Committees Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution News Release: Leading regional mediation centres ink ground breaking MOU 
| News Release: Leading regional mediation centres ink ground breaking MOU |
|
|
|
| Monday, 20 August 2007 08:58am | |
|
Leading regional mediation centres ink ground breaking MOU in Singapore to provide regional dispute resolution framework for Asian businesses Singapore, 17 August 2007 – Five leading mediation centres have agreed to pool their resources to promote and facilitate the use of mediation to amicably settle the disputes of businesses operating in the region. Together, they will provide a regional dispute resolution infrastructure for conflict management and dispute resolution that will support the increasing cross-border investment and trade activities of the fast growing Asian economies. The Hong Kong Mediation Centre, the Indonesian Mediation Center, the Malaysian Mediation Centre, the Philippine Mediation Center and the Singapore Mediation Centre have signed an MOU to form the Asian Mediation Association (AMA) 《亚洲调解协会》. The signing ceremony was witnessed by the Honourable Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, the Honourable Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin and more than 150 other distinguished guests at the 10th Anniversary Gala Luncheon of the Singapore Mediation Centre in the Four Seasons Hotel, Singapore. The MOU was signed by Ms. Sylvia Siu, JP, Chairman of Board of Governors, Hong Kong Mediation Centre; Mr. Denaldy M. Mauna, Chairman of Indonesian Mediation Centre; Datuk Haji Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari, Chairman of Malaysian Mediation Centre; Professor Emmanuel L. Caparas, Chairman, Court Technology Department, PHILJA, Appellate Court Mediator, Court of Appeals, representing the Philippine Mediation Centre and Justice Andrew Ang, Chairman, Singapore Mediation Centre. In his welcome address, Justice Andrew Ang, Chairman, Singapore Mediation Centre said, "In the next decade, the SMC will intensify its efforts and work together with the best centres in Asia to create a framework for, and to facilitate, regional co-operation in the provision of conflict management for cross-border disputes. It will work together with these centres to set up common platforms for promoting the use of mediation, developing a culturally appropriate model of dispute resolution in Asia, and creating a system of case referral that will serve the best interest of businesses operating in the region." The Secretariat of AMA will be established at the Singapore Mediation Centre, Singapore. AMA intends to bring on board more Asian members to widen its network of cooperation and is currently in talks with several other centres. Among other things, the members of the AMA will establish a system for a member organisation to refer disputes to other member organisations in cases where a neutral venue for conflict management and resolution is required. For example, a dispute between a disputant from Member A’s country and another from Member B’s country may be referred for mediation at Member C. The members of the AMA will also co-operate in research and development to advance the field of mediation, and to develop a culturally appropriate model of conflict management and resolution for Asia.
The SMC 10th Anniversary Celebrations marked a decade of the
SMC providing mediation and other related dispute resolution services since its
launch on 16 August 1997. In recent years, SMC has also established a prominent
presence in the international alternative dispute resolution community by
providing consultancy and training and forming strong partnerships with its
counterparts all over the world. The SMC has trained people from more than 50
countries. About Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) is a non-profit organisation established in 1997 to provide commercial mediation services. It is structured as a company limited by guarantee of the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL). With the support of the Singapore Judiciary, the SAL, the Ministry of Law and various professional and trade organisations, the SMC has successfully spearheaded the mediation movement in Singapore and continues to promote the use of mediation and other non-confrontational dispute resolution methods. Over 1,300 civil disputes of all types and involving different quantum of claims (up to multi-million dollar disputes) have been referred for mediation at the SMC. An impressive 75% of these have successfully reached amicable settlements with more than 90% of these settled within one day. For more information on SMC, please visit http://www.mediation.com.sg/ About Hong Kong Mediation Centre (HKMC) Hong Kong Mediation Centre (HKMC) is a company limited by guarantee and enjoys the status of a charitable institution recognized by the government. It is also the first non-profit corporate mediation institution with charitable institution status in Hong Kong. It is made up of a group of professionals interested in the promotion of mediation and other kinds of dispute resolution. HKMC is driven by its mission to practise, promote, develop and institutionalize mediation as a way of life so as to build up harmonious families, neighbours, workplaces, business communities, human relationships and societies in Hong Kong. About The Indonesian Mediation Center (IMC) The Indonesian Mediation Center (IMC) is an independent, non-profit Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) body dedicated to resolving commercial disputes and mediation training. Being staffed with