University of Amsterdam | Masters Thesis (Political Science)
Street-Level Conflict Managers:
A Comparative Study of Community Mediation
Programmes in Singapore and Amsterdam
Name: Yifei Xiao | Student ID: 11109467
Course: Conflict Resolution & Governance
Date of Submission: 24 June 2016
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction1.1. Research Questions 6
1.2. Research Significance 7
1.3. Organisation of Thesis 8
1.4. History of Community Mediation 8
1.4.1. San Francisco Community Boards 9
1.4.2. Neighbourhood Justice Centres 10
1.5. Defining Features and Goals of Community Mediation Programmes 11
1.6. State-Sponsored Community Mediation Programmes 12
1.7. Summary 14
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Ideologically-based Mediation Frameworks 16
2.1.1. Problem-Solving Framework 17
2.1.2. Transformative Framework 17
2.1.3. Harmony Framework 18
2.2. Mediator Orientation: Riskin’s Grid 19
2.3. Tensions in Mediation Practice 20
2.3.1. Neutrality 20
2.3.2. Harmony Ideology 21
2.5. Summary 24 3. Research Design
3.1. Comparing Two Community Mediation Programmes 26
3.2. Textual Analysis and Framing 27
3.3. Interviews 28
3.3.1. Community Mediators 28 3.3.2. Others 30 3.4. Challenges in the Research Process 31
3.5. Ethical Issues 32
3.6. Summary 33
4. Background of Case Studies 4.1. Singapore
4.1.1. Political and Socio-cultural Context 34
4.1.2. Origins of the Community Mediation Programme 35 4.1.3. The State Discourse of Community Mediation 36
4.1.4. Community Mediation Centre 39
4.1.5. Managing Mediators 39
4.1.6. Dispute Management Framework 42
4.1.7. Public Education 44
4.1.8. Community Dispute Resolution Tribunals 44
4.2.1. Political and Socio-cultural Context 45 4.2.2. Origins of Community Mediation in the Netherlands 45
4.2.3. Community Mediation in Amsterdam 47
4.2.4. Beter Buren Buurtbemiddeling 47
4.2.5. Managing Mediators 48
4.2.6. Dispute Management Framework 49
4.3. Key Similarities and Differences Between the Two Programmes 51
4.4. Summary 53
5. Analysis of Research Findings
5.1. Who Mediates? 55
5.2. The Mediator’s Role 57
5.2.1. Discretion, Professionalism and Trust 58
5.2.2. Accountability 59
5.2.3. Cultural Identity 62
5.3. Neutrality 63
5.4. Control vs. Empowerment 66
5.4.1. Getting Parties to the Table 66
5.4.2. Controlling the Mediation Process 67
5.4.3. Empowerment 68
5.4.4. Managing Emotions 69
5.5.1. Compromise 71 5.5.2. Giving Suggestions 72
5.5.3. Letting Parties Improvise 73
5.6. Defining Success 73
5.7. Summary 74
6. Conclusion
6.1. Summary of Findings 78
6.2. Street Level Conflict Management for Urban Democracy 81
6.3. Further Research 84
Chapter 1: Introduction
Interpersonal conflict is a constant feature of human interaction. If left unresolved over time, seemingly trivial disputes between people who know each other can escalate, and eventually lead to negative consequences for society. As such, concerned third party parties sometimes see the need to intervene in private relational disputes. Community mediation is one avenue through which both public and private actors have tried to manage such conflicts. In recent years, state-sponsored community mediation programmes have emerged in many countries, including Singapore and the Netherlands. I first learnt about community mediation in Amsterdam as an initiative by citizens who wanted to help resolve conflicts among their neighbours. I then stumbled upon a community mediation programme in Singapore, my home country — one that was run by the government. I became curious about how the same basic concept of community mediation worked practically across two very different political and cultural contexts. These real-life encounters inspired me to do a comparative case study of the two aforementioned programmes.
1.1. Research Questions
My main research question is: How does political and cultural context shape the development of community mediation programmes and the way they deal with relational (i.e. social and
community) disputes? I operationalise my central research question using three interlinked sub-questions. First, what are the features and tensions that characterise a particular community mediation programme? How context shapes the design and practice of a programme often gets expressed in tensions that practitioners working within these settings have to navigate. Thus the experiences of practitioners can be particularly revealing of the key features that characterise a programme, as well as the larger context in which the programme developed. Therefore, I focus on the volunteer mediator as the key actor in state-sponsored community mediation programmes. After all, mediators are the ones who have to make these programmes ‘work’ at the practical level by dealing with real-life disputes. They are intermediaries, not just between two (or more) disputing parties, but also between the state and individual citizens. Given their dual role, they
have to respond to independent and sometimes competing sets of demands from their clients (i.e. private disputants) and their sponsors (i.e. public institutions). My focus on the community mediator’s practice leads to two other sub-questions: how do community mediators negotiate practical tensions within a particular institutional setting? And finally, how do they manage key relationships, namely with the state and with the disputants?
1.2. Research Significance
Community mediation has been described as “a practice in search of a theory” (Mulcahy 2000: 134). My thesis aims to contribute not only to theoretical research on community mediation, but also to inform its real-world practice. Besides anthropologically-oriented studies of traditional community mediation practices, most literature on the theory and practice of community
mediation developed in Western liberal democracies. In contrast, there has been little research on community mediation in Asia, partly owing to the fact that community mediation in its modern form is generally not practised in Asian countries. Singapore is one of the few Asian countries that have consulted community mediation models developed in the West and set up its own programme. Therefore, my study fills a gap in the literature, being the first extensive case study of community mediation in Singapore, and also the first to compare the Singapore programme with another programme based in a different country.
The community mediation programme in Singapore is also worth studying because existing theories do not seem to adequately account for its ideological foundations and organisational framework. Unlike in the US, where different philosophies and models of
community mediation have sparked lively debates, in Singapore, the government is the dominant player in the field of community mediation. Discussion about what community mediation is and what it can (or should) accomplish is thus lacking. Most scholars who have written about community mediation in Singapore also adopt a legal or cultural approach, whereas I examine the subject from a distinct socio-political perspective. Therefore I hope that my research will probe further reflection and discussion among scholars, policy-makers and practitioners who are engaged in community mediation, whether in Singapore or in other countries.
1.3. Organisation of Thesis
This chapter introduces the research questions and gives an overview of the field of community mediation, in terms of its historical development, basic principles and defining features. It then highlights some criticisms of state-sponsored community mediation programmes, to provide a frame of reference for examining the case studies. The next chapter lays out the theoretical frameworks that situate the research findings. Chapter 3 describes the research design and the challenges encountered in the research process. Chapter 4 provides background for the two case studies and Chapter 5 analyses the research findings in relation to the theoretical frameworks. Chapter 6 summarises the findings and provides suggestions for future research.
