations of not entering into mediations in good faith.

2) Other Key Persons

Other persons who should be present at the mediation are specific individuals (if they are key to the dispute), and experts (where technical knowledge is involved).

Even where parties are represented by counsel, the principals are still encouraged to attend the session in person. Lawyers' involvement should not replace active participation of the principals. This way, parties can advocate for themselves. This helps ensure a thorough airing of the issues to be discussed - an essential part of the mediation process to reach a mutually acceptable and lasting settlement agreement.

3) Signals Sent

Finally, consider the signal which you intend to send to the other parties at the mediation. Attendance by a low level representative (even with full authority and mandate) may be read as a sign that mediation is not being taken seriously. Participation by the CEO however, will no doubt be taken as a sign of respect and a sincere attempt to settle. This might be quite relevant in Asian cultures where “face” is important.

Deciding on the right persons to attend mediation on behalf of a company/organisation is a nuanced and strategic consideration. Next time you decide on the organisational representatives to attend mediation, consider the points above and choose accordingly.

To learn more about mediation, check out our training programmes. Peacemakers is focused on delivering conflict management, negotiation, and mediation training courses to organisations, customised for their specific industries and corporate cultures. Contact us at mediate@peacemakers.sg to see how we can assist you with your training needs today.

General / Guides - 03/06/2018

5 Things You Need to Know About Mediation

By Jermaine Ng, Legal Associate

What is mediation?

Mediation is a flexible and confidential dispute resolution process, in which a neutral third-party (the mediator) facilitates negotiations between parties, with the view of resolving the dispute(s) amicably.

We have listed out five key points relating to mediation which we think you should know:

1. Why would I end up at mediation?

Parties typically go to mediation for three reasons. First, they may be bound by their contractual arrangement(s) to do so. Second, attending mediation may be part of the court process or is recommended by the court. Third, because parties are unable to resolve matters privately, and prefer to have a neutral third party assist in the dispute resolution process.

2. Who should I choose as my mediator?

After deciding to proceed with mediation, the parties would then have to agree on choosing a mediator. It is important to select a competent and experienced mediator who is the right fit for your case. Other than fees and availability, the mediator’s experience, subject matter knowledge, neutrality, and language competency are also important factors to consider. More details about selecting the right mediator can be found here.

3. What goes on at mediation?

There are two main parts to a mediation session: (i) the problem defining stages; and (ii) the problem solving stages.

In the problem defining stages, the mediator would start by explaining the mediation process, and set some ground rules to ensure the mediation runs smoothly. Parties would then be given the opportunity to make an opening statement, give their perspective on the dispute, and highlight their points of concern.

At the problem solving stages, the mediator would work with the parties to set an agenda to determine the relevant issues at hand. The parties would meet the mediator either together or separately to discuss and assess areas of settlement thereafter. Apart from examining the strengths and weaknesses of each party's position, possible agreements are also encouraged. Negotiations would continue until a settlement is reached. In the unlikely event that parties do not reach an agreement, the mediation session either comes to an end, or another session would be arranged.

Should parties reach an agreement to settle, the terms of said settlement would be recorded in a written agreement to be signed by the parties. This settlement agreement is enforceable as a contract, and can even be enforced as a court judgment if it is recorded as an order of court under the new Mediation Act.

4. What are the main features of mediation?

Empowerment. The mediation process empowers parties to come to a solution on their own. Parties can take ownership over their decision and have extensive control over both the process and the outcome of the mediation, instead of having a judge or arbitrator decide on the dispute or the course that is to be taken. The mediator would facilitate discussion between parties and encourage them to see their dispute as a joint problem which requires a combined effort from all parties to resolve.

Confidentiality. Mediation is confidential, and does not compromise your rights in court should you decide to pursue litigation or arbitration at a later date. This confidentiality is protected both statutorily under the Mediation Act, and also by a mediation agreement to be executed by the parties before the mediation begins. Such confidentiality usually relates to the whole process, and information given to the mediator during the process. While arbitration proceedings are usually confidential as well, the same cannot be said for litigation proceedings.

Affordable and Fast. Apart from being more affordable than its other dispute resolution counterparts, mediated disputes tend to be resolved more quickly – most cases are resolved within a day of mediation. This is as compared to arbitration or litigation, which may take years, and negotiations, which may take from weeks to months.

Effective Resolution. Statistically, global average settlement rates are high. Further, studies have also shown that mediated settlements are rarely breached, because parties are likely to keep to the terms they had voluntarily agreed on.

5. What kinds of disputes are suitable for mediation?

Contrary to popular belief, most disputes are suitable for mediation, regardless of their subject matter! Typically, it may be the circumstances which makes mediation unsuitable in any given case, instead of the subject matter.

Having said that, mediation is typically most useful in the following circumstances:

Where a quick solution is desired;
Where litigation or other dispute resolution methods would be inappropriate (e.g. due to disproportionate costs, complexity of trial, and so on);
Where parties desire and intend to continue their relationship going forward; or
Where private and confidential resolution is important to the parties.

General / Guides - 12/20/2017

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy