OBJECTIVES To give a better insight of the unethical issues that occurred in Malaysia To educate people about the importance

e of adopting ethical conducts to prevent disastrous consequences

OVERVIEW OF MRR2
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

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
First closure 8 August 2004,Second closure4 February 2006 Third closure3 August 2008 Fear about the safety on the faulty Kepong Flyover, 31 out of 33 pillars More than 7000 have obvious cracks cracks detected. Investigations were carried out by government Anti-Corruption Agency, investigated possible fraud [2] Dato Seri S SamyVellu 10th August 2004 Nobody can

simply open their mouth and suggest it is design flaw. The question of design failure doesnt arise." PWDs consultant (Kohler &Seith) findings was dismissed

 12 August, 2004 -The government of Malaysia then appointed British Halcrow Consultancy Ltd to study the cracks that have appeared on 31 of the 32 crossbeams since 2000. Findings from Halcrow Consultants Ltd suggested design deficiencies and the improper anchoring were responsible for cracks and were finally accepted by the ministry The flyover , closed in August 2004, waterproofed the bridge to prevent further cracks, reopened in December 2004 [2] On 4th Feb 2006, the Kepong Flyover was closed again after serious damages was confirmedI Many complaints arrived about the damages on MRR2 Traffic jam has rose due to incompletion of MRR2 On 8 December 2006, the Kepong Flyover was reopened to light traffic.

HIGHLIGHTS
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

ETHICAL THEORY
Up to now, Malaysians still do not have a full and

proper picture about the MRR2 flyover cracks. As two consultants, one from Australia by the contractor and a consultant from Germany appointed by the Public Works Department, have come out with different findings about the MRR2 flyover cracks, how could there be public confidence about the repair work undertaken in the past five days? Media Statement by Lim Kit Siang (14/8/2004)

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

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 keep stuck in traffic jam as a result from the closure of the MRR2. Do not want to see the few well- connected companies or individuals profit at the public expense.

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

The duty to keep promises Fidelity - Contractors and engineers have failed to design and build the flyover in compliance with the contract. The duty to recognize merit work minister does not take any action against the Justice irresponsible contractors and consultant Samy Vellu is acting as if he is the Minister for BumiHiway, the contractor for the MRR2, instead of being Minister for 25 million Malaysians. The duty to improve Beneficence the conditions This expenses could be reduced if he appointed a reliable contractor to build the flyover. Repairs cost Cause by improper planning RM40 mil and poor cost estimation RM70mil , poor administrative of the Work Minister.

Virtue Ethics
Irresponsibility Engineers did not fully supervise the

project. Minister did not give explanation of the RM70 million bill. No actions taken towards original contractors. Dishonestly Denied cracks were due to design flaw. Did not build according to right specifications and designs.

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 of the design flyover: a tensile strength five times criteria stronger than that of steel [5] SamyVellu is giving the impression the repair work for the MRR2 flyover. Risk-Benefit is very simple and Analysis straight forward, would not even require the three months mentioned by him. [5]

WHISTLE BLOWING MEANING

An act by an employee of informing the public or higher

management of unethical or illegal behaviour by an employer or supervisor . OCCURS , Need = There must be a clear and important harm that can be avoided by blowing the whistle Proximity = The whistleblower must be in a very clear position 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 the organization have been shut off.

ANALYSIS OF THE MRR2

CASE1
AUTHORITYS INVOLVEMENT - JKR

(KementerianKerja Raya), Agency BOA (LembagaArkitek Malaysia) , BEM (Lembaga Jurutera), CIDB (Pembangunan Industri Malaysia) Pembinaan Malaysia) BQSM (Lembaga Juruukur Bahan) MHA (Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia)

ANALYSIS OF THE MRR2

CASE2)
PERSONAL VS BUSINESS CONFLICT MINISTERY

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

ANALYSIS OF THE MRR2

CASE3) AMONG RULES AND REGULATIONS 1) Design Standard, 2) Maintenance Manual and

Engineers 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.

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 in which he is involved A Professional shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner A Professional shall act for each employer or clients as faithful agent or trustee A Professional shall conduct himself honourably, responsibly, ethically and lawfully so as to enhance the honour, reputation and usefulness of the profession

CONCLUSION
2) ACTION WHICH SUPPOSE TO BE AVOIDED
Bribery taken Miscalculation, Tragedy, Breach of

contract, Doesnt follow specification, Lack communication link, Bad construction, Lack team work, Unethical action taken, Bad media coverage. Burden the country, Burden the citizen, Fired employee - Accusing responsibility.

Case Study

Objective Overview Controversial Issue Highlight Ethical theory Right ethics Duty ethics Virtue ethics Safety and Risk Analysis of Case study Conclusion