Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T14:22:59.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evolving concept of access to justice in Singapore's mediation movement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2020

Dorcas Quek Anderson
Dorcas Quek Anderson*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Singapore Management University School of Law
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the key societal developments underpinning the growth of mediation in Singapore with a view to analysing the evolving conceptualisation of justice within mediation. The introduction of mediation corresponded with a shift from adversarial justice to an indigenous form of conciliatory justice, in which a respected mediator played an adviser role for the disputants and was trusted to ensure the fairness of the process. However, this trajectory was tempered by the need to ensure that Singapore mediation practice conformed with international practices concerning the protection of parties’ autonomy. The ambivalence concerning the mediator's role has resulted in uncertainty about whether the mediator bears primary responsibility for ensuring procedural and substantive fairness. The paper discusses the implications of this ambiguity and proposes ways to resolve it. The current phase of professionalisation in Singapore's mediation movement offers the opportune moment to resolve these existing tensions and to crystallise the mediator's role in facilitating access to justice.

Keywords

access to justiceprocedural justicesubstantive justiceindigenousSingapore mediation
Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 16 , Special Issue 2: Jurisdictional Perspectives on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Access to Justice , June 2020 , pp. 128 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Dispute Resolution (2017) Report of the Task Force on Research on Mediator Techniques (June 12, 2017), pp. 41–42. Available at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/dispute_resolution/med_techniques_tf_report.authcheckdam.pdf (accessed 30 March 2019).Google Scholar
Astor, H (2007) Mediator neutrality: making sense of theory and practice. Social and Legal Studies 16, 234–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Government Productivity Commission (2014) Access to Justice Arrangements: Overview. Inquiry Report No. 72. Canberra. Available at https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/access-justice/report/access-justice-overview.pdf (accessed 26 April 2020).Google Scholar
Barendrecht, JM et al. (2009) Best Practices for an Affordable and Sustainable Dispute System: A Toolbox for Microjustice. TISCO Working Paper Series, Vol. 003/2009. Tilburg Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies of Civil Law and Conflict Resolution Systems (TISCO). Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1334619 (accessed 26 April 2020).Google Scholar
Barlow, A et al. (2017) Mapping Paths to Family Justice: Resolving Family Disputes in Neoliberal Times. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulle, L and Teh, HH (2000) Mediation: Principles, Process, Practices. Singapore: Butterworth Asia.Google Scholar
Brazil, W (1999) Comparing structures for the delivery of ADR services: critical values and concerns. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 14, 715–811.Google Scholar
Brockner, J (2003) Unpacking country effects: on the need to operationalize the psychological determinants of cross-national differences. Research in Organizational Behavior 25, 333–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockner, J et al. (2001) Culture and procedural justice: the influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37, 300–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canada Law Commission (2003) Transforming Relationships through Participatory Justice. Available at http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/JL2-22-2003E.pdf (accessed 30 March 2019).Google Scholar
Cappelletti, M (1993) Alternative dispute resolution processes within the framework of the world-wide access-to-justice movement. Modern Law Review 56, 282–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelletti, M and Garth, B (1978) Access to justice: the newest wave in the worldwide movement to make rights effective. Buffalo Law Review 27, 181–292.Google Scholar