experienced mediators drawn from diverse areas of law, banking, engineering and business, The Indonesian Mediation Center can provide the right mediator for any dispute and is recognized as the mediation leader in Indonesia. The establishment of a sustainable ADR facility in Indonesia is as a necessary complement to various policy initiatives aimed at revitalizing Indonesia's economy, especially in terms of stimulating businesses that are major participants in the chain of jobs creation, foreign direct investment, industrial orders and production. About Malaysian Mediation Centre (MMC) Malaysian Mediation Centre (MMC) is a body established under the auspices of the Malaysian Bar Council with the objective of promoting mediation as a means of alternative dispute resolution and providing a proper avenue for successful dispute resolutions. The Centre offers mediation services and provides mediation training for those interested in becoming mediators and accredits and maintains a panel of mediators. Currently, MMC is made up of lawyers who have completed the training program for mediation and deals with civil, commercial and matrimonial matters and intends to expand the scope to other matters at a later stage. About Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) Pursuant to Supreme Court “en banc” Resolution A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA, dated October 16, 2001, and in line with the objectives of the Action Program for Judicial Reforms (APJR) to decongest court dockets, among others, the Court prescribed guidelines in institutionalizing and implementing the mediation program in the Philippines. The same resolution designated the Philippine Judicial Academy as the component unit of the Supreme Court for Court-Annexed Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms, and established the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC). Pending the formal creation of a more organized and structured Philippine Mediation Center, a Mediation Division at the Judicial Reforms Office of the Philippine Judicial Academy-Supreme Court, was established to oversee and manage Mediation Center Units all over the country. Since its inception in 2001, the Mediation Center Units have grown from seventeen (17) units in the National Capital Region to One Hundred Thirteen (113) Units located in Ten (10) out of the Thirteen (13) Regions in the country. Speech by the Honourable Justice Andrew Ang The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Good afternoon.
It is my pleasure to welcome all of you to the Singapore Mediation Centre’s 10th Anniversary Luncheon. We at the Singapore Mediation Centre (“SMC”) are truly honoured to have you here to celebrate this special occasion with us. We are particularly grateful to our friends from the Hong Kong Mediation Centre, the Indonesian Mediation Center, the Malaysian Mediation Centre and the Philippine Mediation Center for travelling long distances and gracing this celebration with their presence. 2. Much as I am tempted to trot out our achievements in the past 10 years on an occasion such as this, I shall stoutly resist the urge and make sure that all of us have ample time to enjoy the food, the programme and each other’s company. I will therefore limit myself to just 2 points - acknowledging those who have brought the SMC to where it is today, and sharing with you, very briefly, one of the areas of focus of the SMC in the next decade. Acknowledgments 3. First of all, we at the SMC must thank Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong. We would not be here celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the SMC if not for the foresight of the Chief Justice. It was Chief Justice Chan, who as the Attorney-General back then in 1996, observed at the 1996 Opening of the Legal Year that amicable settlement of disputes through mediation ought to be encouraged. He expressed the hope for mediation to be institutionalised in Singapore through the establishment of a commercial mediation centre. That planted the seed for the SMC, and marked the beginning of the centre. That expression of hope came to fruition on 16 August 1997, exactly 10 years and 1 day ago, when the SMC was launched by our retired Chief Justice Yong Pung How. 4. Next, I wish to acknowledge my illustrious predecessors, the 2 previous chairmen of the SMC. Firstly, there was former Justice Goh Joon Seng, who steered SMC through its formative years, laying down the foundation for a strong and dynamic organisation. He was succeeded by JA Chao Hick Tin (as he then was), who brought it to even greater heights. Under these 2 chairmen, the SMC built an impressive body of accomplishments. But I have a bone to pick with them. I have not quite forgiven them for leaving me these big shoes to fill. 5 The SMC has been blessed with many supporters right from its inception. You will see that the people the SMC wishes to express its gratitude to would make the acknowledgment list of any Oscar winner appear rather short. (i) We thank the Judiciary, which has been unstinting in its support. In particular, we are very grateful for the strong endorsement of the former Chief Justice Yong Pung How, which accounted for the quick acceptance of mediation and the early successes of the SMC. Both the Supreme Court and Subordinate Courts have been referring cases suitable for mediation to the SMC since its launch in 1997. (ii) We thank the Attorney-General’s Chambers, previously under the helm of Chief Justice Chan and now, under Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin, which has been unwaveringly encouraging the inclusion