case study of a moral issue in singapore

• CNA Explains
• Sustainability
• Latest News
• News Reports
• Documentaries & Shows
• TV Schedule
• CNA938 Live
• Radio Schedule
• Singapore Parliament
• Mental Health
• Interactives
• Entertainment
• Style & Beauty
• Experiences
• Remarkable Living
• Send us a news tip
• Events & Partnerships
• Business Blueprint
• Health Matters
• The Asian Traveller

Trending Topics

Follow our news, recent searches.

Commentary commentary

Commentary: On homosexuality and cohabitation - differences on moral issues need not lead to polarised society

Advertisement.

commentary Commentary

Whether differences in opinion on issues of morality will lead to a fragmented and feuding society is something we can guard against, say the Institute of Policy Studies’ Mathew Mathews and Leonard Lim.

A woman holds a rainbow flag at the Pink Dot rally, Singapore's annual gay pride rally, at a park in Singapore July 1, 2017. (Photo: REUTERS/Darren Whiteside)

Mathew Mathews

SINGAPORE: Singaporeans remain generally conservative on issues of morality, as a recent Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) paper on Religion, Morality and Conservatism reported.

This was based on a comparison of results from the 2013 and 2018 waves of the IPS Survey of Race, Religion and Language.

There remains strong opposition to extra-marital sex (81.2 per cent felt this was wrong in 2018, compared to 81.4 per cent in 2013), having a child out of wedlock (64.9 per cent vs. 73.5 per cent) and gambling (74.4 per cent vs. 70.1 per cent).

Still, this 2018 edition (which polled over 4,000 Singapore residents) showed significant shifts in social norms on some issues over the last five years. 

These include pre-marital sex (45.4 per cent felt this was wrong in 2018, down from 58.2 per cent in 2013) and cohabitation (36.1 per cent, down from 46.5 per cent).

Singaporeans were also more liberal towards homosexuality issues. Slightly more than 20 per cent of those polled last year said gay sex was not wrong at all, or not wrong most of the time, up from about 10 per cent of those polled in 2013. About 27 per cent felt the same way about gay marriage, up from 15 per cent in 2013. 

The differences were particularly stark among the young, suggesting that this shift may persist with time. Half of those aged between 18 and 25 felt gay sex was not wrong at all or not wrong most of the time in 2018, up from less than 20 per cent five years before.

Perhaps as a consequence of moves to champion gay rights in many countries, in Singapore, rather than abortion, cohabitation or pre-marital sex, public discussion in recent years has been dominated by this particular subset of moral issues.

The annual Pink Dot event is the most visible of attempts to highlight gay concerns here. It has for a decade attracted large crowds with its tagline that celebrates individuals’ freedom to love.

However, the vocal LGBT community and its advocates have also drawn out an equally conservative segment, led by religious groups who believe that liberalising laws on homosexuality is not good for society.

This wave of our study found that Christians and Muslims over the age of 55 chose stronger positions when compared to the 2013 wave, which also surveyed over 4,000 respondents. For instance, 84.6 per cent of Muslims in this age bracket felt homosexual sex was always or almost always wrong in 2018, compared to about 73 per cent in 2013.

EMERGING DIVERGENCE OF VIEWS AND THE STATE’S ROLE

It is clear that there is growing divergence in views on moral issues based on individuals’ age, religious affiliations and backgrounds. Whether this will lead to a polarised, fragmented and feuding society is something we can guard against.

Singaporeans greatly value social cohesion and stability. That is why many have accepted intrusive government policies in areas such as race, religion and language which have been fault lines in our multi-cultural and diverse society. So this divergence, and how it is sometimes played out in public with petitions, can be disconcerting.

Recent examples in Singapore, many of which relate to homosexual rights, highlight this divide. They include dueling petitions when Adam Lambert was invited to headline a 2016 New Year’s Eve concert in Marina Bay. Pink Dot has also attracted substantial concerns from conservatives.