Chan, SK (1996) Speech at Opening of Legal Year. Available at https://www.agc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/speeches/2010---1992/speech-1996.pdf (accessed 26 April 2020).Google Scholar
Chua, E and Lim, G (2017) Development of mediation in Singapore. In McFadden, D and Lim, G (eds), Mediation in Singapore: A Practical Guide, 2nd edn.Singapore: Thomson Reuters, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
Delgado, R et al. (2007) Fairness and formality: minimizing the risk of prejudice in ADR. Wisconsin Law Review 1369, 1359–1404.Google Scholar
Francesco, AM and Chen, ZX (2000) Cross Cultural Differences within a Single Culture: Power Distance as a Moderator of Participation–Outcome Relationship in the People’s Republic of China. Hong Kong: Business Research Centre, School of Business.Google Scholar
Hollander-Blumoff, R (2017) Fairness beyond the adversary system: procedural justice norms for legal negotiation. Fordham Law Review 85, 2081–2095.Google Scholar
Hyman, J and Love, L (2003) If Portia were a mediator: an inquiry into justice in mediation. Yale Clinical Law Review 9, 157–193.Google Scholar
Lee, J (2016) Culture and its importance in mediation. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 16, 317–340.Google Scholar
Lee, J and Teh, HH (eds) (2009) An Asian Perspective on Mediation. Singapore: Academy Publishing, Chapter 2 (pp. 21–42), Chapter 3 (pp. 54, 67–68).Google Scholar
Lim, D (2011) Islandwide curry event to promote integration, My Paper, 17 August 2011.Google Scholar
Low, J (2011) Promoting ethical practice in the mediation community. Asian Journal on Mediation 1, 20–31.Google Scholar
Low, J and Quek, D (2017) An overview of court mediation in the state courts of Singapore (updated by David Lim and James Leong). In McFadden, D and Lim, G (eds), Mediation in Singapore: A Practical Guide, 2nd edn.Singapore: Thomson Reuters, pp. 227–267.Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, C (1991) Pursuing settlement in an adversary culture: a tale of innovation co-opted or the law of ADR. Florida State University Law Review 19, 1–46.Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, C (1995) Whose dispute is it anyway? A philosophical and democratic defense of settlement (in some cases). Georgetown Law Journal 83, 2663–2696.Google Scholar
Menon, S (Chief Justice) (2014) State Courts: A New Chapter for Our Judiciary. State Courts Workplan 2014 Keynote Address. Available at https://www.statecourts.gov.sg/Resources/Documents/Resources_2014_Annual%20WP_Address_by%20CJ%20(Keynote%20Add).pdf (accessed 15 January 2020).Google Scholar
Menon, S (Chief Justice) (2017) Mediation and the Rule of Law. Law Society Mediation Forum Keynote Address. Available at https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/Data/Editor/Documents/Keynote%20Address%20-%20Mediation%20and%20the%20Rule%20of%20Law%20(Final%20edition%20after%20delivery%20-%20090317).pdf (accessed 15 January 2020).Google Scholar
Ministry of Law (2013) Executive Summary: Recommendations of the working group to develop Singapore into a centre for international commercial mediation, p. 3. Available at https://app.mlaw.gov.sg/files/news/press-releases/2013/12/FINAL%20ICMWG%20Press%20Release%20-%20Annex%20A.pdf (accessed 30 March 2019).Google Scholar
Ministry of Law (2019) 46 states signed new international treaty on mediation. Available at https://www.singaporeconvention.org/news-7aug-signing-ceremony.html (accessed 9 August 2019).Google Scholar
National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC) (2009) The Resolve to Resolve – Embracing ADR to Improve Access to Justice in the Federal Jurisdiction. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
Phang, A (2006) From Foundation to Legacy: The Second Charter of Justice. Singapore: Academy Publishing.Google Scholar
Quek, C (2011) When neighbours disagree, TODAY Singapore, 8 August 2011.Google Scholar
Quek, Anderson D (2017) A coming of age for mediation in Singapore? Mediation Act 2016. Singapore Academy of Law Journal 29, 275–293.Google Scholar
Quek, Anderson D (2018) Ethical concerns in court-connected online dispute resolution. International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution 5, 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quek, Anderson D and Knight, D (2017) Managing the inter-cultural dimensions of a mediation effectively – a proposed pre-mediation intake instrument. Australasian Journal of Dispute Resolution 28, 89–97.Google Scholar
