ethical issue mrr2

7/28/2019 Ethical Issue Mrr2

1/18

OBJECTIVES

To give a better insight of the unethical issues thatoccurred in MalaysiaTo educate people about the importance of adoptingethical conducts to prevent disastrous consequences


2/18

Built by Malaysian Public Works Department (JKR) To connect neighborhoods near Kuala Lumpur boundary

Cost RM238.8 million

Construction of MRR2 was divided by 3 phase : Kepong-

Gombak, Gombak- Ampang, Ampang - Sri Petaling

OVERVIEW OF MRR2


3/18

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES

First closure 8 August 2004,Second closure4 February2006 Third closure3 August 2008

Fear about the safety on the faulty Kepong Flyover, 31out of 33 pillars More than 7000 have obvious crackscracks detected. Investigations were carried out bygovernment Anti-Corruption Agency, investigatedpossible fraud [2]

Dato Seri S SamyVellu 10th August 2004 Nobodycansimply open their mouth and suggest it is design flaw.The question of design failure doesnt arise." PWDsconsultant (Kohler &Seith) findings was dismissed


4/18

12 August, 2004 -The government of Malaysiathen appointed British Halcrow Consultancy Ltdto study the cracks that have appeared on 31 ofthe 32 crossbeams since 2000. Findings fromHalcrow Consultants Ltd suggested designdeficiencies and the improper anchoring wereresponsible for cracks and were finally accepted

by the ministry The flyover , closed in August2004, waterproofed the bridge to prevent furthercracks, reopened in December 2004 [2]

On 4th Feb 2006, the Kepong Flyover wasclosed again after serious damages wasconfirmedI Many complaints arrived about thedamages on MRR2 Traffic jam has rose due toincompletion of MRR2 On 8 December 2006,the Kepong Flyover was reopened to light traffic.


5/18

RM20mil to repair within 3 months 18/8/2004.

Yet to determine the cause of cracks

Deny the possibility of design fault 22/2/2006

Repair cost more than RM 40 million

Repairs cost RM 40 million RM70mil 1/2/2007

Work Minister called to explain expenditure

HIGHLIGHTS


6/18

ETHICAL THEORY

Up to now, Malaysians still do not have a full andproper picture about the MRR2 f lyover cracks. As twoconsultants, one from Australia by the contractor and aconsultant from Germany appointed by the Public

Works Department, have come out with differentfindings about the MRR2 flyover cracks, how couldthere be public confidence about the repair workundertaken in the past five days? Media Statement by

Lim Kit Siang (14/8/2004)


7/18

Utilitarianism Definition: Balance between good and bad

consequences of an action [4]

GOOD: MRR2 brought travel within easy reach BAD:Controversial Issues.

4] Charles B. Fleddermann., Engineering Ethics (3rd Edition), Pearson Practice Hall

, University of New Mexico, 2008


8/18

Right Ethics Definition: People have the fundamental rights that

other people have a duty to respect [4]

The right to use the flyover safely. Do not want to keepstuck in traffic jam as a result from the closure of theMRR2. Do not want to see the few well- connectedcompanies or individuals profit at the public expense.


9/18

Duty Ethics People have duties to protect -Definition the rights of others.

The duty to keep promises Fidelity - Contractors and engineershave failed to design and build the flyover in compliance withthe contract.

The duty to recognize merit work minister does not take anyaction against the Justice irresponsible contractors andconsultant Samy Vellu is acting as if he is the Minister forBumiHiway, the contractor for the MRR2, instead of beingMinister for 25 million Malaysians.

The duty to improve Beneficence the conditions This expensescould be reduced if he appointed a reliable contractor to buildthe flyover. Repairs cost Cause by improper planning RM40 miland poor cost estimation RM70mil , poor administrative of the

Work Minister.


10/18

Virtue Ethics Irresponsibility Engineers did not fully supervise the

project. Minister did not give explanation of the RM70million bill. No actions taken towards originalcontractors.

Dishonestly Denied cracks were due to design flaw.Did not build according to right specifications anddesigns.


11/18

Safety And Risk Definition: Ensure safety of public space-age carbon-fibre pre-stressed trusses would be

used to repair the Safety pillars, beams and girders ofthe design flyover: a tensile strength five times criteriastronger than that of steel [5]

SamyVellu is giving the impression the repair work forthe MRR2 f lyover. Risk-Benefit is very simple andAnalysis straight forward, would not even require thethree months mentioned by him. [5]


12/18

WHISTLE BLOWING MEANING

An act by an employee of informing the public or highermanagement of unethical or illegal behaviour by anemployer or supervisor .

OCCURS , Need = There must be a clear and importantharm that can be avoided by blowing the whistle

Proximity = The whistleblower must be in a very clearposition to report on the problem

Capability = The whistleblower must have a reasonable

chance of success in stopping the harmful activity Last Resort = Should be attempted only if there is no one

else more capable and all other lines of action within theorganization have been shut off.


13/18

ANALYSIS OF THE MRR2 CASE1

AUTHORITYS INVOLVEMENT - JKR

(KementerianKerja Raya), Agency BOA(LembagaArkitek Malaysia) , BEM (LembagaJurutera), CIDB (Pembangunan Industri Malaysia)Pembinaan Malaysia) BQSM (Lembaga JuruukurBahan) MHA (Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia)


14/18

ANALYSIS OF THE MRR2 CASE2)

PERSONAL VS BUSINESS CONFLICT MINISTERY

MEDIA (strong parties) (news) HIGH COUNCILBOARD ENGINEER (reputation) CONFLICT(responsibility) CONTRACTOR CITIZEN (work) (dailyusage) Right and wrong ethics, Profitable and Loses,Rules and Regulations, Cost-Benefit Analysis


15/18

ANALYSIS OF THE MRR2 CASE3)AMONG RULES AND REGULATIONS

1) Design Standard, 2) Maintenance Manual andEngineers Act 1967 (Rev 2007) Guideline

2) Regulations 1990 (Rev 2003) (civil, electrical) and 3)Code of Professional Conduct mechanical)

3) Guideline 1) Architect Act 1967 2) Architect Rules

1996 1) Contractor Code of Ethics 4)Standard Specifications for Building Works 2005 1)

QS Act Revised 2002, 2) QS Rule Amendment 2004.


16/18

CONCLUSION 1) CORE CODE OF ETHICS REFERRED FROM VARIES CODE

OF ETHICS A Professional shall at all times hold paramount the safety,

health and welfare of the public A Professional shall undertake assignments only if he is qualified

by education and experience in the specific technical fields inwhich he is involved

A Professional shall issue public statements only in an objectiveand truthful manner

A Professional shall act for each employer or clients as faithfulagent or trustee A Professional shall conduct himself honourably, responsibly,

ethically and lawfully so as to enhance the honour, reputationand usefulness of the profession


17/18

CONCLUSION 2) ACTION WHICH SUPPOSE TO BE AVOIDED

Bribery taken Miscalculation, Tragedy, Breach of

contract, Doesnt follow specification, Lackcommunication link, Bad construction, Lack teamwork, Unethical action taken, Bad media coverage.

Burden the country, Burden the citizen, Fired

employee - Accusing responsibility.


18/18

Case Study Objective Overview Controversial Issue

Highlight Ethical theory Right ethics Duty ethics Virtue ethics Safety and Risk Analysis of Case study Conclusion

ethical issue mrr2

Documents