of mediation clauses in Government contracts and setting an example for industry groups in the private sector to follow. (iii) We thank the Ministry of Law and the Singapore Academy of Law, which have been generously providing financial and many other forms of invaluable support. (iv) We thank all our Mediators, Adjudicators, Singapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Panellists and Neutral Evaluators, who have worked tirelessly and contributed many hours of their time to the growth of the Centre. (v) We thank the members on our Board of Advisors, Advisory Committee on Construction Mediation, Singapore Information Technology Dispute Resolution Advisory Committee and Resource Panel on the International Promotion of ADR, who have patiently guided the centre with their wisdom and unique industry experience throughout the past decade. (vi) Last but certainly not least, we thank all our MOU partners and clients, to whom we are most grateful for their goodwill and friendship. 6. The contributions of all of you whom we have just acknowledged have helped the SMC to grow from strength to strength. It now offers not only mediation but a full suite of dispute resolution services, including neutral evaluation, med-arb and adjudication under the Singapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. Today, it has diversified its training repertoire and offers more than 10 different types of conflict resolution programmes. It has established for itself a reputation as one of the leading training providers having trained people from more than 50 countries worldwide. Focus in the Next Decade 7 Looking ahead, with globalisation and rapid technological advances, transnational dealings will become even more common. The SMC has been building up its resources and capabilities to resolve disputes arising from such dealings for some time now. For example, the SMC has an International Panel of Mediators with experienced and well-known peace-makers, like Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh (who is our special guest speaker for today), former President of Finland Mr Martti Ahtisaari and Adviser and Special Envoy of the President of Indonesia Mr Ali Alatas. In the next decade, the SMC will intensify its efforts and work together with the best centres in Asia to create a framework for, and to facilitate, regional co-operation in the provision of conflict management for cross-border disputes. It will work together with these centres to set up common platforms for promoting the use of mediation, developing a culturally appropriate model of dispute resolution in Asia, and creating a system of case referral that will serve the best interest of businesses operating in the region. 8. To this end, the SMC, together with the Hong Kong Mediation Centre, the Indonesian Mediation Center, the Malaysian Mediation Centre, and the Philippine Mediation Center, will be signing a Memorandum of Understanding to form the Asian Mediation Centre (“AMA”) a little while later. By pooling our expertise, experience, best practices and other resources together, we can advance the field of dispute resolution thus meeting the needs of businesses operating in the region, particularly those engaged in cross-border transactions. 9. I have promised to be brief and to touch only on 2 points. I will therefore close now by asking for your continued support. You have made possible for the SMC a decade of excellence in resolving disputes. We look forward to working together with you to make the next decade an excellent one as well. 10. Thank you. THE SINGAPORE MEDIATION CENTRE’S Introduction
2 A few months later, Dr Boutros-Ghali called me and requested me to accept appointment as his Special Envoy to undertake a “mission impossible”. I told the Secretary-General that the chances of success were very slim but would be enhanced if I had the unanimous support of the five permanent members of the Security Council. I requested him to inform them of his intention to appoint me and to get their backing. Dr Boutros-Ghali refused to do so on the ground that the resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly had empowered him to make the appointment without consulting the Security Council. I respected his position but declined the appointment. 3. In the summer of 1993, I received another call from Dr Boutros-Ghali requesting me to accept appointment as his Special Envoy to Russia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. I decided not to rebuff him for the third time but confessed to him that I had never been to the four countries. In a humourous response, he said, “That’s good. You will go with an open mind and carry no baggage from the past”. When my appointment was reported in The Straits Times, several of my wife’s friends called her to express concern for my safety. They had, understandably, confused the Baltics with the Balkans! The Historical Background The three Baltic countries, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, are, like Singapore, relatively small countries. Estonia has a population of 1.3 million. Its beautiful capital is called Tallinn. Its neighbours are Russia to the east, Latvia to the south and Sweden to the west. It lies opposite Finland, with which it shares commonalties of language and culture. Estonia existed as an independent country from 1918 to 1939 and since 1991. Estonia was occupied by Soviet Union in 1940 and Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944 and lost its independence when Stalin incorporated it into the Soviet Union in the fall of 1944. In 1993, there were between 5,000 and 6,000 Russian