1.4. History of Community Mediation
While mediation practices have been recorded since ancient times in many cultures (Auerbach 1983), mediation in its modern incarnation has developed largely as an alternative to legal dispute resolution mechanisms. In its essence, mediation involves some form of intervention from a third party — the mediator — in a dispute. The mediator does not have the authority to impose an outcome, but rather seeks to help the disputants find a mutually satisfactory resolution to their conflict. It is often claimed that mediation allows parties to have greater ownership over the process and outcome of managing their conflicts, as they typically enter into mediation voluntarily and actively participate in a collaborative decision-making process. Therefore, agreements or solutions that emerge from mediation are considered to be more humane and responsive to individuals’ needs than decisions produced by the court system (Harrington & Merry 1988). Moreover, mediation is promoted as a quicker and cheaper way to resolve disputes. Community mediation is a particular ‘class’ of mediation that has developed in many countries over the past few decades. While some scholars define community mediation to include traditional forms of mediation practised within cultural subgroups (Wall & Callister 1999), I focus on modern community mediation services that are recognised or supported by governments.
To understand the basic principles and features of modern community mediation, we first have to look back at its historical roots. In the 1960s, the first community-based mediation
programmes began in the US as a response to the worsening problems of violence and disintegration within communities, and public dissatisfaction with the available means to deal with such conflicts (Dukes 1990). The community mediation movement was inspired by two primary sources: the social and political movements of the 1960s, and initiatives to reform the justice system (Hedeen & Coy 2000). These two movements, one motivated by community empowerment and the other by court reform, gave rise to two broad ideological projects of community mediation that were quite distinct in orientation and emphasis.
1.4.1 San Francisco Community Boards (SFCB): Community Empowerment Model
Proponents of community mediation who were inspired by worldwide social and political movements in the 1960s embraced it as an empowering tool for individuals and communities, seeking to regain control over their lives from public institutions that were seen as inefficient, oppressive and unfair. They envisioned community mediation as a truly alternative justice 1
system controlled by the community rather than by the state, or what Harrington and Merry (1988) call a “social transformation project”.
The pioneering model of community mediation with a community building and empowerment objective is the San Francisco Community Boards (SFCB). The founder of the SFCB, Raymond Shonholtz, saw that the formal criminal justice system, with its reactive operational model and excessive caseload, could not deal adequately with minor conflicts in local communities. Therefore, he initiated the community board scheme to equip community members with the means to deal with local conflicts, before they became serious enough to warrant state intervention. Central in the ideology of the SFCB is the role of the citizen as the primary intervener in preventing conflict escalation, based on the belief that “in a democratic society only citizen-based conflict settlement mechanisms could reach disputes early and provide some reasonable process for their peaceful expression and resolution.” (Shonholtz 1993: 202) As such, the emphasis of the SFCB programme is placed on training resident-volunteers to process conflict at the neighbourhood level. Each community board has a representative “dispute
Some of these community organisers were inspired by community moots — informal, decentralised,
1
resolution panel”, which organises meetings with the disputants to help them communicate openly about their differences and to try to solve their own problems. The Amsterdam programme that I study is also conceptually inspired by the SFCB.
1.4.2. Neighbourhood Justice Centres (NJC): Service Delivery Model
On the other hand, the court reform movement focussed primarily on responding to the inadequacy of the court system in dealing with minor civil and criminal matters (McGillis 1997). The goal was not to create a parallel citizen-run and community-centred dispute resolution system, but to give individuals access to other dispute-processing services that would better serve their needs (McGillis 1986). This resulted in the the creation of federally funded Neighbourhood Justice Centres (NJC) in the mid-1970s, which provided a variety of alternative dispute resolution services, including arbitration, mediation and court referrals. The NJC is the prototypical “service delivery project” of community mediation that Harrington and Merry (1988: 719) identify, with an emphasis on the “provision of services to the community rather than building social networks from the community” (original emphases).
The NJCs served as a diversionary channel for cases considered by the judiciary or other institutions as more appropriate for informal and local dispute settlement mechanisms (McGillis & Mullen 1977; Shonholtz 2000). Like the SFCB, the NJCs also recruited community representatives as mediators and do not charge for their services. But while the SFCB solicited cases directly from the community, the NJCs received cases from many referral sources, including the courts, police and social service agencies (McGillis 1980). The primary benefits of the NJC were efficiency-related: reduced costs to the criminal justice system, more efficient case processing (compared to the courts), and increased access to ‘justice’ (McGillis 1980: 5). Community mediation was also seen as improving the justice process because it offers the opportunity “to explore the disputants’ underlying relationships and conflicts — a process not often possible in the traditional court setting but important to the resolution of the dispute.” (McGillis 1980: 5) Interestingly, the Singapore government actually consulted the NJC model when studying the feasibility of setting up a community mediation programme. As such,
the conceptual influence of the NJC and the SFCB can be seen in the Singapore and Amsterdam programmes, respectively.
1.5. Defining Features and Goals of Community Mediation Programmes
By looking at these early models, one can already identify certain defining features of community mediation programmes. First is the use of trained volunteer mediators, who usually reside in the geographical community in which the programme is based, and come from backgrounds that reflect the community that they serve. Secondly, community mediation programmes deal primarily with disputes occurring among individuals who have an ongoing relationship — relatives, neighbours, landlords and tenants, employers and employees. As such, most community mediation programmes have an emphasis on improving the relationship between disputants, in contrast to the “adversarial” legal process, which tends to focus on material issues. Third, community mediation usually allows for intervention during the early stages of conflict, and also provides an alternative to the judicial system at any stage of a conflict. Finally, services are made directly accessible to the public, regardless of their ability to pay. Hence there are always efforts to encourage public awareness of community mediation programmes.
The historical development of community mediation shows that organisations did not follow a fixed template but adapted their working model to local needs. Naturally then, scholars and practitioners have different ideas about how community mediation should work in practice and what its goals should be. Nevertheless, most of them concur that the basic purpose of community mediation is to provide a forum for participants to reach their own mutually agreeable solutions to the issues that brought them to mediation in the first place (Zondervan 2000). The two examples described above also reveal the broad aspirations of community mediation: (1) empower individual and communities to deal with their own disputes; (2) improve the delivery and efficiency of (public and private) dispute resolution services; (3) repair damaged relationships; and (4) build social cohesion. Most programmes try to achieve a mix of these goals, as do the programmes studied in this thesis. Of course, different community mediation programmes will emphasise some goals more than others, and the multiple goals adopted by one
organisation can even come into conflict with each other. For example, the aim of reducing court caseloads can hinder the goal of community empowerment based on voluntary participation, as parties may be implicitly or explicitly coerced by the authorities to go into mediation.
