Balberan, Jan Maxin R.             ITETHIC                                 February 14, 2008

 

1. Professional codes of ethics are often designed to motivate members of an association to behave in certain ways. The following are the strengths of the professional code of conducts:
   1. Inspire the members to behave professionally
   2. Guide the members of a profession in ethical choices
   3. Educate members of a profession about their professional obligations
   4. Discipline members when they violate one or more of the code’s directives
   5. Codes “sensitize” members of a profession to ethical aspects they otherwise might outlook.
   6. Codes inform the public about nature and roles of the profession
   7. Codes enhance the profession in the eyes of the public

 

Initially, it might seem surprising that anyone would be critical of professional codes in general or of specific codes developed for computer professional. The following are the weakness of the professional code of conducts:

a.       Directives included in many codes are too general and too vague

b.      Codes are not always helpful when 2 or more directives are in conflict

c.       A professional code’s directives are never complete or exhaustive

d.      Codes are ineffective in disciplinary matters

e.       Directives in codes are sometimes inconsistent with one another

f.        Codes do not always distinguish between micro-ethics issues and macro-ethics issues

g.       Codes can be self-serving for the professionals

 

Both sides are presented on having professional codes. It is obvious that having a code outweigh the prospect of not having one. When a code have weaknesses; that does not mean that the code’s effect is nullify or as equal as not having one. Since codes are designed to inspire, guide, educate and discipline the members of the organization, it does not forfeit use of the code. It is better to have something than to have nothing at all. The most difficult code follow are the codes that are unwritten since the person would not know how to deal with this kinds of codes unless he/ she directly encounter situation concerning that code. It is better if one have a written code as a basis than unwritten which is very subjective especially when it comes to sanctions.  Written codes can be studied by individual so they would be guided, inspired, educated and disciplined. Following code is hard but it is harder not having not having one.

 

2. “Educate members of a profession about their professional obligations”

Codes educate by informing the members of a profession about their ethical responsibilities. This code is too general and vague. If the professional code is compressed and single out into one code, this is the perfect code to describe it all. Educating the members includes guiding and inspiring them. Codes which are specifically made for disciplinary or penal function are followed not by willingness but out of fear. Fear of conscience is the lowest level. This case is mostly seen on children. The children would not do anything against the parent’s will because of punishment not out of self-realization out what is right and wrong. Educating the members of their professional obligations gives them boundaries and makes them stay on the track set by the organization. In this way the members will know their limitations and exceeding this boundary set means that you’re going beyond what is set.

 

3. It is morally right to turn down the offer rather than helping the company in their questionable project. Your loyalty is not worth it to give in a company. The company is loyal to your skill not to you. When the companies have no use for you, they will sooner or later dispose you. Discovering from a colleague, that refusing to work on this project would greatly diminish your career advancement at XYZ and may even make you vulnerable to future layoffs. It is not very surprising that the management reacted this way because this project is very important for them. When it comes to career advancement, it is obvious that you would not get any project as big as this project since you turn down similar projects therefore your career advancement will be very slow. The U.S. defense project involving the Missile Defense System is almost a dream. This is similar in the situation of David Parnas where shortly after he joined the SDI project team, he became convinced that it was not possible to construct SDI software that could confidently be expected to work when needed. His argument for inadequacy of SDI, which is the same as the Missile Defense System in the case, was based on three reasons:
   1. The specifications for the software could not be known with any confidence
   2. Software could not undergo realistic testing
   3. There would not be sufficient time during an attack to repair and reinstall failing software (no “real-time” debugging)

 

It is concluded that the Missile Defense System is questionable based on Parnas similar situation and reasons. The compensation I will be receiving for this project is not worth it spending time and effort to something that is impossible and would eventually lead the publics’ safety at risk. In addition, it would be worse when I promised to something I ought to do when in fact I cannot do. This will make to the management more disappointed and ultimately will ruin my reputation. It is a matter of choosing the lesser consequence.

 

4. Following Richard De George framework, engineers and other workers are permitted to go public with information about the safety of product if the following conditions are met:
   1. The harm will be done by the product to the public is serious and considerate
   2. The engineers (or employees) have made their concerns known to their superiors
   3. The engineers (or employees) have received no satisfaction from their immediate supervisors, and they have exhausted the channels available within the corporation, including going to the board of directors.

 

Although these three conditions are met, to have a strict moral obligation to blow the whistle, De George added to conditions that must be satisfied:

4. The engineers (or employees) have documented evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial that his/her view of the situation is correct and the company policy is wrong.
5. There is strong evidence that making the information public will in fact prevent the threatened serious harm.

 

Before making a move and blowing a whistle, we should analyze first if I did every steps in Richard De George’s framework. First of all, the bugs are more dangerous than the management is willing to admit therefore it would cause harm to the people. Second, the management is well informed on the project’s situation and current status. They are uncomfortable that they would not finish the project in time with all the contracts that they had signed. We, me and a few of our coworkers, have informed the management and exhaust all our effort to bring this issue up to the management (it is not directly said on the case but they sure look like they did everything). But a decision is made by the management of the company and by the managers of the city transportation system to go ahead and implement the software as it is. A decision was also made to keep the issue private as possible.