troops and about 50,000 Russian veterans and retirees in Estonia. There was also a Russian nuclear submarine training centre in Paldiski which had been closed but had to be carefully dismantled and removed. Latvia 4. Latvia has a population of 2.2 million and its beautiful capital is called Riga. It is located between Estonia in the north, Russia to the east, Lithuania to the south and Belarus to the southeast. It was an independent country from 1918 to 1939. It was occupied by Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944 and also lost its independence when it was incorporated into the Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War. In 1993, there were 18,000 Russian troops and about 20,000 Russian pensioners and their families in Latvia. In addition, Russia had a naval base in Liepaja, an anti-ballistic missile early warning system in Skrunda and a facility in Venspils to monitor space objects (Russian version) or to eavesdrop on communications in Northern Europe (Latvian version). Lithuania 5. Lithuania has a population of 3.5 million and its historic capital is called Vilnius. It is located between Latvia to the north, the Baltic Sea to the west and Poland to the south. Russia enjoys sovereignty over a corridor passing through Lithuanian territory to the Baltic port of Kaliningrad. Lithuania was the luckiest of the three Baltic States and suffered the least harm and damage from Stalin. Estonia and Latvia had resisted Stalin’s unilateral decision to incorporate them into the Soviet Union. In reprisal, Stalin sent the anti-Soviet elites of the two countries into exile in Siberia. Many perished. In Lithuania, as then President Brazauskas had explained to me, they decided not to resist Stalin. Instead, they all joined the Communist Party. As a result, there were very few Russian soldiers or settlers in Lithuania. Break-up of the Russian Empire 6. The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Russian empire was a truly historic event. A major burden for the new Russian Government was the return of the Red Army from the various Soviet republics which had become independent, and the need to build housing and to find jobs for the returnees. I saw for myself, at a military camp outside Moscow, the terrible conditions in which the troops and their families, which had returned from Lithuania, were being housed. This convinced me that the withdrawal of the Russian troops had to be phased and that there should be an international effort to help Russia build decent housing for the returnees. The UN General Resolution 47/21 of 1992 7. On 24 August 1991, Russia agreed to restore independence to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and formally recognised their independent status on 6 September 1991. The Baltic States demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops from their territories. The four governments held several rounds of talks between 1992 and 1993 on an agenda consisting of the timing for the withdrawal of the Russian troops, the welfare of the Russian populations in those countries, and questions relating to the submarine training centre in Estonia, and the three facilities in Latvia. Frustrated by the slow pace of progress, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania submitted the question to the UN General Assembly and succeeded in persuading the Assembly to adopt a resolution (47/21) which, inter alia, urged the Secretary- General to “use his good offices”. The Secretary-General appointed me to carry out his mandate. The Office of the UN Secretary-General’s Envoy 8. The role of the Special Envoy is similar to that of an international mediator. He is not an arbitrator or a judge. A Special Envoy can only make recommendations to the parties to a dispute. It is up to them to decide whether to accept his recommendations or not. Before embarking on my mission, I spent several months reading all the books and literature I could find on the histories and cultures of the three Baltic countries and their relations with Russia, Germany and other neighbours. When I visited Moscow, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, I practised the art of deep listening. I tried my best to understand their different perspectives, their demands and their feelings and to be fair in my recommendations. 9 I enlisted the support of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the European Community, the CSCE (now called OSCE), and countries which were willing to help resolve the problem, such as, the United States, Germany and the Scandinavian countries. I tried to persuade the Russians, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians to show goodwill and flexibility towards each other. In Estonia and Latvia, where I encountered strong anti-Russia feelings, I urged them to forgive Stalin for the many atrocities he had committed against them and to look to the future. I gently reminded them that they were destined to live next door to Russia, which was weak then but would be strong again. At the end of my mission, I submitted a report to the Secretary-General which was, in turn, submitted to the UN General Assembly. My Recommendations 10. I will never forget the day I arrived in Vilnius from
Moscow, on 31 August 1993. I was received by the Chief of Protocol at the
airport and taken to the square in front of the Parliament where I found that
thousands of people had gathered to celebrate the happy day on which the last
Russian combat troops had left Lithuanian territory. From the Parliament Square,
I was escorted to the President’s Residence where another party was being held.
