The Singapore courts launched an initiative to institutionalise mediation as a way to reclaim our Asian heritage of settling differences harmoniously. This article illustrates the difference between Western and Chinese mediation practices.
In the Western model, mediators are trained in the role of a process manager. Their main responsibility is to facilitate a collaborative process.
Their training includes guiding the parties sequentially through their tasks, keeping parties attuned to the ground rules and focused on reaching an agreement.
The mediators are seen as a resource person for the parties, someone knowledgeable and skilled in a process for resolving conflicts.
They are trained not to offer solutions, opinions, or any other type of advice, and to remain impartial facilitators.
On the other hand, Chinese mediators go beyond performing the function of a facilitator by intervening to restore the relationship that had been strained or severed.
Their primary goal is not a solution or an agreement to the dispute, but the restoration of a harmonious relationship. Here is an excerpt from a Chinese mediator：
“ I usually advise parties that harmony is precious （yi he wei gui）。 I will tell them that there is no need to argue； after all they are neighbours. In a way, I will persuade each to give way a little so that things can be settled.”
Chinese mediators also perform the role of educators of good social conduct. They educate the disputants on how to be a person of good conduct （zuo ren）。
They often analyse the social interaction between the parties that led to the dispute and later chide both parties for their roles in the dispute. The idea is that disputes are the result of both parties behaving incorrectly.
Mediators also prescribe to each party the correct way to interact, thus reinforcing the standards of zuo ren.
On the other hand, the impartial and almost bystander-like stance of Western mediation practice embeds the value and assumption that the individuals' interests, priorities and preferences are paramount in the settlement of the dispute.
The primary values to be protected and preserved by the mediators are the notions of the individuals' autonomy, independence in the decision-making process, and the right to informed consent.
In contrast, the Chinese mediators see the dispute as part of a large context that goes beyond the individual interest and into the realm of the community.
The mediators act as the guardians of community interest and the standard of good conduct. Such practices reflect the collectivism of Chinese culture where individuals identify themselves as part of a group.
This group orientation is evident in the mediation process. For instance, one mediator argues that pressing on with one's rights may actually be wrong if it results in negative consequences on the other party's family and friendship ties.
He often asks the disputants if it is righteous to inflict suffering on innocent parties in the process of exercising one's rights. These actions are consistent with Chinese values and beliefs that place the community's well-being above the individual's rights.
A common technique employed to restore a harmonious relationship between parties is to try to convince the parties to forgive each other.
Mediators would quote idioms such as hao xin you hao bao（the kind-hearted will receive good blessings）。 They also suggest to parties that it is a greater virtue to forgive than to enforce one's rights.
Chinese mediators also use the ingenious strategy of social exchange in restoring relationships. When a mediator agrees to mediate, there is an implicit understanding among all parties that he or she is bestowing a favour. As such the parties are obliged to return the favour.
Such reciprocal gestures derive from the age-old precept of “favour begets respect” and are prevalent in Chinese society. At some time during the mediation, the mediator calls in the favour by getting the party to agree to the suggestion for a settlement.
The mediator first tells one party that he or she must“give the mediator face” by accepting what is proposed. Contained in the proposal is a face-saving gesture for the other disputant.
Next, the mediator will try to convince the other party that “face has been given” and that he or she is obliged to return the favour by agreeing to the settlement as well.
A Chinese who has been “given face” feels that he or she has received a favour. In turn, he or she has to reciprocate the favour so that the other party will not lose face. If all goes well, the mediator in essence has started a virtuous cycle of “giving face” and reciprocating favours.
