Being good at doing good

I was doing a module called Legal Case Studies for this semester in law school before I took leave of application. It was a module to train one to deal with corporate legal work. The scenario featured a case that requires opposing legal teams to negotiate and structure a corporate deal that would encompass the charitable aims of one side, and the profit-making objectives of the other side in the running of a hospital for the elderly.

We had to research on possible types of business arrangements, ranging from a private limited company, to a trust, or a social enterprise. And if possible, come up with a win-win solution for both sides of the negotiating table, while seeking to carve an edge for the side that you are representing. A groupmate of mine who has experience in setting up enterprises made a comment during our discussion about how it is not enough to want to do good, but that one needs to be good at doing good. There are technical aspects that goes into the running of charitable and non-profit organizations that requires knowledge and skill on the part of the one managing it.

I suppose it does take ideas and knowledge about how to effect much good in society, whether it be to help the poor or the sick. And whilst a charitable spirit is the foundation for engaging in charitable work, some expertise in knowing how to carry its operation is required as well, especially for those handling the operation of the organization. But I was reflecting on the comment made by this groupmate of mine whose comment seems to downplay the charitable sentiment as not being enough. It is a sort of statement that bears that philosophical approach of realism or pragmatism towards approaching things in life. The sort of mentality that bears the trait of ‘let me show you how good I am by how much good I have done.’

I suppose I would like to think that everyone can do good, and there is no need to measure up to a standard of how effective you are at doing good. We do need people with knowledge, ideas, and expertise. But let’s not dismiss the person who contributes with his little skill or resources to doing good as not being enough.

Discussion for Legal Case Studies on possible business arrangments

I just had a discussion with my groupmates for the Legal Case Studies module. A little background story about my group – My group is composed of me and two other GLB students. They are not people whom I had known in the law faculty. I had to form groups with them because the people whom I am friends with in law school were not in the same group as me for the equity module and one of the rules stipulated for the formation of groups for Legal Case Studies is that people within the group must be from the same group for the module on equity.

In the end, I formed group with people who are relatively less well-socialised in the law community. One is a man who is a GLB student who had taken a one and a half year break from law school to engage in some start-up. He is married, in his 30’s, has kids, has a degree in engineering and a Masters in Business Administration, and is a member of one of the opposition political party in Singapore. He decided to come back to law school after venturing into business and not really succeeding there.

My other group mate is an Indian national woman, also married, without kids, had a business degree, probably in her 30’s or late 20’s. She has an Indian national husband who works in Singapore as a software app developer, the kind which designs all those funky apps that you find on your Smart devices.

We were suppose to discuss on the various possible business arrangements that our fictious client should take in a hypothetical scenario. We were representing AMG, a giant corporation in the healthcare industry that was interested in operating healthcare services and facilities in a plot of land owned by a sisterhood. The sisterhood which had a charity home for the aged, had run aground into problems after the trust manager of their trust funds absconded with the money. AMG, wishing to seize the opportunity, wants to strike a deal with the sister to acquire the piece of land and set up its profit-making retirement home for the elderly rich.

Back to the discussion, I would say that I was pretty much quiet when it came to contributing to the discussion. Most of the contributions were done by by two groupmates. But I could see their business minds at work when it came to thinking out ideas for the possible arrangements for the business operation.

I don’t know why, but it seems like my mind finds it hard to conceptualize information relating to the possible network of business arrangements. At least, I do understand what is spoken across in the discussion, but on my own, I don’t think I have the ability to think out ideas on how the business relationship can operate amongst the various parties.

So in this hypothetical scenario, you have the Sisterhood, AMG, and the trustee who for the sisterhood. You have issues that arises in the situation such as what sort of corporate entity would best serve the interest of the client, and how obligations, profit-sharing, and management would figure into the business relationship. There are questions arising from the structuring of the deal, such as whether AMG has to negotiate with the sisters for the land, or can they simply negotiate with the trustee who owns the land for the sisters.

The male GLB student seems to have a knack in conceiving all the possible designs for the business arrangements. He presented everything from a private limited, to charitable trust arrangements. I think I get the picture. I don’t know why my mind seems so paralyzed when dealing with these information about business and corporate structure. I didn’t experience such mental states when studying for my science and social science subjects in high school and junior college. Perhaps, they may be something about the operation of the real working world that my mind doesn’t seem to ready to comprehend, or I may have lost a certain ability to process technical information after roughly 3 years of not studying.

Maybe law just isn’t for me.