Syarikat Kimia Mutiara solicited bids for a chemical plant design project. Contractor X submitted the highest bid but included a unique processing scheme. Without informing Contractor X, Syarikat Kimia Mutiara asked Contractor Z to bid on Contractor X's scheme. This document discusses the ethics of Syarikat Kimia Mutiara's actions in three parts: it was unethical to transfer Contractor X's confidential information without permission, especially if Contractor X had patented the design; the action could harm relationships and reputation in the long run; and Anna, an employee of Syarikat Kimia Mutiara, should not have disclosed information to her boyfriend at Contractor X unless public

1. LEE CHIA CHUN Moral & Ethics for Engineers
KEM 100017 KXEX 2165
Contact: 016-4022146; lee_chia_chun@hotmail.com 1
UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
SESSION 2012/2013
KXEX 2165
MORAL AND ENGINEERING PROFESION ETHICS
ASSIGNMENT III
NAME : LEE CHIA CHUN
MATRIC NUM : KEM100017

2. LEE CHIA CHUN Moral & Ethics for Engineers
KEM 100017 KXEX 2165
Contact: 016-4022146; lee_chia_chun@hotmail.com 2
QUESTION 1:
Question 1:
Present and defend your view as to whether the actions of Syarikat Kimia Mutiara
are morally permissible, obligatory or admirable?
Firstly, let’s identify the grey area of the matter. The fundamental question to ask here is
could the action of transferring the construction and design of the chemical plant facility
plan to another Company Z without the prior notice or permission from the Company X,
in which such action taken by the Syarikat Kimia Mutiara be justified.
Secondly, let’s analyze the issue by step by step by breaking the problem into
manageable parts. By doing so, the assumptions are checked and the problem can be
explored from different perspectives that potentially carry different consequences.
Part 1: Did the Company X patent the design and construction plan of the chemical
plant facility?
Let’s deal with the possibility of a “Yes, Company X has patented its plan” first.
According to the Patent Law, if the Company X were to be registered a patent over its
plan, it is granted the exclusive rights to make, use, sell, and import an invention for a
limited period of time, in exchange for the public disclosure of the invention. Therefore,
when Company X and the Syarikat Kimia Mutiara are in the discussion, Company X
should be able to produce another set of legal document to notify Syarikat Kimia Mutiara
not to plagiarize nor transfer the identical plan (idea) to third party for manufacturing.
Anna has worked at Syarikat Kimia Mutiara as a process engineer for nearly eight
years, and she has signed a secrecy agreement with the firm that prohibits his
divulging information that the company considers proprietary. Syarikat Kimia Mutiara
solicits competitive quotations on the design and construction of a chemical plant
facility. All the bidders are required to furnish as a part of their proposals the
processing scheme planned to produce the specified final products.
The process generally is one which has been in common use for several years. All of
the quotations are generally similar in most respects from the standpoint of
technology.
Contractor X submits the highest –price quotation. He includes in his proposals,
however, a unique approach to a portion of the processing scheme. Yields are
indicated to be better than current practice, and quality improvement is apparent. A
quick laboratory check indicates that the innovation is practicable.
Syarikat Kimia Mutiara then calls on Contractor Z, the low bidder, and asks him to
evaluate and bid on an alternate scheme conceived by Contractor X. Contractor Z is
not told the source of alternative design. Syarikat Kimia Mutiara makes no
representation in his quotation request that replies will be held in confidence.

3. LEE CHIA CHUN Moral & Ethics for Engineers
KEM 100017 KXEX 2165
Contact: 016-4022146; lee_chia_chun@hotmail.com 3
However, if Company X has yet patented its plan prior to the submission of its proposal
to Syarikat Kimia Mutiara for consideration, then the situation can be briefly explained
by the knowledge of Contract Law. The action of submitting a quotation by Company X
to Syarikat Kimia Mutiara does not necessarily reflect the purchasing decision. After a
reasonable period of consideration, should Syarikat Kimia Mutiara does not get back to
Company X, and should in the event of finding similar proposal is being bid and has been
accepted by Syarikat Kimia Mutiara, then Company X cannot condemn any party for
plagiarism, at least from the legal point of view.
Now, let’s probe the possibility of a “Yes, Company X has patented its plan” further.
Part 2: Even if the Company X has patented its plan (idea), did Company Z produce
exactly the same plan as conceived by Company X?
This part deals with the question “how similar is similar”. We could not deny the
possibility of Company Z came up with a better plan by introducing a certain degree of
modification to the existing plan conceived by Company X. So, the similarity part of the
plan devised by Company Z could easily be justified as coincidence while the modified
part could be considered as a breakthrough to the Company Z.
However, getting back to the fundamental act of transferring the initial plan (idea) to the
third party is unethical and unprofessional. In this respect, Syarikat Kimia Mutiara can be
sued for such as action if sufficient proof could be gathered by the prosecutor, which is
Company X. As a result, the patent war between Company X and Company Z might
ensued due to the unethical action taken by Syarikat Kimia Mutiara. Similar real-life case
is Apple filed a lawsuit against Samsung for the unresolvable conflict of patent on the
smart phones manufactured.
A small conclusion to be drawn from this part two is that the action of transferring
Company X’s business confidential to Company Z without the approval from Company
X, is not ethically sound. In event of sufficient proof is gathered, Syarikat Kimia Mutiara
could be prosecuted. In addition, the very act of Syarikat Kimia Mutiara might have
created unnecessary conflict between Company X and Company Z that would eventually
complicate the matter, therefore tarnishing the reputation of all three parties. Such sly
intention and action by the Syarikat Kimia Mutiara is beyond the range of acceptance of
morality, unimpressive and not admirable at all.
Part 3: Probing the Matter by the Wearing the Spectacles of Utilitarianism
Long-term Impact
The potential consequence of transferring the plan which belongs to Company X without
its approval would harm the corporate relationship between Syarikat Kimia Mutiara and
Company X. The bad news and its unfair policy soon drag the performance of Syarikat
Kimia Mutiara down almost immediately, presumably. The unfair bidding method used
by Syarikat Kimia Mutiara would chase many potentially good bidders away, leaving
those substandard cheapskate bidders which are nothing good but could only offer cheap
and possibly bad service. As a result, Syarikat Kimia Mutiara could not produce fine end
products to the market due to its unfairness in the bidding processes, in the hope of
maximizing its profit. Sooner or later, investors would be discouraged and left for greener
pastures. No one is happy. Therefore, the very act of Syarikat Kimia Mutiara should not
be permissible.