1.6. State-Sponsored Community Mediation: Benefits and Criticisms
As the two models presented above show, there is a wide spectrum in the ownership structure of community mediation programmes, ranging from government-run outfits to independent, privately funded non-profits. That said, the boundaries between state-sponsored and independent projects are often blurred as some programmes receive public funding and institutional support but still retain a high degree of operational autonomy. Governments initiate and sponsor community mediation programmes for a variety of reasons, ranging from reducing court caseloads to dealing with neighbourhood problems like crime. For example, in Australia, Community Justice Centres (modelled after NJCs in the US) were introduced by the government in the 1980s, primarily to take pressure off the police, courts and providers of community legal services. In contrast, most community mediation services in the UK are independently run by charities and community groups, but are often supported, and sometimes even initiated, by local governments (Liebmann 2000).
The history of community mediation in the US is indicative of the inherent tensions between state sponsorship and community ownership of conflict processing mechanisms. Since the 1980s, many scholars have criticised community mediation programmes for their thickening ties to the state. State sponsorship undoubtedly brings many benefits for community mediation programmes. Above all, state funding is often needed to start and sustain community mediation programmes. In the US, many programmes have attained “success” (in terms of getting cases and processing them efficiently) by having a single contract with the courts or local government (Honeyman 1995). Institutional cooperation also ensures that appropriate cases are referred for community mediation in a timely manner from the courts, police and other agencies that commonly deal with community disputes. Furthermore, accreditation and recognition from the state can provide legitimacy for community mediation programmes, thereby attracting people to use their services.
In spite of the clear benefits of state sponsorship, there has also been much criticism about the state’s disproportionate influence over community mediation programmes. A key concern is that the increasing institutionalisation or “co-optation” of community mediation organisations by the state may cause these projects to lose their ability to respond to community needs. Since the beginning of the community mediation movement in the US, there were already concerns that a programme’s structure does not follow function so much as “forms follows funding” (Davis 1986: 35). In other words, a programme’s mission and direction may be compromised due to over-reliance on one source of funding. Other critics argue that as community mediation organisations formalise their relationship with the court system and the government, they would become bureaucratised and technique centred (Adler 1987), and even adjust their processes to mimic those of their primary funding and referral sources (Morrill & McKee 1993). Recent studies of community mediation organisations in the US have also identified a shift away from “the emphases on access, diversity, volunteerism, and change [which] represent community ownership of dispute and dispute resolution” , and toward greater routinisation and efficiency in processing cases (Hedeen 2003: 276).
Secondly, state-sponsored community mediation organisations can become quasi-formal institutions through which the state can expand its control. Basically, community mediation provides another avenue by which the state can intervene in the private lives of citizens by bringing more cases into a dispute resolution arena that it can (in)directly regulate (Adler, Lovaas & Milner 1988; Matthews 1988). Community mediation programmes may even be set up to pursue political agendas. For example, in China, mediation committees have an added role of popularising state policies and decrees among the masses (Huang 1992). The rhetoric of voluntarism, popular justice and individual empowerment employed by community mediation programmes can also conceal coercion and other forms of power, which undermines the prospects of collective resistance to state control (Abel 1982). In the context of Singapore, Tan (2007: 140) argues that community mediation serves as a “subtle means of social control and the
enhancement of state power while relegating the virtues of empowerment of the individual and the community.” 2
Finally, community mediation can also lead to suppression of state-related criticisms and socio-political change. Since community mediation helps to settle claims at the local level, it can defuse anger from those with grievances, thus forestalling public attention and action on issues that concern the state. Some critics argue that the tendency of some community mediation programmes to view all disputes as problems in interpersonal communication, rather than as stemming from larger structural problems, prevents these programmes from mobilising communities to work towards social and political transformation (Harrington 1993). In
particular, state-sponsored community mediation programmes puts the state in the position of the dispute processor, thus allowing it to avoid being challenged or held responsible in disputes where it is also implicated (Liebmann 1997).
In view of these criticisms, I hope to shed light on the extent to which they are applicable to the community mediation programme in Singapore, which has been state-run from its very inception. In doing so, I attempt to construct a more nuanced picture of the state-sponsored variant of community mediation than has been suggested by its both strongest proponents and fiercest critics.
1.7. Summary
This chapter introduces the research questions and explains the significance of my research. My central research question is: How does political and cultural context shape the practice of community mediation? To answer this question, I have chosen to study community mediation programmes based in two different cities — one in Singapore and other in Amsterdam. I then explain what community mediation is and how it first developed in the US. The socio-political movements of the 1960s and court reform movement inspired two ideologically distinct models of community mediation. The community empowerment model, epitomised by the San Francisco
This claim is hard to prove empirically, and such a task is beyond the scope of this thesis. I am more interested in
2
Community Boards, became the conceptual inspiration for the Amsterdam programme; whereas the service delivery model embodied by the Neighbourhood Justice Centre, provided inspiration for the Singapore programme. These two foundational models also shed light on the defining goals and features of community mediation. However, despite the benefits and promises of community mediation, some programmes have been criticised for their increasingly close ties to the state. Critics fear that community mediation may drift away from its core mission of serving the community and instead become an instrument of state control. In sum, this chapter presents a historical narrative and working definition of community mediation that help to situate the two programmes that I study in the larger field of community mediation. The next chapter will introduce the theoretical frameworks for examining the micro-level practice of community mediators.
Chapter 2: Theoretical Frameworks
This chapter gives an overview of the relevant theoretical frameworks that situate the practice of the community mediators whom I study. It first describes the mediation approaches that inform their practice and then highlights key tensions that they may encounter during mediation. Finally, it adapts the theory of street-level bureaucracy to characterise the work of community mediators.
2.1. Ideologically-based Mediation Frameworks
It is often assumed that mediators are working towards the same goals, but with the individual ‘style’ variations in how they apply their specific skills (Krivis & McAdoo 1997). But empirical research has shown that mediators constantly draw upon their preferred theoretical frameworks or construct their own frameworks to interpret interactions and to make choices about
interventions during the mediation process (Della Noce et al. 2002). These choices reflect the mediators’ (often sub-conscious) goals for intervention that are rooted in their own ideological explanations of the social world. Mediation organisations also have a “mediation ideology” — a value-based vision of what mediation is — which lays the foundation for its mediation policy 3
(Della Noce et at. 2002). The implication is that the practice norms of mediators are inevitably influenced by the organisation’s mediation policy and ideology.