LGBT advocates have also tried to silence religious conservatives who take a strong stance against homosexuality. These range from calls to ban church pastor Lawrence Khong from performing a magic show in Ikea in 2015, to condemning the European Union when it invited law professor Thio Li-ann to speak at a human rights seminar in Singapore in 2014.

In private (and sometimes this is vocalised in the public sphere), both LGBT rights advocates and religious conservatives would prefer that authorities manage the other side and persuade them to stop promoting their agenda or impose their views on others.

But society will not benefit if authorities prevent either side from using legitimate methods to discuss the strength of its opinion. These issues will remain important matters to one’s identity, and it is to be expected that some will want to persuade others to see an issue from their point of view.

This, however, does not preclude us from trying to establish certain norms to preserve a common space so that we can continue to live peacefully despite our differences. We should also bear in mind that identity politics can be a zero-sum contest that has hardened faultlines and fractured other societies.

HOW CITIZENS AND OTHERS CAN PRESERVE COMMON SPACES

First, we should not allow either side to dominate the debate when it comes to issues of morality, which can be deeply emotional and difficult to back down from.

Importantly, we should also avoid having religious groups to form distinct blocs lobbying for or against policy moves, for instance in areas related to having a child out of wedlock, or gay rights.

Singapore is much more diverse religiously than other countries, and there are sizeable portions which may coalesce into blocs along religious lines.

Second, we must decide on rules of engagement. This involves articulating and acknowledging what is civil and mature behaviour in our context. There should be no place for disrespectful name-calling, knee-jerk tit-for-tat moves to prove how sizeable a certain camp may be, or disruptive campaigns that veer into strident activism.  

Those in other societies, especially liberal democracies with a vastly different political culture, operate with a different set of norms. But using or adapting their antagonistic methods of engagement – which may include social mobilisation and concerted campaigns - might not guarantee the type of stability the vast majority of Singaporeans cherish and desire.

Finally, we should stress overriding goals that Singapore society holds dearly, and how some of the debates and considerations should seek to address those goals.

One goal must be that national unity is paramount, and that holding on to strongly held opinions should not translate into excluding others from our social circles or speaking to them disrespectfully.

Another goal has been the importance of family and the welfare of children. Unlike many developed societies, the great majority of the young in Singapore continue to aspire towards marriage and parenthood.

READ: Want more babies? Help couples build stronger marriages first, a commentary

Any consensus on, for instance, gay rights issues and having a child out of wedlock, will be influenced by how the principles towards family and what constitutes a traditional family unit play out.

The years ahead will, if present trends continue, likely see increased contestation in the public sphere. But we are optimistic that the majority of citizens remain mindful that in Singapore, thumping hard on the door to advocate an issue is generally less productive than a more patient, non-confrontational approach.

Dr Mathew Mathews is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies and Head of IPS Social Lab. Leonard Lim is Research Associate at the Institute of Policy Studies.

Sign up for our newsletters

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Get the CNA app

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Get WhatsApp alerts

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

Related Topics

Also worth reading, this browser is no longer supported.

We know it's a hassle to switch browsers but we want your experience with CNA to be fast, secure and the best it can possibly be.

To continue, upgrade to a supported browser or, for the finest experience, download the mobile app.

Upgraded but still having issues? Contact us

Moral education in a plural society: A singapore case study

• Published: June 1980
• Volume 26 , pages 171–185, ( 1980 )

