The document discusses three questions related to a case involving Syarikat Kimia Mutiara, Company X, and Company Z. For question 1, it analyzes whether Syarikat Kimia Mutiara's actions in transferring Company X's chemical plant design plans to Company Z without permission were morally permissible. It considers factors like whether the plans were patented and how similar Company Z's plans were. It concludes Syarikat Kimia Mutiara's actions were unethical. For question 2, it discusses whether an employee Anna providing information to her boyfriend's company, Company X, about Syarikat Kimia Mutiara's actions constitutes whistleblowing. It determines Anna's actions were gossip,

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 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.
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.

2. 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.
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.

3. 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 here 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 of whether or not to point out
Anna as the source
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.

4. 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 consider 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. Since she is legally binded 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