In order to make sense of the actual practice of the mediators whom I study, I give an overview of the three ideologically based theoretical frameworks that Bush and Folger (1994) developed. Community mediators typically learn about mediation approaches that are based on these underlying frameworks. While there is much controversy over the relevance and validity of these frameworks, they nevertheless provide a useful basis to compare the seemingly diverse working ‘styles’ of mediators across programmes. My purpose in this section is not to agree with all the claims that Bush and Folger make or to provide a conclusive definition of mediation frameworks, but rather, to identify some unifying and contrasting elements that guide the
Typical policy topics include who can practice, how to determine mediator competency, how the process should
3
and should not be conducted, who can participate in mediation as a client, and the ethical obligations of the mediator, among others.
practice of the research subjects. As mentioned, these frameworks also inform the mediation policy of the community mediation programmes under study. That said, it must be noted that in practice, most mediators use techniques that fall under theoretically distinct frameworks, even if they operate from a predominant orientation.
2.1.1. Problem-Solving Framework
The dominant theoretical framework in the mediation field is the problem-solving model (Folger 2008). According to this model, conflict represents a problem that arises from parties’
incompatible needs and interests (Bush & Folger 1994). The model presumes that a solution — typically in the form of a tangible settlement agreement — is what the parties want. Therefore, the mediator’s goal is to assist the parties in some kind of negotiation and generate an agreement that solves tangible problems on fair and realistic terms. ‘Good’ mediator practice thus consists of issue identification, option creation, and effective persuasion to get parties to settle. Bush and Folger (1994) claim that in this model, there is usually heavy reliance on mediator initiative and direction, because both are useful in generating settlement. The problem-solving model has been widely adopted for all sorts of conflict resolution in Singapore (Boulle & Teh 2000), and it is also the approach taught to Singaporean community mediators in the basic training workshop.
Some scholars argue that the problem-solving approach is not just about tackling tangible issues; it also addresses the parties’ relationship. Kelman (1996) describes “interactive problem solving” as a process that treats the conflict between parties as a shared problem in their
relationship. By solving practical issues through negotiation, conflicting parties can restore the cooperative (as opposed to competitive) element in their relationship, and generate integrative solutions that address both their fundamental needs. This approach links the problem-solving framework to their transformative framework described below, and shows that mediators with a problem-solving orientation can also focus on helping parties to transform their relationship.
2.1.2. Transformative Framework
In response to the problem-solving model, Bush and Folger (1994) articulated the transformative model of mediation. This model views conflict as a crisis in human interaction. Conflict
destabilises the parties’ experience of both self and other, such that they begin interacting in a vulnerable and self-absorbed way. When parties try to address their conflict in this state, conflict interaction tends to escalate and become destructive. However, parties also have the capacity to change the quality of their interactions to reflect “empowerment” (i.e. a sense of one’s capacity to handle life’s problems) and “recognition” (i.e. acknowledging or empathising with others’ situations). This model assumes that the transformation of the interaction itself is what matters most to the parties in conflict, even more than settlement on favourable terms.
Therefore, the mediator’s goal is to help parties to identify opportunities for
empowerment and recognition shifts as they arise in the parties’ conversation, and to change their interaction from destructive to constructive. Success is thus measured not by settlement per se but by the parties’ shifts towards personal strength, interpersonal responsiveness and constructive interaction. The transformative mediator typically uses the following interventions: yielding control of the mediation process, maintaining non-directiveness, and supporting parties’ exploration of critical differences. I will elaborate on these interventions in Chapter 5, when I analyse the practice of the community mediators.
2.1.3. Harmony Framework
The third framework that Bush and Folger identify — the harmony framework — views conflict as a disruption of a valued social order (i.e. harmony) that sustains and defines the larger
community in which the conflict occurs. The restoration of harmonious relationships (i.e. 4
reconciliation) that support the values of the community is thus the central goal of conflict interventions. Therefore, parties are expected to align their decisions and the outcomes of their conflicts with community norms. The mediator is usually a respected member of the community who cares about the maintenance of these norms. He/she employs several characteristic
intervention practices, namely: holding individual meetings with the parties (i.e. caucus), advising the parties, containing conflict interaction and encouraging face saving, apologies and forgiveness. These interventions will be described in greater detail in Chapter 5, as I analyse the
This framework has been observed in conflict intervention practices in a range of settings including: restorative
4
real-life interventions made by the mediators. Folger (2008: 850) clarifies that one possible outcome of transformative practice can be reconciliation. However, the objective of the transformative mediator is to help the parties decide whether reconciliation is what they want, not to insure that this occurs. In practice, this distinction between transforming the quality of the parties’ interactions and their relationship is easily blurred.
2.2. Mediator Orientation: Riskin’s Grid
One of the most influential models that used to locate the orientation of the mediator — in terms of how much influence he/she exerts on the mediated outcome — is Riskin’s grid (1994).
Mediator influence is tied to a core principle in mediation: party self-determination, that is, the parties’ freedom to make decisions about the process and outcome of the mediation. While there is much debate about the usefulness of Riskin’s grid, most mediators, including those whom I interviewed, describe their predominant style or approach using these terms.
Riskin’s original grid identifies two intersecting dimensions: (1) the role of the mediator (ranging from facilitative to evaluative); and (2) how the problem (i.e. issues addressed in mediation) is defined (ranging from narrow to broad). According to Riskin (2003), evaluative 5
mediators assume that the parties need guidance as to an appropriate settlement. Thus they tend to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a party’s position, and direct (or influence) the parties towards particular views of their problems, a particular outcome or toward settlement in general. Facilitative mediators, on the other hand, assume that his/her main goal is to enhance communication between parties in order to help them make their own decisions based on their understandings of their problems (Riskin 1996).
Riskin himself acknowledges that most mediators probably engage in behaviours that fit both categories, hence labelling a mediator’s role as either facilitative or evaluative does not give appropriate recognition to the interactive and dynamic process of mediation (Riskin 2003). So my aim in analysing the mediator’s practice is not simply to categorise them, but to show how they interpret these contested terms in practice. In 2003, Riskin replaced the
I focus on the role of the mediator because it is more relevant to my analysis of the mediator’s practice in Chapter
5
facilitative” dimension of his ‘old’ grid with the terms “directive-elicitive” to capture a wider range of mediator behaviour. He argues that almost any conduct by the mediator either “directs” the participants towards a particular procedure, perspective or outcome; or alternatively “elicits” the parties’ perspectives and preferences, and then tries to honour or accommodate them (Riskin 2003). Using these two terms helps us recognise that mediators can direct or push the parties towards particular outcomes through “selective facilitation” (i.e. directing discussion of outcomes the mediator favours, while not promoting discussions of outcomes he/she does not favour) — without explicitly evaluating a particular outcome (Riskin 2003: 32). The “directive” role is also helpful in analysing the behaviours of the mediators whom I study, as they are either forbidden to evaluate according to their code of conduct or strongly discouraged from doing so.