Cite this article

• S. Gopinathan  

425 Accesses

5 Citations

Explore all metrics

Conclusions

When one looks at the discussion of moral education issues in Singapore today, one cannot fail to be struck by the urgency and earnestness which characterize the debate. In common with many other Asian nations aiming at stability and growth without losing “national character”, Singapore too places great faith in the education system. Unlike other countries, however, which are fortunate in having a homogeneous cultural tradition, the complexities of managing moral education in a plural context bedevil Singapore's educators. The very richness of the cultural tradition here imposes the task of selection, and subsequent justification, of the core values to be taught; both the values and the manner of teaching, touching as the latter does upon the school's relationships with the home and, in particular, religious institutions, come under close scrutiny. In addition there is the need to win the benefits of modernization and to implant notions of loyalty and sacrifice while retaining the best virtues of the migrant mentality. The challenges, then, are formidable, but the judgement on current efforts in moral education must be that it is an inadequate response. The authorities seem unable to utilize in full measure the potential of a rich and varied cultural tradition to enrich moral education in the nation's schools. The over-riding concern to ensure political stability, and the need to be sensitive to ethnic sensibilities, have produced a cautious reliance on generalities —when the need, given the youthful nature of the population and the uncertainties of life in the latter half of the twentieth century, is surely for a more forthright acceptance of the challenge. A re-assessment of current moral education ventures is necessary but a useful one will have to await greater clarity in the analysis of Singapore culture and its goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Moral Education and Historical Revisionism

The Philosophy of Chinese Moral Education for the Twenty-First Century: Challenges, Regeneration, and Significance

Teacher Education as a Moral Endeavor

Benjamin, G. “The cultural logic of Singapore's ‘multiracialism’”. In Hassan, R. (ed.) Singapore: Society in Transition . Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Google Scholar  

Chai Chong Yee. “The challenge for education.” The Mirror . 13 (1977), No. 32, pp. 1, 8.

Chan Heng Chee. “The political system and social change”. In Hassan, R. (ed.) Singapore: Society in Transition . Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1976, pp. 30–31.

Clammer, J. “Asian values in a changing world”. (Book Review) Contemporary Southeast Asia . 1 (1979), No. 1, pp. 109–113.

CLARKE, P. “Watered-down moral education”. Straits Times , 12 October, 1979, p. 18.

Doraisamy, T.R. (ed.) 150 Years of Education in Singapore . Singapore: TTC Publications Board, 1969.

Gopinathan, S. “Singapore's language policies: strategies for a plural society”. Southeast Asian Affairs 1979 . Singapore: Heinemann Educational Books (Asia) for Institute of Southeast-Asian Studies, 1979.

Gopinathan, S. “Towards a national educational system”. In Hassan, R. (ed.) Singapore: Society in Transition . Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Lee Kuan Yew. “Traditional values and national identiy”. The Mirror . 8 (1972), No. 47, pp. 1, 4, 5.

Niblett, W.R. “Some problems in moral education today”. In Niblett, W.R. (ed.) Moral Education in a Changing Society . London: Faber and Faber, 1963, p. 30.

Rajaratnam, S. “Asian values and modernization”. In Seah Chee-Meow (ed.) Asian Values and Modernization . Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1977, p. 100.

Silver, M. Values Education . Washington: National Education Association, 1976.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gopinathan, S. Moral education in a plural society: A singapore case study. Int Rev Educ 26 , 171–185 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01433586

Download citation

Issue Date : June 1980

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01433586

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Education System
• Cultural Tradition
• National Character
• Full Measure
• Inadequate Response
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• DOI: 10.1007/BF01433586
• Corpus ID: 144655421

Moral education in a plural society: A singapore case study

• S. Gopinathan
• Published 1 June 1980
• Education, Philosophy
• International Review of Education

22 Citations

A hyphenated identity: fostering national unity through education in malaysia and singapore, globalisation and history education in singapore, citizenship education in singapore : a brief history, education for citizenship in a plural society : with special application to singapore, new bearings for citizenship education in singapore, the role of secondary social studies in educating singapore's citizens, education and social change: a proactive or reactive role, perceptions of singaporean malay-muslim youths participating in community outreach programmes: capacity building for critical thinking, issues of citizenship, national identity and political socialization in singapore: implications to the singapore education system, dynamics of change: decentralised centralism of education in singapore, one reference, singapore´s language policies: strategies for a plural society, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Professional Growth

Medicine and the Law: Ethical Issues in a Pandemic

Alex Cheng Wei Ray

Traditionally, patient confidentiality and data privacy form the cornerstones of medical ethics. While it is not uncommon that established rules and regulations are set aside during public health emergencies, it is recognised that without the assurance of confidentiality, most patients would be unwilling to share their health information. Such information, however, is vital to curbing the spread of infectious diseases like COVID-19. This article explores some of the professional, ethical and medico-legal issues that have arisen as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with how much clinical information should be collected for public health purposes without threatening patient confidentiality, and how to ensure fairness in the distribution of medical resources in overloaded healthcare systems.

