I am reminded of a story about how a simple minded person used simple train of words to “con” a “satay” seller. “Satay” is a very popular dish in Malaysia. It is similar to kebab with condiments such as onions and cucumbers served with peanut sauce. I was told that the quality of the peanut sauce is the main contributor in determining whether the “satay” is tasty or otherwise. Even without the “satay”, by just dipping the onions and cucumbers into the sauce would make a satisfying meal. The condiments are usually served without additional charge with the “satay”.
In those days, the best “satay” could be found in the “kampungs” (small villages). There was a guy by the name of Aziz who loves “satay”. Aziz was a simple person who lived in the kampung. One day Aziz was yearning for some good “satay”, so he ventured into the best “satay” stall in the village. The following conversation took place between Aziz and the “satay” seller:-
Aziz: How much is a stick of “satay”?
“Satay” seller: Sixty cents
Aziz: How about “Kuah” (peanut sauce)?
“Satay” seller: Free
Aziz: How about the cucumbers?
“Satay” seller: Free
Aziz: Onions?
“Satay” seller: Free
Aziz: Well, in that case, I will just have the “Kuah”, cucumbers and onions!
Naturally, the “Satay” seller was caught by his own words when he offered the “kuah” and the condiments free of charge. You can see that it is so easy to go with the flow when a certain pattern or train of words are used. By the time the person realized it, the person was already trapped by his own words or made a commitment without realizing it. This is a common method used by litigation lawyers when cross examining witnesses. The technique is to confine the questions to a “yes” or “no” answer or to get the witness to reply with a short answer and to throw the questions in a rapid pace without allowing the witness to ponder the questions for too long. The litigation lawyer will initially start with a simple question and when the litigation lawyer sees that the witness is becoming comfortable or over confident, he starts shooting rapid questions and before you know it the witness would probably get caught by his own words on some of the subsequent questions. The witness will then need to wait for his lawyer to re-examine him to correct any “mistakes” that he might have made during the cross-examination. This is a technique that one should be cautions of as it sometimes mess up our line of thoughts and put us in a vulnerable position.
In those days, the best “satay” could be found in the “kampungs” (small villages). There was a guy by the name of Aziz who loves “satay”. Aziz was a simple person who lived in the kampung. One day Aziz was yearning for some good “satay”, so he ventured into the best “satay” stall in the village. The following conversation took place between Aziz and the “satay” seller:-
Aziz: How much is a stick of “satay”?
“Satay” seller: Sixty cents
Aziz: How about “Kuah” (peanut sauce)?
“Satay” seller: Free
Aziz: How about the cucumbers?
“Satay” seller: Free
Aziz: Onions?
“Satay” seller: Free
Aziz: Well, in that case, I will just have the “Kuah”, cucumbers and onions!
Naturally, the “Satay” seller was caught by his own words when he offered the “kuah” and the condiments free of charge. You can see that it is so easy to go with the flow when a certain pattern or train of words are used. By the time the person realized it, the person was already trapped by his own words or made a commitment without realizing it. This is a common method used by litigation lawyers when cross examining witnesses. The technique is to confine the questions to a “yes” or “no” answer or to get the witness to reply with a short answer and to throw the questions in a rapid pace without allowing the witness to ponder the questions for too long. The litigation lawyer will initially start with a simple question and when the litigation lawyer sees that the witness is becoming comfortable or over confident, he starts shooting rapid questions and before you know it the witness would probably get caught by his own words on some of the subsequent questions. The witness will then need to wait for his lawyer to re-examine him to correct any “mistakes” that he might have made during the cross-examination. This is a technique that one should be cautions of as it sometimes mess up our line of thoughts and put us in a vulnerable position.
No comments:
Post a Comment