MRR2 case study. SEE4012. UTM, skudai. 2011

1. MALAYSIA ETHICAL ISSUE:
MRR2
NUR ASYRAF BIN ABDUL RAHIM (K)
MUHAMMAD FAIZAL BIN ABDULLAH
NUR HASANAH BINTI SHAFEI

2. OBJECTIVES
• To give a better insight of the unethical issues that
occurred in Malaysia
1
• To educate people about the importance of adopting
2 ethical conducts to prevent disastrous consequences
GROUP 4 2

3. OVERVIEW OF MRR2 [1]
Built by Malaysian Public Works Department
(JKR)
To connect neighborhoods near Kuala Lumpur
boundary
Cost RM238.8 million
Completed in 34 months (May 1999 to March
2002)
GROUP 4 3

4. OVERVIEW OF MRR2
• Construction of MRR2 was divided by 3
phase : [1]
Gombak- Ampang-
Kepong-Gombak
Ampang Sri Petaling

5. CONTROVERSIAL
ISSUES
First closure
8 August 2004
Second closure
4 February 2006
Third closure
3 August 2008
GROUP 4 5

6. CONTROVERSIAL
ISSUES
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]
GROUP 4 6

7. CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
Works Minister,
Dato' Seri S Samy Vellu
10th August 2004
“Nobody can simply open their mouth and
suggest it is design flaw. The question
of design failure doesn't arise."
PWD's consultant (Kohler & Seith) findings
was dismissed
GROUP 4 7

8. CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
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]
GROUP 4 8

9. CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
• On 4th Feb 2006, the Kepong Flyover was closed again
after serious damages was confirmed
I
• Many complaints arrived about the damages on MRR2
II
• Traffic jam has rose due to incompletion of MRR2
III
• On 8 December 2006, the Kepong Flyover was reopened
to light traffic [3]
IV
GROUP 4 9

10. 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 milllion
Repairs cost RM 40 mil  RM70mil
1/2/2007
Work Minister called to explain expenditure
GROUP 4 10

11. 3 August 2008
GROUP 4 11

12. 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)
GROUP 4 12

13. Utilitarianism
 Definition: Balance between good and bad
consequences of an action [4]
GOOD: MRR2
brought travel
within easy reach
BAD:
Controversial
Issues.
GROUP 4 13

14. Right Ethics
• Definition: People have the fundamental
rights that other people have a duty to
respect [4]
GROUP 4 14

15. Right Ethics
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
GROUP 4 15

16. 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
GROUP 4 16

17. Duty Ethics
• 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 Bumi Hiway, the contractor
for the MRR2, instead of being Minister
for 25 million Malaysians.”
GROUP 4 17

18. Duty Ethics
• 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 to and poor cost estimation
RM70mil and poor administrative of
the Work Minister
GROUP 4 18

19. 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
GROUP 4 19

20. Virtue Ethics
Dishonestly
Denied cracks were due to
design flaw
Did not build according
to right specifications
and designs
GROUP 4 20

21. Safety And Risk
Definition: Ensure safety of public
GROUP 4 21

22. Safety And Risk
• “ ‘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]
• “Samy Vellu is giving the impression
the repair work for the MRR2 flyover
Risk-Benefit is very simple and
Analysis straightforward, would not even
require the three months mentioned
by him.” [5]
GROUP 4 22

23. WHISTLE BLOWING
MEANING:
An act by an employee of informing the public or higher management of
unethical or illegal behavior 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
GROUP 4 23

24. ANALYSIS OF THE MRR2 CASE
1) AUTHORITYS INVOLVEMENT
KKR
(Kementerian Kerja Raya)
Agency
BOA (Lembaga Arkitek
JKR (Jabatan Kerja Raya)
Malaysia)
CIDB (Lembaga
BEM (Lembaga Jurutera
Pembangunan Industri
Malaysia)
Pembinaan Malaysia)
BQSM (Lembaga
Juruukur Bahan MHA (Lembaga
Malaysia) Lebuhraya Malaysia)
GROUP 4 24

25. ANALYSIS OF THE MRR2 CASE
2) 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
GROUP 4 25

26. ANALYSIS OF THE MRR2 CASE
3) AMONG RULES AND REGULATIONS
1) Design Standard
2) Maintenance Manual and
1) 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
1) Standard Specifications for
Building Works 2005
1) QS Act Revised 2002
2) QS Rule Amendment 2004
GROUP 4 26

27. 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
GROUP 4 27

28. CONCLUSION
2) ACTION WHICH SUPPOSE TO BE AVOIDED
Bribery taken
Miscalculation
Tragedy
Breach of contract
Doesn’t 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
GROUP 4 28

29. REFERENCES
[1] Maverick, SM., Project Report Middle Ring Road 2.
February, 2006 was retrieved from
http://mavrkyprojectphoto.blogspot.com/2006/02/middle-ring-
road-2.html
[2] Brandon, H., Controversial Issues Middle Ring Road 2, was
retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_Middle_Ring_Road_2
[3] Maverick, SM., Risk, Health & Safety. 2006 was retrieved from
http://constructionrisk.blogspot.com/
[4] Charles B. Fleddermann., Engineering Ethics (3rd Edition), Pearson
Practice Hall , University of New Mexico, 2008
[5] Lim Kit Siang, Media Statement. August, 2004 was retrieved from
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/all-
archive/English/2004/aug04/lks/lks3158.htm
[6] Main Portal for Kementerian Kerja Raya
http://www.kkr.gov.my/
GROUP 4 29

30. The End
Q &A
GROUP 4 30