2.3. Tensions in Mediation Practice
This section will highlight some tensions encountered in mediation practice that the existing literature has already addressed, in order to provide points of reference for the case studies. In addition to these general tensions that are applicable to the practice of most mediators, I will point out the context-specific tensions of each programme in Chapters 4 and 5.
2.3.1. Neutrality
Mediator neutrality is central to the concept and practice of mediation. In most cases, the very legitimacy of the mediation process rests on the mediator’s perceived neutrality towards the parties. Indeed, all the mediators whom I interviewed spoke about the paramount importance of neutrality, but they seem to have different interpretations of what it means in theory and practice.
Neutrality is most often equated with impartiality, which refers to the mediator’s ability to interact with the parties without involving his/her own feelings, values or agendas. In other words, the mediator must avoid bias (Cobb & Rifkin 1991). An impartial mediator should handle the case without favouring or supporting one party. He/she should not be influenced by financial or personal connection with the disputants, or be aware of prejudicial information about either of the parties. Impartiality also ties in with the idea that the mediator does not actively influence the content or outcome of the mediation. Instead, the mediator’s task is to manage the process, to
provide a procedural framework within which the parties can decide what their dispute is about and how they wish to solve it. Neutrality in this sense is thus closely linked to consensual decision-making by the parties (Astor 2007).
The definition of neutrality as impartiality contradicts another interpretation of neutrality — equidistance. This refers to the ability of the mediator to assist the disputants equally in expressing their ‘side’ of the case (Odom 1986). For example, to get the parties to share information that is important for resolving the dispute, the mediator must sometimes align himself with the individual parties as they elaborate their positions. In contrast to impartiality, equidistance means that the mediator may at given moments favour one side or the other. In other words, mediators practise ‘bias’ in order to create a level playing field and to ensure that the interests of all parties are represented in the mediation process (Cobb & Rifkin 1991: 45).
Some have argued that in cases of obvious power imbalance between parties, the mediator should intervene to make sure that the outcome is ‘fair’. Substantive (instead of only procedural) interventions in such cases are justified because not doing so may result in the weaker party making ‘bad’ decisions and allow the stronger party to impose an unequal settlement, which would only serve to exacerbate existing inequalities (Dingwall 1988). This implies that the mediator has to impose his/her own vision of what is a fair outcome on the parties, usually according to normative standards. Community mediators also frequently deal with relational disputes that involve power imbalances (e.g. husband-wife, parent-child or tenant-landlord), so they have to confront the practical dilemma of respecting the parties’ autonomy and ensuring fair or just outcomes. I postulate that how exactly they negotiate these dilemmas in real-life situations is guided by the mediation models described in the previous section, as well as by the larger political and cultural context.
2.3.2. Harmony Ideology
Besides addressing power imbalances, mediators may also exert influence on the mediation outcome in order to restore harmony to the disputants’ relationship. Studies have found that in practice, mediators pressure parties to establish ‘good’ public identities, which emphasise altruism, peace, participation and teamwork or having a positive approach towards the
community (Nader 1990; Pavlich 1996). This could be because the mediator is guided by the harmony framework described above. Some scholars even argue that the preference for mediation in some societies is based on the prevalence of “harmony ideology”. According to Nader (1990: 2), “harmony ideology” is:
an emphasis on conciliation, recognition that resolution of conflict is inherently good and that its reverse — continued conflict or controversy — is bad or dysfunctional, a view of harmonious behavior as more civilized than disputing behavior, the belief that consensus is of greater survival value than controversy.
In the context of community mediation, individual conflicts are often framed as being harmful to the collective interests, so interested "communities" may pressure individuals to either enter into mediation and/or settle within mediation (McEwen & Milburn 1993). This view of harmony thus challenges the presumption that the pursuit of harmony benefits everyone and suggests that the early suppression and resolution of conflict can suppress individual rights and needs. Dispute resolution practices based on harmony ideology can even diminish community vitality, as conflicts that are ‘settled’ superficially but not fundamentally can still escalate and cause future problems.
2.4. The Community Mediator as ‘Street-level Conflict Manager’
This section introduces another theory which helps me to make sense of how community mediators function within their institutional niche. Lipsky’s (1980) concept of street-level bureaucracy provides a framework for understanding the role and practice of a ‘new’ type of frontline practitioner — what I call the “street-level conflict manager”. Several parallels can be drawn between the work of the street-level bureaucrat and that of the community mediator. They both have: (1) relatively high degrees of discretion; (2) relative autonomy from organisational authority; and (3) regular direct contact with citizens. Community mediators are not state agents per se, but they do similar ‘frontline work’ in delivering mediation services within an
institutional setting that is designed and managed by others. Just like how street-level bureaucrats “make” policy through their routines and coping devices (Lipsky 1980), the judgments and interventions that community mediators make also become mediation policy in practice. They
operate in the ambiguous yet potentially creative space between the state and the community, between the formal and informal forums of dispute resolution. Given their unique position, I argue that community mediators form an “organisational caste” with a shared institutional culture and identity (Maynard-Moody & Musheno 2000: 353).
I propose to study three features of the community mediators’ practice that also
characterise frontline work: (1) discretion; (2) institutional situatedness; and (3) improvisation. Discretion for the frontline practitioner is taken to mean choice or judgment within recognised boundaries. According to Lipsky (1980), street-level bureaucrats need discretion to apply (or ignore) rules and procedures to fit individual cases because real-life situations are often too complex to be reduced to programmatic formats. Therefore, the content of policy and its impact on those affected can thus be substantially modified during the implementation stage through the discretion of frontline workers. One can assume that community mediators have more discretion than street-level bureaucrats because they are volunteers and are thus not subject to the same rules and hierarchies that bound government employees. Managers cannot completely control what happens during mediation sessions because the specific processes and outcomes of each session are supposed to unfold from the spontaneous interaction between the parties and the mediators. Moreover, a key principle and ‘advantage’ of (private) mediation is that the details of each case, as well as the interactions between the parties and the mediators, are kept confidential. This means that the mediator is insulated from direct external supervision, at least in theory.