 

It seems that taking his place in the case is not easy, I should further do documentation and it seems that the public is also concern with the implementation of the transportation project. So if I blow the whistle, they would be alarmed on the project and would stop pressuring the project and would understand the delays of it. With the right documentation and proof, they would have confident on the project. Of course, the first reaction of the public is negative and the first that the company would here is complaints. But this is first phase, on the succeeding phase, the next to see, is positive reactions and the next to hear are praises coming from the public.

 

5. The one interpretation of the new law signed by President Bush includes the whistle blower on the sanctions. There are a lot of consequences of whistle blowing such as rejection and persecution of the people involve but recognition of minorities. With the new interpretation of the new law, the burden carried by the whistle blower just got heavier. Besides the persecution and rejections from the company, the blower will share the punishment of the violators.

 

For software engineers, it would be even more difficult to blow the whistle. The chances of having an expose are lesser. The whistle blower would think even twice than the usual think twice since there is another burden for them. The new law has a point which included the whistle blower because the blower itself is involve directly or indirectly involve with the activities of the management. The purpose of whistle blowing may be to acquit him on unethical behavior and redirect all consequence on the company. To avoid the consequence of being a whistle blower, one should follow Richard De George’s framework before making a risky step such as whistle blowing.

 

6. The Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment Limited (ZTE) National Broadband Network Deal is a highly controversial, $329 million contract signed by the Philippine and Chinese governments, witnessed personally by President Arroyo, last April 2007 in China. The NBN project was a proposal of the Dept of Transportations and Communications (DoTC), a plan which started way back in 2005, aiming to establish an internet broadband connection to local government units and government agencies nationwide. Following De George advice before whistle blowing, let us test whether Jun Lozada has done the right thing at the right time.

 

The harm will be done by the product to the public is serious and considerate

 

·        “Kaya ako nandito para maliwanagan ang mga bagay na maraming tao ang nagtatanong. Mabigyan ng liwanag 'yung mga bagay na maraming nagtatanong na nakakaapekto sa Pilipinas sa kinabukasan ng mga anak natin. Ang sasabihin ko po rito ay walang malisya kahit kanino. Wala naman ako kalaban.”

 

 

The engineers (or employees) have made their concerns known to their superiors

 

·        “Sinabi ko po kay Sec. Neri iyon. Sumulat ako sa DENR kay Sec. Atienza at sabi ko kila Sec. Neri sana 'wag ako makarating sa Senado. Matagal na iyon… “

 

·        “Pumunta ko kay Sec. Atienza. Si Sec. Atienza, hindi naman alam kung ano ang kinalaman ko rito eh. Nung pumunta po ako sa office ni Sec. Atienza two days before iyong hearing dito.”

 

 

The engineers (or employees) have received no satisfaction from their immediate supervisors, and they have exhausted the channels available within the corporation, including going to the board of directors.

 

·        “So, two weeks po ata iyon so nung Martes pumunta ako kay Deputy Executive Secretary Manny Gaite... Sabi nung mga tao ni Deputy Secretary Gaite na pinag-aaralan iyong mga legal remedies para 'wag ako makarating sa Senado, sabi nung mga tao ni Dep. Sec. Gaite, mukhang wala silang makitang legal remedy to stop the Senate from getting me.”

 

·        “So nung pumunta po si Mike nung gabi na 'yun. Sabi sa akin ni Mike, 'Pare, this thing has grown out of, way, way out of proportion na to.' Sabi ko, 'Oo nga Mike, hirap na hirap na 'ko dito. Sinabi ko naman sa inyo simula't-sapul pa ayokong ma involve-involve diyan.'”

 

The engineers (or employees) have documented evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial that his/her view of the situation is correct and the company policy is wrong.

 

·        “Iyong sinasabi ni Lozada, kung consultant siya ng NEDA bakit siya dumidiretso ng pakikipag-usap sa mga opisyales ng China’s ZTE Corp. Ang NEDA dapat nag e-evaluate iyan eh. Ang dapat makipag-usap sa contracting parties iyong nag-iimplement ng projects which is CICT and DOTC. As Asec Formoso and chairman Sales said ni anino ni Mr. Jun Lozada hindi namin nakita ito, wala naman siyang signature doon sa mga papeles na umikot dito sa proyekto na ito,” Mendoza said.

 

 

There is strong evidence that making the information public will in fact prevent the threatened serious harm

 

·        “Sabi nung mga nasa harapan ko, "Ibalik na raw, ibalik na raw. Napakainit na raw ng media.' Nagpapasalamat po ako sa mga taga-mediang naghanap sa akin.”

 

 

It only shows that Jun Lozada has not shown enough proof of his allegations. I understand why he had no documentation since all his statements are done through word of mouth. But with the reaction of media towards this incident, it only shows that even without enough proof of his statements; the public is anxious of what would happen to the country and the controversial deal.  

 

 

Reference:

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/79778/ZTE-hearing-(Part-1)-I-cannot-tell-a-lie---Lozada

 

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/79781/ZTE-hearing-(Part-2)-Palace-exec-told-Lozada-to-go-abroad

 

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/79794/ZTE-hearing-(Part-3)-I-was-reminded-of-the-Dacer-case---Lozada

 

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/79806/ZTE-hearing-(Part-5)-Mike-Defensor-told-me-to-deny-abduction---Lozada

 

http://www.op.gov.ph/news.asp?newsid=20077