（This is an excerpt of an article entitled “Mediation Across Cultures” published in the July issue of The Alumnus.）
調(diào)解：華人的特殊方式
新加坡的法庭采取主動,使調(diào)解制度化,以亞洲人“以和為貴”
的傳統(tǒng)化解糾紛。下文摘譯自謝和明博士和朱詩慧合撰的《跨文化的調(diào)解》一文,分析西方人與華人之間不同的調(diào)解方式。
在西方模式里,調(diào)解人所受的訓(xùn)練,是如何充當(dāng)調(diào)解過程的管理者：他們的主要職責(zé)是促成雙方的合作,其工作包括引導(dǎo)兩造遵循基本規(guī)則,按部就班逐項磋談,并專注于達(dá)成協(xié)議。
調(diào)解人精通化解爭端的程序,因此被視為雙方的顧問。他們所受的訓(xùn)練是：不提供解決方案或意見,也不給任何形式的建議,只是不偏不倚地從旁協(xié)助。
與此不同的是,華族的調(diào)解人不僅從旁協(xié)助,而且介入磋談,使緊張或破裂的人際關(guān)系得以修復(fù)。他們的主要目標(biāo)不在化解爭端、達(dá)成協(xié)議,而在于使人際關(guān)系復(fù)歸和諧。一名華族調(diào)解人說道：
“我通常是勸告雙方以和為貴,我會對他們說：沒有必要爭吵,大家到底是鄰居嘛?？梢哉f,我總是說服雙方各自讓步一點,好把事情解決。”
華族的調(diào)解人還兼任教育者,訓(xùn)誨爭議雙方遵紀(jì)守法,好好做人。他們時常分析當(dāng)事人彼此的言行何以導(dǎo)致沖突,然后責(zé)備兩造各有不是之處,理由是凡有事端發(fā)生,總歸是雙方行為偏差。調(diào)解人還指示當(dāng)事人雙方應(yīng)如何相處,從而灌輸“做人”的規(guī)矩。
西方的調(diào)解人與此不同。他們的姿態(tài)不偏不倚,甚至近乎冷眼旁觀,所根據(jù)的價值觀及前提假設(shè)是：在解決爭端時,個人的利益及其所關(guān)注、側(cè)重的事項是至關(guān)重要的。調(diào)解人首先要維護(hù)的價值觀是：個人應(yīng)當(dāng)自主,應(yīng)當(dāng)獨立作出抉擇,并有權(quán)了解情況之后才作出承諾。
兩相比較,可見華族調(diào)解人看待爭端,不僅著眼于個人的利益,而且將視野放大到社會的范圍。調(diào)解人充當(dāng)了社會利益及行為規(guī)范的維護(hù)者。這種做法反映了華族文化中個人自視為群體一分子的集體精神。
這種群體的價值取向也表現(xiàn)于調(diào)解的過程。例如,有一名調(diào)解人聲稱,強(qiáng)調(diào)一己的權(quán)利以致傷害對方的家人和朋友關(guān)系,實際上可能是錯誤的,因此他時常要問一問當(dāng)事人,為了行使權(quán)利而殃及無辜是否正當(dāng)。他的做法,正符合華人視社會福祉高于個人權(quán)利的價值觀和信念。
為使?fàn)幾h雙方的關(guān)系復(fù)歸和諧,一種常見的做法便是說服當(dāng)事人彼此原諒。調(diào)解人往往引用“好心有好報”、“大人不記小人過”之類的俗話,并勸告雙方,與其堅持己方得直,不如放人一馬更為有美德。
華族的調(diào)解人還運(yùn)用一種別出心裁的人際交往策略來修復(fù)關(guān)系。
調(diào)解人答應(yīng)來居中斡旋,對當(dāng)事人雙方來說,便不言而喻地是給了個人情,因此雙方都理當(dāng)給予回報。
這種人情贈答的做法,來源于“人情便是面子”的古老觀念,并盛行于華人社會。在斡旋的某一階段,調(diào)解人便運(yùn)用這份人情來促使雙方同意提議中的妥協(xié)。他先要求一方當(dāng)事人接受提議,從而“給中間人一個面子”,這提議之中也包含一個顧全另一方當(dāng)事人面子的姿態(tài)。接著調(diào)解人又盡力勸導(dǎo)另一方說,既然人家已經(jīng)“給面子”了,便理當(dāng)還這個人情,同樣也接受妥協(xié)方案才是。
在華人看來,人家“給了面子”,自己便是得了人情,因此必須投桃報李,以便使對方也不失面子。如果一切順利,調(diào)解人實質(zhì)上便啟動了一輪“給面子”帶來當(dāng)事人彼此示好而讓步的良性循環(huán)。
（原文刊于國大7月
In the Western model, mediators are trained in the role of a process manager. Their main responsibility is to facilitate a collaborative process.