In reality, however, the mediator’s discretion is conditioned by many institutionally determined factors — what I call institutional boundaries — such as rules, practice guidelines, and even the physical setting in which they work. Brehm and Gates (1997) suggest that street-level decisions are subject to three other sources of control beyond supervisory regulation. First, street-level workers exercise considerable control over their own behaviour; to a large extent, their own beliefs, training and professionalism restrain their decisions and actions. Volunteer mediators also have to attend trainings endorsed by their organisations, abide by a code of conduct and follow certain rules and procedures within a dispute resolution framework.
Secondly, fellow street-level workers influence each other’s behaviour. Volunteer mediators also interact with each other in co-mediations, trainings and sharing sessions. Lastly, citizens whom
street-level workers interact with exert considerable influence over street-level decisions and actions. Similarly, community mediators also have to tailor their strategies and interventions to the unique circumstances of individual disputants and the dynamics between them.
Like street-level workers, community mediators must use their discretion to improvise within the limits of self-imposed rules and institutional boundaries.I argue that the very nature of mediation is improvisation because mediators have to respond creatively and pragmatically to an evolving conflict interaction in real time. This does not mean that the mediators can do whatever they want or whatever seems to make sense in the moment (Laws & Forester 2015: 356). Their choices are bound by the sources of control mentioned above and the institutional setting in which they operate. Moreover, their improvisations are characterised by respect for the self-determination of the parties, sensitivity to their identities and needs, as well as informed by their prior experience, training and mediation framework. Finally, a fundamental dilemma and
defining characteristic of street-level work is that the “needs of individual citizen-clients exist in tension with the demands and limits of rules” (Maynard-Moody & Musheno 2000: 349). I argue that this is also the defining trait of a community mediator. Therefore, tensions will inevitably surface as mediators try to respond to competing imperatives from different actors.
2.5. Summary
This chapter presents theories of mediation that will help me analyse the practice accounts of my interview subjects. The three frameworks of mediation articulated by Bush and Folger (1994) allow me to understand the motivations behind the mediators’ practice interventions. Riskin’s grid of mediators’ orientation, on the other hand, enables me to analyse the specific strategies and techniques that mediators employ. These theoretical frameworks are particularly relevant because they provide the bases for the mediation approach and practice norms of the two programmes. Hence, the mediators whom I interview also learn and apply these approaches and corresponding techniques in practice.
However, many mediators use interventions that fall under theoretically distinct frameworks, so my goal is not to label their nuanced approaches. The fact that mediators can
engage in a wide range of behaviours in one session shows that they are constantly exercising their discretion — that is, making moment-to-moment judgments about whether and how to intervene in a dynamic situation — the mediation process. Their discretion is limited by
boundaries that are a function of the institutional setting within which the mediators work. Hence they often have to improvise, in order to respond appropriately to the demands of cases and the demands of their setting. Given the improvisational and institutionally situated nature of their work, I argue that community mediators are a ‘new’ group of frontline practitioners — what I call ‘street-level conflict managers’. Like street-level bureaucrats, they often come across tensions in their work. One general tension is enacting neutrality in practice. In societies where “harmony ideology” is prevalent, mediators also have to negotiate the balance between collective and individual interests. The next chapter will explain how I designed my research in order to draw the links between the larger context, the institutional settings and the mediator’s practice.
Chapter 3: Research Design
This chapter describes and justifies the methods I employ to answer my central research question: How does political and cultural context shape the development of community
mediation programmes and the way they deal with relational disputes? I adopt a mixed method qualitative approach, combining textual analysis and interviews with key actors in two
community mediation programmes. Finally, I discuss the challenges of conducting my research as well as the ethical issues imbricated in the process.
3.1. Comparing Two Community Mediation Programmes: Singapore and Amsterdam Case studies are particularly useful for generating practical, context-dependent knowledge (Flyvbjerg 2004). They can also help to develop and evaluate theories, formulate hypotheses or explain phenomena by using theories (Vennesson 2008). The case study is an especially
appropriate method for studying community mediation because community mediation is, first and foremost, a practice that cannot be meaningfully understood through a purely theoretical lens. In fact, much of the so-called theory on community mediation (and mediation in general) is derived from case studies of existing programmes and mediator practices.
But why a comparative study? The community mediation programme in Singapore can be considered an “extreme” case (Flyvbjerg 2004) in two senses: first, it is a rare example of a fully state-run programme. Secondly, it is one of the few modern community mediation
programmes operating in an Asian-oriented cultural context. Thus, a case study of the Singapore programme alone will already yield rich information about how community mediation works in an atypical political and cultural context. It also has the potential to generate new hypotheses and/or refine theories about the influence of state sponsorship and culture on community mediation. However, conducting an isolated case study would not sufficiently demonstrate the specific ways in which the Singapore programme differs from programmes in other settings. As such, I decided to use another city-based programme as a point of comparison to highlight the distinctive features of the Singapore programme, which is my primary case. Moreover, to my knowledge, there have been no comparative studies of modern community mediation
programmes, so my relatively novel approach will advance methods of studying community mediation in general.
Case-oriented studies usually start with the idea that “social phenomena in like
settings...may parallel each other sufficiently to permit comparing and contrasting them” (Ragin 1997: 28). A preliminary survey of the two programmes reveal broad similarities in their
“settings” that provide a sound basis for a comparison. Singapore and Amsterdam are both highly developed (economically), densely-populated and multi-ethnic cities. Disputes over seemingly minor issues are common in urban areas where people, often from diverse
backgrounds, live in close proximity. The community mediation programmes in Singapore and Amsterdam both grew out of this modern urban context and receive state sponsorship (albeit to varying degrees), but they differ significantly in their ownership and operational structures. A detailed comparison of the key features of the two programmes will be provided in the next chapter.
3.2. Textual Analysis and Framing
The first part of my research seeks to identify and compare the features that characterise the two programmes, and to relate them to the larger cultural and political context. First I trace the historical development of both programmes by conducting a textual analysis of primary sources produced by the organisations that run the programmes. These include official reports, speeches, statements, websites and public education materials, among others. In my textual analysis, I focussed on the way in which community mediation is framed — that is, described and justified — by the organisations and their (state) sponsors. According to Gray (2003: 11), “framing involves shaping, focusing and organising the world around us.” In doing so, “we declare some aspects of our experience meaningful, while ignoring others.” (Gray 2005) In the same vein, actors involved in the design and implementation of community mediation programmes also focus attention and efforts on certain elements of community mediation, while marginalising others. I assume that what gets included in and excluded from the dominant frame of community mediation is determined, to a large extent, by the political and cultural context. Importantly, frames also affect how actors respond to situations, and position themselves with respect to
issues, events and to other parties (Gray 2005). Hence frames do influence how mediators conceptualise and practise community mediation. Since frames are embedded in social practices, discourses and institutions (Weick 1995), I hope to find out how the contextually conditioned frames of community mediation produce particular programmatic features and influence the practice of individual mediators.
