Tan Kin Lian's Blog: 20 year impasse

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

20 year impasse

Someone attacked me for posting my views about the 20 year impasse in reaching agreement on the bilaterial issues and challenged me to state what I would have done if I were "PM, SM or MM". It is difficult to be engaged in a discussion with a vile person whose primary purpose is to attack another person under anonymity.

I like to give my views in this hypothetical situation. It would not be possible to judge if my approach would achieve any useful results. I would approach this issue on the personal values that I follow:

- honesty
- fairness
- positive
- courage
- public service

If we are honest and fair, it would be easy to win the trust of the other party. Both parties can look at the positive aspects and focus on what each side could gain from the cooperation.

I sense that one side felt that the Points of Agreement was not fair to them (for whatever reasons) and although it was agreed, they would find other ways to get out of the deal. The other side insisted that "a deal is a deal" and should be honored. This explains the impasse that lasted for 20 years. Both sides need the courage to recognise that the earlier deal would not work, and that a new approach had to be taken (without waiting for 20 years).

As this is a hypothethical case, no one know whether it would have worked. I invite other people, wishing to give their views, to give their name and to refrain from passing judgement in this hypothetical case, or to make personal attacks.

Tan Kin Lian

6 comments:

Tan Kin Lian said...: I looked up the definition of the word "vile" which I used to describe the person who continues to attack me under any circumstance.

This word is explained as "morrally despicable or abbhorent".

I have described the backgrounds of two people who continued to attack me. One is a top manager in an insurance company. Another is a cranky person who is unemployed and has plenty of free time.; June 01, 2010 7:11 AM
Anonymous said...: But "a deal, is a deal"

- You vote, and then you live with the consequences for the next 5 years.; June 01, 2010 7:26 AM
Anonymous said...: It is very obvious that the 20 year
impasse is a very long time, how many more 20 years in our life time could we be kept waiting.
If the political torch has been handed over completely to the younger PAP MPs, instead of having the MM and SMs still pulling strings behind the scene, agreement
would have been reached much faster, as the much younger PAP leaders do not have to deal with historical baggage, which is the stumbling block during talks.
You could say MM Lee is a liability
in this aspect, as he is main figure during the Malaysia/Singapore spat before separation.
As for the two "vile" posters on TKL's blog, there are frustrated people who do not know how what to do, other than attacking anon, very soon they would have to enter Woodbridge for treatment.; June 01, 2010 10:27 AM
C H Yak said...: Q
"The other side insisted that "a deal is a deal" and should be honored."
UQ

I believe once a PoA is inked and signed ... the deal at the macro level is firmed. At that level, I do agree that a deal should be a deal.

But at the implementation and technical level, things often do not happen so simply. This is something I observed and experienced even in mega-projects locally in Singapore. Singaporeans (particularly Authorities)take "contracts" and "Agreements" too succinctly; especially those in public service, and would insist they are always smarter and always right, even if they actually are unreasonable. Their tactic is always to "push-away" costs or responsibilities first without even looking at it...and then consider to deliberate again if the other party reacts strongly to oppose.

But honestly, what is "signed and agreed" could never be 100% clear, In projects, we have "variation" works whether originally embedded or newly ordered and there is always a standard variation clause in most standard FOC, but complication and interpretation do take place during implementation and execution...there is need to look at it objectively. I believe it is the same for a PoA.

I believe cross-cultural barriers and difficulties then crop up negotiation, especially when each party tries to assert and get a better deal out of it, or simply just to push away costs.

I believe the above also happened to the Suzhou Ind. Park project. The same "a deal is a deal" approach and cultural issues as the MM put in his memoir about this project, in support of Singapore's stand .... this also happens locally in our projects...and you will see our Authorities and their administrators similarly behaving just like what the CHINA officials were claimed to be behaving during the SIP project; the same way towards our own contractors...if the picture was clearly painted as what the MM put in his Memoir. My point is that there would be "double standards" and it depends on how the arguments actually help you if you are the asserting party in the negotiation.

Due to the education system and upbringing here; and the organisational culture of Authorities and business firms here, we still lack the "flexibility" in mindset to deal with matters organically during the implementation stage while we cry there is no "creativity"...we are always asserting and trying to gain something...hence all the complications would crop up after the PoA is signed. Perhaps, we should not be just asserting "win-win" from the on-start, but just start off from a "lose-lose" base in negotiation, just to consider from the benefits of the ordinary people on both sides...and how to resolve the complications later on mutual grounds.

If too much "complications" are considsred from the on-start, I believe the PoA could not even be inked, not to say follow up for implementation...this probably explains why it took 20 years; and with political objectives complicating the scene.; June 01, 2010 10:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Maybe you have misunderstanding with someone while you are still the CEO of NTUC-income.; June 01, 2010 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: The parties involved have a deep and sensitive history. Tears were shed.

To negotiate terms based squarley on facts and merit is unrealistic.
With every negotiation, be it for a sale or agreement,it is human rapport and feelings that are involved.

20years?.. of course!..the very same people are very much alive and in control!!

To ask others like Mr Tan what would they have done is pointless.
On hindsight, the picture is always perfect and mistake free.. like analyst, economist.. who refer to yesterday's stock prices and tell you what should be done.

Pointless debate.; June 01, 2010 2:22 PM