4. LEE CHIA CHUN Moral & Ethics for Engineers
KEM 100017 KXEX 2165
Contact: 016-4022146; lee_chia_chun@hotmail.com 4
Short-term Impact
Despite its unscrupulous and unfair judgment throughout bidding procedures, Syarikat
Kimia Mutiara may have overemphasized the importance of making huge profits to the
extent of exploiting Company X. From the short-term impact point of view, Syarikat
Kimia Mutiara might receive appeals from its buyers for being able to produce the
chemical plant facility of higher quality. Its reputation could be boosted for a short range
of time. Story would be completely different soon after Company X and Company Z
found out the truth. Such action of Syarikat Kimia Mutiara may be deemed as obligatory,
in the short term.
Conclusion is that the action of Syarikat Kimia Mutiara is not ethically and morally right.
Question 2:
Assume that Anna’s boyfriend is an employee at contractor Company X. May Anna
ethically provide the information to her boyfriend’s company regarding the actions
of her employer? Was hers a case of legitimate whistle-blowing?
Before going deeper, it is essential to understand the definition of whistle-blowing and
the conditions to be met in order to be considered legitimate.
Whistle-blowing is an act of telling the public or someone in authority about alleged
dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department or
private company or organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many
ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public
interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may
make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused
organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to
groups concerned with the issues).
Now, it is appropriate to formulate the questions by asking if Anna is considered a
whistle-blower, as she has ethically provided the information to her boyfriend who
happens to be working in Company X. However, did the direct consequence of
infringing the property right of company X by Syarikat Kimia Mutiara affect the
welfare and well-being of the public? The question clearly has an obvious answer. Be
default, Syarikat Kimia Mutiara has acted in this way under the effect of its obligation to
maximize profits and giving the best to the its customers and stakeholders. Despite its act
was unethically sound, the violation towards Company X’s property right did not
endanger the society. On this basis, Anna cannot be considered as whistle-blower, but
more suitable to be dubbed as a gossiper that would not bring her benefits. This is
because Anna has signed a secrecy agreement with the firm. If her boyfriend were to be
caught by Syarikat Kimia Mutiara in spreading the insider information, her boyfriend
would be prosecuted by Syarikat Kimia Mutiara for defaming the company’s reputation.
Next, he would face the dilemma on whether or not to point out Anna as the “instigator”.
Furthermore, her boyfriend may not be in the authority of the firm, hence telling the
wrong person might not fix the problem.
Due to these above reasons, Anna cannot be regarded as the whistle-blower.

5. LEE CHIA CHUN Moral & Ethics for Engineers
KEM 100017 KXEX 2165
Contact: 016-4022146; lee_chia_chun@hotmail.com 5
Question 3:
What specific obligations, ideals, and effects should have been considered before
either one become a whistle-blower?
In this particular situation, we need to investigate the direct consequences of very act of
Syarikat Kimia Mutiara would put the well-being of the society at stake or otherwise. In
this situation, the firm’s action did not bring harm to the society as a whole, except for
corrupting the fair bidding system. The question now is “under what kind of situation
could we claim the action by Anna be considered as whistle-blower” when she
purportedly revealed the insider news to his boyfriend.
If the design and construction of the chemical plant facility produced by the low bidder,
Company Z, despite modifying the plan (idea) conceived by Company X, have been
found faulty, and therefore endanger the users directly and/or indirectly, then the very
action of Anna could be considered as whistle-blowing.
Another condition to be considered is that when in the event of law case between the
prosecutor (Company X) and the prosecuted (Company Z). Consideration needs to be
given to another set of consequences uniquely faced by both parties, Company X and
Company Z. As a result, the consequences could be undermining the interest of one of
the companies and/or threatening public safety/health. In this case, Anna must first try to
raise the concern to Syarikat Kimia Mutiara so that her firm could be served as a
deterrent to the threats. In almost every sector of our society the most important condition
of an effective fight against misconducts and malpractices is the proper flow of
information. A big barrier to this flow is often the fact that those involved in wrongdoings
have an interest in keeping information hidden from publicity and authorities. In
revealing such abuses or irregularities those may be of the most help who are witnesses
of these acts and are ready to share with others the information they possess.
Whistleblowing is providing a solution to resolve such situations: it opens nonexistent or
hidden information sources and channels. Since she is legally bounded not to reveal the
proprietary of the company, she must find her way to talk tactfully with the top
management of the Syarikat Kimia Mutiara with the intention to convince Syarikat Kimia
Mutiara to tell the truths in the court. Or else, she could brave herself up to be the eye-
witness and point out the real culprit.

6. LEE CHIA CHUN Moral & Ethics for Engineers
KEM 100017 KXEX 2165
Contact: 016-4022146; lee_chia_chun@hotmail.com 6
Reference
1. Retrieved from Whistleblower Whistleblower
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower on 15th April 2013
2. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism on 15th April 2013
3. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
End of Assignment