Roberge, JF and Quek Anderson, D (2018) Judicial mediation: from debates to renewal. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 19, 613–651.Google Scholar
Sandefur, R (2019) Access to what? Daedalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Science 148, 49–55.Google Scholar
See, KO (Judicial Commissioner) (2014) Address at the launch of the Primary Justice Project (9 May 2014). Available at https://www.statecourts.gov.sg/cws/NewsAndEvents/Documents/MediaRelease2014May09_LaunchPJP_PJSCAddress.pdf (accessed 30 March 2019).Google Scholar
Sourdin, T and Burstyner, N (2013) Australia's Civil Justice System: Developing a Multi-Option Response. In National Centre for State Courts, Trends in State Courts. Available at http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/Future%20Trends%202013/06202013-Australias-Civil-Justice-System-Developing-a-Multi-Option-Response.ashx (accessed 30 March 2019).Google Scholar
Straits Times, The (2011) Writer misunderstood mediation process: Ministry of Law, 23 August.Google Scholar
Straits Times (Singapore), The (2019) Singapore bicentennial: why 2019 is history in the making, 27 January. Available at https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/why-2019-is-history-in-the-making (accessed 30 March 2019).Google Scholar
Stulberg, J (2005) Mediation and justice: what standards govern? Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 6, 213–245.Google Scholar
Tan, NT et al. (2000) ADR – current and future prospects. In Tan, NT and Lee-Partridge, JE (eds), Alternative Dispute Resolution in Business, Family and Community: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Singapore: Pagesetters Services.Google Scholar
Traum, L and Farkas, B (2017) The history and legacy of the pound conferences. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 18, 677–698.Google Scholar
UK Civil Justice Council ADR Working Group (2017) ADR and Civil Justice (Interim Report). Available at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/interim-report-future-role-of-adr-in-civil-justice-20171017.pdf (accessed 11 October 2019).Google Scholar
Van de Bos, K (2013) Delineating a method to study cross-cultural differences with experimental control: the voice effect and countercultural contexts regarding power distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49, 624–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldman, E (1997) Identifying the role of social norms in mediation: a multi model approach. Hastings Law Journal 48, 727–733.Google Scholar
Waldman, E and Akin, Ojelabi L (2016) Mediators and substantive justice: a view from Rawls’ original position. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 30, 391–430.Google Scholar
Welsh, N (2012) The current transitional state of court-connected ADR. Marquette Law Review 95, 873–886.Google Scholar
Welsh, N (2016) Magistrate judges, settlement, and procedural justice. Nevada Law Journal 16, 983–1060.Google Scholar
Welsh, N (2017) Do you believe in magic: self-determination and procedural justice meet inequality in court-connected mediation. SMU Law Review 70, 721–762.Google Scholar
Woolf, Master of the Rolls (1996) Access to Justice: Final Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales. London: HM Office.Google Scholar
Yong, PH (former Chief Justice) (1996) Speech at the opening of the legal year 1996. In Hoo, Sheau P (ed.), Speeches and Judgments of Chief Justice Yong Pung How. Singapore: FT Law & Tax Asia Pacific.Google Scholar
Yong, PH (former Chief Justice) (1997a) Keynote address at the International Mediation Conference on 18 August 1997. In Hoo, Sheau P (ed.) Speeches and Judgments of Chief Justice Yong Pung How. Singapore: FT Law & Tax Asia Pacific.Google Scholar
Yong, PH (former Chief Justice) (1997b) Speech at the official opening of the Singapore Mediation Centre on 16 August 1997. In Hoo, Sheau P (ed.) Speeches and Judgments of Chief Justice Yong Pung How. Singapore: FT Law & Tax Asia Pacific.Google Scholar
Yong, PH (former Chief Justice) (2002) Speech at the launch of DisputeManager.com (31 July 2002) at the International Mediation Conference on 18 August 1997. Available at https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/news/speeches/launch-of-disputemanagercom-speech-by-the-honourable-the-chief-justice-yong-pung-how (accessed 30 March 2019).Google Scholar