個案總覽

It was 18 February 2016 and Loo Wee Ling, Practice Associate Professor of Law at Singapore Management University, had just received a communication about a case of cheating in the School of Law where she taught. GK, a 32-year-old Russian national, was mid-way through his final year of the Doctor of Jurisprudence (JD) programme at SMU, when he embarked on a course of action that resulted in his being convicted of two offences under the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act and sentenced to two months' incarceration in a Singapore prison. Worried about not qualifying for legal practice in Singapore, he had tried to save his grades by hacking into the learning management system of a law module using his law professor's userid and password which he had obtained by stealth using a USB keylogger plugged into the common computer in the classroom. His fear of doing badly in the final examinations of the Law of Property module led him to delete the online answer scripts of all his course-mates in the hope of being able to retake the examination. This proved to be his undoing as discovery of the deleted scripts led to investigations that traced the hacking back to him. GK committed crimes which led to dire consequences for himself. Loo was interested to have her students analyse, from an ethical perspective, what exactly is wrong with GK's actions?

T.J., an undergraduate at a business school, was upset to find a group mate's contribution to his group project containing plagiarized and poorly paraphrased content (also without any citation as to source in some instances). T.J. and four others had to work with K.C., the errant group member, on three group projects that together made up 30 per cent of the final mark for the course. In particular, T.J. was upset by the shoddy corrections provided by K.C. when his error was highlighted. T.J. was also appalled at K.C.'s nonchalant attitude towards plagiarism and the group projects, especially after discovering that K.C. had done the same on their first group project. T.J. felt strongly that the matter should be brought up to the course professor but two of his group mates disagreed, fearing that the group harmony would be adversely affected, thus jeopardizing their last group project, which carried significantly higher weight at 20 per cent. The remaining two group mates did not seem to consider the matter a serious one. T.J. wondered what the right thing to do would be. This case was written for use in the introductory class to a business ethics course. However, it has potential for use in lessons on negotiation, conflict resolution and team dynamics. The case is based on an actual occurrence but names have been changed to provide anonymity. The subject of plagiarism and a poorly contributing group member to group assignments is one that resonates deeply with students pursuing any course that emphasizes group work as a necessary component of the course assessment. The case has practical relevance to the working world inasmuch as the incident can occur in that context. Apart from being a useful opener to any course on ethics, the case also serves as a good reminder to students about plagiarism. It provides opportunities for clarification and discussion on what exactly constitutes plagiarism and the professors'/universities' stand on the matter.

T.J., an undergraduate at a business school, was upset to find a group mate's contribution to his group project containing plagiarized and poorly paraphrased content (also without any citation as to source in some instances). T.J. and four others had to work with K.C., the errant group member, on three group projects that together made up 30 per cent of the final mark for the course. In particular, T.J. was upset by the shoddy corrections provided by K.C. when his error was highlighted. T.J. was also appalled at K.C.'s nonchalant attitude towards plagiarism and the group projects, especially after discovering that K.C. had done the same on their first group project. T.J. felt strongly that the matter should be brought up to the course professor but two of his group mates disagreed, fearing that the group harmony would be adversely affected, thus jeopardizing their last group project, which carried significantly higher weight at 20 per cent. The remaining two group mates did not seem to consider the matter a serious one. T.J. wondered what the right thing to do would be. This case was written for use in the introductory class to a business ethics course. However, it has potential for use in lessons on negotiation, conflict resolution and team dynamics. The case is based on an actual occurrence but names have been changed to provide anonymity. The subject of plagiarism and a poorly contributing group member to group assignments is one that resonates deeply with students pursuing any course that emphasizes group work as a necessary component of the course assessment. The case has practical relevance to the working world inasmuch as the incident can occur in that context. Apart from being a useful opener to any course on ethics, the case also serves as a good reminder to students about plagiarism. It provides opportunities for clarification and discussion on what exactly constitutes plagiarism and the professors'/universities' stand on the matter.