3.3. Interviews
Interviews provide most of the data in this thesis because they allow me to uncover the nuanced ways in which mediators and managers make community-based conflict resolution systems work in a particular context. Essentially, I am interested in finding out what goes on in the details of practice, instead of accepting at face-value what is stated in policy documents or publicly advertised. The substantial literature on frontline practitioners point to a policy-practice gap: what is prescribed or described on paper does not always reflect what practitioners do in the real world (Hill 2003). After all, the highly contextualised strategies that frontline workers adopt, the repertoire of practices they engage in and the informed improvisations they make are often not documented. In-depth interviews are one of the few methods by which one can access the intricate details of the practitioners’ work, and to understand the complexity of situations that they have to deal with. I draw inspiration from Forester’s “practitioner profiles” (1999; 2006) — based on practice-focussed interviews that seek to reconstruct front-line workers’ actions in complex, messy settings. I hope that the mediators’ accounts would provide highly textured, first-hand insight into the internal workings of community mediation programmes and also shed light on the features of the larger context that these programmes are embedded in.
3.3.1. Community Mediators
The central question that I pose in this thesis is how political and cultural context influence the way community mediation programmes deal with relational disputes. I assume that the context-specific features and tensions of community mediation programmes get expressed through the individual mediator’s practice. As such, in-depth interviews with community mediators form the bulk of my research. I took a semi-structured approach to the interviews because structured
interviews would not offer me the flexibility to tease out the subtle differences in the mediators’ practice or to focus on particular issues that are unique to each mediator. At the same time, I wanted to find out specifically how these mediators negotiate tensions, and manage relationships within their institutional setting (see Research Questions in Chapter 1). An unstructured
interview may not allow me to explore these areas of interest adequately.
As such, I prepared an interview guide consisting of open-ended questions to serve as checklist for the relevant experiences and perspectives of the mediators. I posed three main types of questions in the following sequence. First, I asked the mediators to describe their community mediation programme and their role within it, in order to get a sense of how they attribute meaning to their work, and how their understandings compare with the dominant discourse of community mediation. The next set of questions asked the mediators to reconstruct how they go about mediating a case. Instead of asking, “What do you think of X?”, I asked, “How did you handle X?” or “How did you respond to X?” (Laws & Forester 2015: 7). I hoped that my “bias for practice” (Forester 1999; 2012) can help to reveal the potential discrepancies between the mediator’s espoused theory in action and his/her implicit theories-in-use that shape action (Argyris & Schon 1974). I also ask the mediators to talk about a particularly challenging case 6
that they handled. These cases can be compared to “critical moments” in street-level work, which arise when ‘normal’ action sequences get disrupted and demand repair (Leary 2004; Laws & Forester 2015). Such moments are particularly revealing of the context-specific tensions that characterise a programme as well as the individual mediator’s orientation (see Chapter 2), which gets manifested in the way they improvise in difficult situations. After all, street-level stories are inspired precisely by “ambiguous and conflictual situations, not routine events”, so my research is also “biased against the routine” (Maynard-Moody & Musheno 2000: 349). Finally, I asked the mediators to reflect on their interactions with their fellow mediators and managers, as well as their personal meaning of success, which may differ from the “bureaucratic and policy definition of success” (Maynard-Moody & Musheno 2000: 350). I hoped that these questions would give me a better idea of how mediators manage key relationships within their institutional niche.
Empirical studies have shown that a mediator’s professed ‘style’ may deviate from their actual behaviour during a
6
I first conducted semi-structured interviews with five community mediators from the Singapore Community Mediation Centre (CMC). I then transcribed the interviews and analysed 7
them according to a set of predetermined codes (i.e. themes), based on relevant issues (e.g. tensions in the mediator’s practice) that I had already identified in the literature and from my own textual analysis. I then inductively identified additional themes that emerged from the interviews, generating new coding categories as a result. Based on this new coding system, I conducted similar face-to-face interviews with three Amsterdam mediators. I wanted to find out if they encountered similar tensions as their Singaporean counterparts and if so, how they dealt with these practical challenges.
3.3.2. Others
I also conducted semi-structured interviews via Skype with three CMC staff, who had different roles in operations, volunteer management, and publicity and liaison, respectively. These
interviews were designed to help me to better understand the evolving framework of community mediation in Singapore, and specifically, how a case gets processed through this system. I paid particular attention to how these managers frame (i.e. describe, rationalise and evaluate) the programme. I looked out for similarities and differences between their views and those of the mediators, regarding the goals of community mediation, their working relationships, definitions of success, and so on. I was especially interested in how the managers coped with practical challenges because these can reveal tensions in the design of the programme.
In addition, I conducted an email interview with the former Senior Minister of State for Law, who oversaw the establishment of the CMC and currently chairs the Advisory Committee on Community Mediation. This interview clarified my understanding of the government’s rationale for setting up the community mediation programme in Singapore and gave me further insight into its strategic development of the programme over the years. I also conducted
unstructured, exploratory interviews with two academics who have written about community
All interviews were conducted via Skype, except for an email interview with one mediator. They lasted
7
mediation in Singapore. They offered critical outsiders’ perspectives that actors within the community mediation system may lack.
In Amsterdam, I conducted a semi-structured interview with the director of Beter Buren to clarify certain features about the programme that I could not find in publicly accessible, textual sources. Finally, I interviewed the founder of Beter Buren, who gave me a better
understanding of the founding ideals of Beter Buren and larger context from which community mediation in the Netherlands emerged.
3.4. Challenges in the Research Process
The main challenge in the research process was getting access to potential interviewees and managing the interview process. To begin with, I had to liaise with the CMC to gain access to community mediators in Singapore. I initially wanted to do narrative interviews with the 8
mediators to get detailed reconstructions of their work, but I had to adapt my research design because the CMC staff requested to see the interview questions before they agreed to identify suitable interviewees. While the CMC considered these mediators to have sufficient experience to answer my questions, they were not as representative a sample as I had hoped for, in terms of age, gender, ethnicity and mediation experience (see Chapter 5 for the mediators’ profiles). However, the fact that the managers and mediators got a chance to look at the interview questions beforehand meant that they probably thought through their responses. I also tried to help the interviewees develop information by asking them to extend their accounts, fill in details and relate inner events (Weiss 1994: 75). Although I suggested contacting the mediators directly, the CMC arranged for the interviews to be held in their office at fixed times. The time constraint made it difficult for me to delve deeper into interesting issues that emerged during the
interviews. The interviews were also conducted via Skype, which limited my ability to build rapport with the interviewees, read nonverbal cues and capture nuances in their responses.