Patient confidentiality and data privacy

A doctor's duty to respect patient confidentiality has its medical ethics origins in the Hippocratic oath 1 and also receives unqualified protection in the Declaration of Geneva. 2 In Singapore, the doctor's duty to maintain confidentiality is governed by common law, 3 statute 4 and also by the Singapore Medical Council Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines. 5 The legal duty of confidentiality is not absolute; in exceptional situations like a court order or where public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in respecting confidentiality, a healthcare professional is allowed to deviate from this duty. The COVID-19 pandemic is certainly an exception to the doctrine of patient confidentiality, but are some governments' actions too extreme, resulting in an irreversible breakdown in trust?

For example, in the US 6 and Europe, 7 warnings were issued to ensure that monitoring applications or contact tracing activities do not breach patient privacy laws. In Nigeria, 8 details of individuals with positive COVID-19 tests were publicly announced by the government, and some patients heard about their positive test results from social media rather than directly from the government. In Indonesia, 9 the first cases of COVID-19 were released directly to the news media, bypassing the patients themselves who found out through the news, subjecting them to unnecessary harassment and discrimination. In India, 10 the government published contact details of close to 20,000 people as part of a surveillance measure.

Herein lies the conundrum: how aggressively should governments attempt to contain the pandemic at the expense of patient confidentiality, data privacy and the potential discrimination it could cause? In Singapore, when the national contact tracing programme TraceTogether (TT) was first announced, Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, who oversaw the Smart Nation drive, assured Singaporeans that TT data would be used "purely for contact tracing, period". 11 However, the Singapore Government subsequently backtracked and admitted that the data was still subjected to Section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code which gave the police the power to access the data. To mitigate the backlash in loss of public trust, the Government subsequently passed a new law to ensure the data is only used for "serious crimes". This is in contrast to the approach taken in Australia where their government has outright refused police requests for contact tracing data. 12 The new law was introduced on a Certificate of Urgency, which means that the proposed law was urgent enough to be put through all three readings in one parliamentary sitting, instead of over separate sessions. 13

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism seeks to achieve the "greatest amount of benefits obtained for the greatest number of people in the society" and it has been described as an ethical approach that is "society-centred." 14 Under the utilitarianism consequentialist approach, 15 the outcomes of the loss of confidentiality and privacy will be weighed against the effects of controlling the spread of the pandemic. 15 The consequentialist argument for respecting patient confidentiality is that good medical care depends upon patients being honest with their doctor. Without an assurance of confidence, patients might withhold information that is necessary to diagnose and treat them properly. 16 In healthcare, utilitarianism focuses on utility, and places a premium value on life 17 and the conditions needed to support it. 18 Since the COVID-19 pandemic consequences are deadly, there is greater utility in curbing the infection spread than protecting confidentiality and private data. This argument thus supports aggressive government intervention and the taking of draconian measures.

The basic reproduction number R0 is an indication of the transmissibility of a virus and a central concept in infectious disease epidemiology. For R0 > 1, the number infected is likely to increase, and for R0 < 1, transmission is likely to peter out. Studies have shown that the R0 of COVID-19 is as high as 6, 19 putting it on the same scale as smallpox. 20 Comparing the small number of patients that will be detrimentally affected by the loss of confidentiality and privacy against the vast number of potential persons that can be infected if the pandemic goes unchecked, the balance will probably tilt in favour of the latter based on the utility argument. Privacy derives value in enabling other social goods; 21 therefore, as long as there are safeguards in place to ensure that the private data is not misused, the utilitarian argument for more aggressive data collection policies in terms of tracking to contain the pandemic can be justified.