Their training includes guiding the parties sequentially through their tasks, keeping parties attuned to the ground rules and focused on reaching an agreement.
The mediators are seen as a resource person for the parties, someone knowledgeable and skilled in a process for resolving conflicts.
They are trained not to offer solutions, opinions, or any other type of advice, and to remain impartial facilitators.
On the other hand, Chinese mediators go beyond performing the function of a facilitator by intervening to restore the relationship that had been strained or severed.
Their primary goal is not a solution or an agreement to the dispute, but the restoration of a harmonious relationship. Here is an excerpt from a Chinese mediator：
“ I usually advise parties that harmony is precious （yi he wei gui）。 I will tell them that there is no need to argue； after all they are neighbours. In a way, I will persuade each to give way a little so that things can be settled.”
Chinese mediators also perform the role of educators of good social conduct. They educate the disputants on how to be a person of good conduct （zuo ren）。
They often analyse the social interaction between the parties that led to the dispute and later chide both parties for their roles in the dispute. The idea is that disputes are the result of both parties behaving incorrectly.
Mediators also prescribe to each party the correct way to interact, thus reinforcing the standards of zuo ren.
On the other hand, the impartial and almost bystander-like stance of Western mediation practice embeds the value and assumption that the individuals' interests, priorities and preferences are paramount in the settlement of the dispute.
The primary values to be protected and preserved by the mediators are the notions of the individuals' autonomy, independence in the decision-making process, and the right to informed consent.
In contrast, the Chinese mediators see the dispute as part of a large context that goes beyond the individual interest and into the realm of the community.
The mediators act as the guardians of community interest and the standard of good conduct. Such practices reflect the collectivism of Chinese culture where individuals identify themselves as part of a group.
This group orientation is evident in the mediation process. For instance, one mediator argues that pressing on with one's rights may actually be wrong if it results in negative consequences on the other party's family and friendship ties.
He often asks the disputants if it is righteous to inflict suffering on innocent parties in the process of exercising one's rights. These actions are consistent with Chinese values and beliefs that place the community's well-being above the individual's rights.
A common technique employed to restore a harmonious relationship between parties is to try to convince the parties to forgive each other.
Mediators would quote idioms such as hao xin you hao bao（the kind-hearted will receive good blessings）。 They also suggest to parties that it is a greater virtue to forgive than to enforce one's rights.
Chinese mediators also use the ingenious strategy of social exchange in restoring relationships. When a mediator agrees to mediate, there is an implicit understanding among all parties that he or she is bestowing a favour. As such the parties are obliged to return the favour.
Such reciprocal gestures derive from the age-old precept of “favour begets respect” and are prevalent in Chinese society. At some time during the mediation, the mediator calls in the favour by getting the party to agree to the suggestion for a settlement.
The mediator first tells one party that he or she must“give the mediator face” by accepting what is proposed. Contained in the proposal is a face-saving gesture for the other disputant.
Next, the mediator will try to convince the other party that “face has been given” and that he or she is obliged to return the favour by agreeing to the settlement as well.
A Chinese who has been “given face” feels that he or she has received a favour. In turn, he or she has to reciprocate the favour so that the other party will not lose face. If all goes well, the mediator in essence has started a virtuous cycle of “giving face” and reciprocating favours.