It is postulated that the perspective of the interviewee is best revealed in stories where he/she is using
8
his/her own spontaneous language rather than following the interviewer’s “relevance structures”. Narrative interviewing thus seeks to minimise the interviewer’s influence on the interviewee’s perspective. (Bauer 1996: 2-3)
Similarly, I could only contact the Amsterdam mediators through Beter Buren, and those who acceded to my request were self-selecting. However, the interviewees do reflect the general profile of mediators in their respective programmes. That said, the aim of my thesis is not to formally generalise about the practice of community mediators, but to use the ‘force of example’ to advance knowledge in the fields of community mediation and street-level practice (Flyvbjerg 2004). Like Laws and Forester (2015), I believe that no good theory exists to describe what frontline practitioners do because the nature of their work is fundamentally context-specific and improvisational. Conceptualising the practice of ‘street level conflict managers’ thus requires unconventional theorising, so I hope that by drawing on several theoretical frameworks, I can better characterise the complexity and adaptiveness of their practice.
3.5. Ethical Issues
My main ethical concern in the research process is respecting the confidentiality and sensitivities of the interviewees. As the CMC requested to see my interview questions before granting me the interviews, I was careful to phrase the questions in an open way, without offering any
anticipations (Weiss 1994: 74). I tried to be as transparent as possible about the purpose and format of the interviews, and also shared the quotes that I used in my analysis with the
interviewees before submitting my thesis. I respected the decision of the CMC to keep all quotes (from the mediators and the staff) anonymous, except for the email interview with one mediator. In my analysis of the research findings, I omitted details that would lead to the interviewees being identified, but still tried to include sufficient information about the cases so that the issues which I intend to explore will come through. In addition, I promised to share my findings with the CMC and Beter Buren, in the hope that my study can contribute to reflection and learning within both programmes. After all, I want to give back to the people and organisation that I am studying. I will also have to present my research findings in a way that will not lead the
interviewees to strongly disagree with my interpretation and conclusions. Essentially, I have to balance my academic independence and my responsibility to the concerns of my research subjects.
3.6. Summary
This chapter lays out the research design that enables me to answer my research questions. I conducted a comparative case study of two community mediation programmes — one in Amsterdam and the other in Singapore. The Singapore case is an “extreme case” because it is one of the few fully state-run community mediation programmes in an Asian cultural context. Thus it provides fertile material for generating practical knowledge and potentially develop theories about community mediation. To highlight the distinctive features of the Singapore programme, I compare it with another community mediation programme based in Amsterdam. The first part of my research identifies the key features of the two community mediation programmes through textual analysis of primary materials. I pay particular attention to how community mediation is framed in the two countries, so as to better draw links between context, programmatic features and the mediators’ practice. The second part of my research examines how community mediators work within these programmes, as well as manage tensions and key relationships. I encountered difficulties in the interview process but managed to gather
sufficiently detailed material to capture how both programmes work as a whole as well as how individual mediators practice. The next chapter will present the first part of my findings.
Chapter 4: Background of Case Studies
This chapter situates the programmes in their respective contexts and compares their key features. First, it describes the respective political and cultural contexts in which the two programmes developed, and shows how these contexts give rise to different rationales for the programmes. It then highlights key features of the programmes and compares them. Essentially, the political and cultural backdrop shapes the goals and design of the programmes. The larger context and the resultant programmatic features combine to form the setting in which community mediators operate in; this setting in turn conditions their practice. I will introduce my primary case, the Singapore programme, first; followed by the Amsterdam programme.
4.1. Singapore
4.1.1. Political and Cultural Context
Singapore is a city-state with one of the highest population densities in the world. The population of Singapore is multi-ethnic and multi-religious. Chinese (74.3%), Malays (13.3%) and Indians (9.1%) make up the three main ethnicities, whereas Buddhism/Taoism (44.2%), Islam (14.7%) and Hinduism (5.1%) are the three major religions (Department of Statistics 2015). More than 80% of residents, including foreign-born permanent residents, live in high-rise flats built by the government (Department of Statistics 2015). The non-resident population also increased at an unprecedented rate from 2000 to 2010, and currently makes up about 30% of the total population (Department of Statistics 2011). These demographics make Singapore an especially
heterogenous society.
The Singapore government has always regarded the management of ethnic tensions as a fundamental aspect of national development and political stability. This strong existential
imperative to prevent racial and religious conflict stem from the country’s experience with racial riots right before it gained independence from Malaysia in 1965, and its precarious position as a Chinese-majority state surrounded by countries with predominantly Muslim populations. Moreover, Singapore has a strong interventionist government which plays an active role in the
economy and society (Wee 2001). Since the justification for state power is the government’s ability to sustain economic development, almost all aspects of social life are open to state intervention to ensure social stability and economic growth (Chua 1995). Such interventions include implementing racial quotas for public housing to ensure racial integration and launching various national campaigns to cultivate certain desired attitudes, like courtesy and graciousness, among citizens.
4.1.2. Origins of the Community Mediation Programme
Why did the Singaporean government decide to introduce a community mediation programme in the late 1990s? Community mediation grew out of the government’s broader initiative to
promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for commercial and civil disputes. In 9
view of the success of ADR processes in reducing court caseloads, the government believed that ADR could also help to resolve interpersonal disputes (Tan 2007). Therefore, in 1996, an inter-agency Committee on ADR (henceforth referred to as the “ADR Committee”) conducted a feasibility study and recommended that the government set up a community mediation programme.
The ADR Committee provided two main reasons for establishing such a programme. Firstly, as Singapore was evolving into a highly urbanised society, it was anticipated that the volume of civil disputes will rise with increasing social interactions. Litigation was “adversarial, costly, time-consuming and disruptive”, hence the need for a “less costly, faster and
non-adversarial mechanism” to resolve conflicts, which would also lessen the workload of the courts (ADR Committee 1997: 5). Community mediation is thus framed as a more efficient (i.e. cost and time-saving) and appropriate way (i.e. less adversarial) of resolving interpersonal disputes.
Secondly, the ADR Committee stressed the need to prevent interpersonal conflicts from escalating and creating problems for society. It observed that:
ADR processes include arbitration, mediation, negotiation, mini-trial and other hybrid forms of dispute resolution
9
that take place outside of the formal court system. While there are private mediation services in Singapore that deal with relational disputes, community mediation at the national level is initiated and actively promoted by the government.