When I was introduced to President Brazauskas, I congratulated him and asked him
for the story. He was a big and humourous man. He was formerly the head of the
Lithuanian Communist Party and a good friend of Boris Yeltsin. He said that, in
anticipation of my visit, he had called Yeltsin on 30 August and persuaded him
to agree to withdraw the few remaining Russian troops the next day. I was, of
course, overjoyed because the problem had been solved. 11, The situation in Latvia was more complicated. I made the following recommendations. First, on the timing for the withdrawal of Russian troops, I appealed to both sides to compromise. To the Russians, I explained that an earlier date was important to the Latvians for political and psychological reasons. To the Latvians, I pleaded for patience in order to give the Russians the time needed to build housing for the 18,000 troops and their families. Second, on the fate of the 20,000 Russian military pensioners and their families, I found out that 87 per cent of them would like to remain in Latvia and become Latvian citizens. I recommended that those who had settled in Latvia, before 4 May 1990, the date on which Latvia had declared its independence, should be granted permanent residence. As most of the pensioners were elderly, I also recommended that their housing and medicare should not be withdrawn. Third, after visiting the Russian naval base in Liepaja, I was not persuaded by Russia’s request to retain the base for an additional five to six years. Fourth, as for Skrunda and Venspils, I recommended that the two sides should negotiate agreements for Russia to lease those facilities, for an agreed period of time, so that she could replicate those facilities inside Russian territory. Estonia 12. Estonia was the most difficult case. This was partly due to the fact that of the three countries, Estonians suffered the most under Stalin and because of the large numbers of Russian military retirees and their families, amounting to 52,000. The then President of Estonia, Mr L. Meri, explained to me that about a third of the Estonian population, including his own family, had been deported to Siberia. The recent incident, resulting from the Estonian Government’s decision to relocate a statue of a Russian soldier from the centre of the city to a less conspicuous location, is a reminder that both communities in Estonia are still haunted by the ghosts of the past. I was scolded by some members of the Estonian Parliament when I urged them to embrace the virtue of forgiveness. 13. I made the following recommendations concerning Estonia. First, on the date of the troop withdrawal, I suggested a compromise between the Estonians’ deadline of end 1993 and the Russians’ deadline of end 1994. Second, concerning the discontinued nuclear submarine training centre at Paldiski, I urged the two sides to solve the problem as a technical, not a political one. The nuclear reactors had been deactivated but the nuclear fuel rods, the nuclear waste in storage and other nuclear materials had to be taken out by rail to St Petersburg. If necessary, I suggested to the two parties to request the help of IAEA. 14. Third, the most contentious issue was the fate of the 52,000 Russian settlers who wished to remain in Estonia because they had no homes in Russia to go back to. I recommended that all those who had retired before Estonia regained its independence should be allowed to remain in Estonia and continue to enjoy their housing and medical benefits. In a meeting with representatives of the Russian Union of Veterans and Pensioners, I told them that they could no longer expect to enjoy special rights and privileges but should be treated with fairness and humanity. I also said that those Russians who wanted to become Estonian citizens must be loyal to Estonia, learn its language and respect its culture. Success of the Mission 15. My peace mission to Russia and the Baltics was successful
because I was lucky with the timing and because my efforts complemented those of
several other organisations, countries and individuals. In 1993, Russia was weak
and in serious economic difficulties. Yeltsin needed the help of the West and
was willing to be cooperative in the Baltics. The Baltic countries had many
champions apart from the UN, including the European Community, the Council for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (now renamed as OSCE), the Council of Europe,
the United States, Germany and the Scandinavian countries. Denmark, Norway and
the US had provided Russia with financial assistance to help her build housing
for the returning troops and their families. I must also acknowledge my thanks
to the then US Ambassador in Moscow, Tom Pickering. Ambassador Pickering
arranged for me to meet one of President Yeltsin’s staffers in the Kremlin, who
apparently had more influence with the President than the hardliners in the
Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defence with whom I was negotiating. 16. My one experience of having served as an international mediator was a positive one. I am glad that I was able to make a small contribution to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and their important relations with Russia. Since 1993, the three Baltic countries have made impressive economic progress. They also feel more secure as members of the EU and NATO. I believe that there are other Singaporeans as well as other Asians who would make good international mediators. I believe that Singapore can become an international mediation centre of Asia. I hope that the Singapore Mediation Centre, which has been successful in promoting mediation as a modality for settling disputes in Singapore, would consider expanding its role to include international mediation. 17. Thank you. Set as favourite Share Email This Comments (0)
 Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
• Speech by the Honourable Justice Andrew Ang, Chairman,
Singapore Mediation Centre
Datuk Haji Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari, Chairman of Malaysian
Mediation Centre said, "We are very pleased to be part of AMA. Mediation has
long Asian roots. I believe that a concerted effort of the members of AMA will
go a long way to developing an approach to resolving differences that is
consistent with our Asian culture and values, and which will be welcomed by
Asian businesses or others operating out of the region. I also believe that the
strong bonds between the members will augur well for the future of mediation in
Asia."
Welcome
1. In 1992, the then UN Secretary-General, Dr Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, had approved of the manner in which I had managed and chaired the
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. He asked me to join his cabinet in New York and
to take charge of all matters relating to environment and sustainable
development. I declined on the ground that I saw a conflict of interest in going
from chairing the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) to taking
on a position on the issues covered by the Conference, in the UN Secretariat. He
told me that he did not see any conflict of interest.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Circular No 023/2012: Talk on ISO 9001 | 2008 Quality Management System Certification