（This is an excerpt of an article entitled “Mediation Across Cultures” published in the July issue of The Alumnus.）
調(diào)解：華人的特殊方式
新加坡的法庭采取主動,使調(diào)解制度化,以亞洲人“以和為貴”
的傳統(tǒng)化解糾紛。下文摘譯自謝和明博士和朱詩慧合撰的《跨文化的調(diào)解》一文,分析西方人與華人之間不同的調(diào)解方式。
在西方模式里,調(diào)解人所受的訓(xùn)練,是如何充當(dāng)調(diào)解過程的管理者：他們的主要職責(zé)是促成雙方的合作,其工作包括引導(dǎo)兩造遵循基本規(guī)則,按部就班逐項磋談,并專注于達(dá)成協(xié)議。
調(diào)解人精通化解爭端的程序,因此被視為雙方的顧問。他們所受的訓(xùn)練是：不提供解決方案或意見,也不給任何形式的建議,只是不偏不倚地從旁協(xié)助。
與此不同的是,華族的調(diào)解人不僅從旁協(xié)助,而且介入磋談,使緊張或破裂的人際關(guān)系得以修復(fù)。他們的主要目標(biāo)不在化解爭端、達(dá)成協(xié)議,而在于使人際關(guān)系復(fù)歸和諧。一名華族調(diào)解人說道：
“我通常是勸告雙方以和為貴,我會對他們說：沒有必要爭吵,大家到底是鄰居嘛?？梢哉f,我總是說服雙方各自讓步一點,好把事情解決。”
華族的調(diào)解人還兼任教育者,訓(xùn)誨爭議雙方遵紀(jì)守法,好好做人。他們時常分析當(dāng)事人彼此的言行何以導(dǎo)致沖突,然后責(zé)備兩造各有不是之處,理由是凡有事端發(fā)生,總歸是雙方行為偏差。調(diào)解人還指示當(dāng)事人雙方應(yīng)如何相處,從而灌輸“做人”的規(guī)矩。
西方的調(diào)解人與此不同。他們的姿態(tài)不偏不倚,甚至近乎冷眼旁觀,所根據(jù)的價值觀及前提假設(shè)是：在解決爭端時,個人的利益及其所關(guān)注、側(cè)重的事項是至關(guān)重要的。調(diào)解人首先要維護(hù)的價值觀是：個人應(yīng)當(dāng)自主,應(yīng)當(dāng)獨立作出抉擇,并有權(quán)了解情況之后才作出承諾。
兩相比較,可見華族調(diào)解人看待爭端,不僅著眼于個人的利益,而且將視野放大到社會的范圍。調(diào)解人充當(dāng)了社會利益及行為規(guī)范的維護(hù)者。這種做法反映了華族文化中個人自視為群體一分子的集體精神。
這種群體的價值取向也表現(xiàn)于調(diào)解的過程。例如,有一名調(diào)解人聲稱,強(qiáng)調(diào)一己的權(quán)利以致傷害對方的家人和朋友關(guān)系,實際上可能是錯誤的,因此他時常要問一問當(dāng)事人,為了行使權(quán)利而殃及無辜是否正當(dāng)。他的做法,正符合華人視社會福祉高于個人權(quán)利的價值觀和信念。
為使?fàn)幾h雙方的關(guān)系復(fù)歸和諧,一種常見的做法便是說服當(dāng)事人彼此原諒。調(diào)解人往往引用“好心有好報”、“大人不記小人過”之類的俗話,并勸告雙方,與其堅持己方得直,不如放人一馬更為有美德。
華族的調(diào)解人還運(yùn)用一種別出心裁的人際交往策略來修復(fù)關(guān)系。
調(diào)解人答應(yīng)來居中斡旋,對當(dāng)事人雙方來說,便不言而喻地是給了個人情,因此雙方都理當(dāng)給予回報。
這種人情贈答的做法,來源于“人情便是面子”的古老觀念,并盛行于華人社會。在斡旋的某一階段,調(diào)解人便運(yùn)用這份人情來促使雙方同意提議中的妥協(xié)。他先要求一方當(dāng)事人接受提議,從而“給中間人一個面子”,這提議之中也包含一個顧全另一方當(dāng)事人面子的姿態(tài)。接著調(diào)解人又盡力勸導(dǎo)另一方說,既然人家已經(jīng)“給面子”了,便理當(dāng)還這個人情,同樣也接受妥協(xié)方案才是。
在華人看來,人家“給了面子”,自己便是得了人情,因此必須投桃報李,以便使對方也不失面子。如果一切順利,調(diào)解人實質(zhì)上便啟動了一輪“給面子”帶來當(dāng)事人彼此示好而讓步的良性循環(huán)。
（原文刊于國大7月