Egalitarianism

The premise of egalitarianism is that "all persons are equal and deserve equal opportunities", and the importance of egalitarianism principles in the arena of population health was explicitly highlighted in a bulletin of the World Health Organization. 22 Egalitarianism positions healthcare as an ethically superior social good that should be pursued at the cost of other social goods, 23 and this is because good health allows normal functioning that provides people with a fundamental equal opportunity in life. 24 Following this line of reasoning, a breach of patient confidentiality and privacy is allowed if it leads to increased efficacy in curbing the pandemic and an overall improvement in health for everyone else.

Medical resource distribution

The global shortage of medical personal protective equipment like face masks 25 and ventilators 26 were two major issues that emerged early during the pandemic. Governments around the world scrambled to supply enough face masks for healthcare workers and some issued controversial advice to their citizens like "do not wear a mask if you are well", 27 to dampen the hoarding and demand of face masks. This led some doctors to issue advice that directly contradicted the government's official position. 28 In some countries, doctors had to decide which patients to save due to a lack of ventilators, 29 and some healthcare authorities even imposed directives to refuse treatment to anyone above a certain age to conserve the precious resources for younger patients. 30  These decisions pose many ethical questions which will be discussed below.

When we apply utilitarianism to the choice between conserving medical supplies for healthcare workers or distributing limited medical supplies to pacify the public, the issue is whether prioritising healthcare workers so that they can fight against the pandemic generates more utility than distributing face masks to the general public to reduce community spread. Similarly, the choice between conserving ventilators for younger patients and assigning them on a first-come, first-served basis regardless of patient age will depend on whether the overall life expectancy as a nation will increase or decrease based on that decision. The Italian Health Ministry stated that its aim was to maximise the benefit for the largest number of people, and the guidance given to doctors was to favour "greatest life expectancy" when deciding which patient should be admitted to the intensive care unit, 31 thus adopting a utilitarian approach. 15 Although one can argue that such a directive is unfair towards elderly patients, the decision is sound from a utilitarian perspective because utilitarianism simply makes an overall calculation of utility in terms of life expectancy and does not give each unique life any special consideration. 32

Contrasting with the utilitarian view above which treats every individual as equal when calculating life expectancy, Rawls' theory of distributive justice espouses applying "distributive principles that are appropriately sensitive to considerations of responsibility and luck" 33 and argues that resources should not simply be equally distributed as every individual is unique. One of his key assertions is that "no one should be advantaged or disadvantaged by natural fortune or social circumstance." 34 Norma Daniels classified healthcare as a primary social good, without which an individual would be subject to further inequalities in life. 24 Therefore, she argued that healthcare resources must have a distributive justice element and not be simply subject to a utilitarian analysis, and hence redistribution of healthcare resources should be prioritised to the most disadvantaged groups instead. However, in reality, the healthcare system is unevenly distributed, 35 and the trend is common whether it is a country as big as the US 35 or a small city state like Singapore. 36

In deontology, acts are morally correct as long as they conform to a principle of rights and duties. 34 Deontology is not concerned with the outcome and consequences of actions. Immanuel Kant argues that motive is the key to assessing morality. He believes that our acts are governed by our will, whose purity will determine how ethical an act is. 34 He concludes that the only proper way to determine what moral constitutes is to have a process where we can establish the rule in advance such that our subsequent judgements do not depend on probabilities or chance. 34 The key issue is therefore whether the act of saving lives regardless fulfils the categorical imperative formulations of universality and humanity. It is submitted that in accordance with Kant's formulations, the best approach when it comes to allocating limited healthcare resources should be a first-come, first-served basis since it can hardly be argued as moral if a healthcare professional refuses to save a life. Deontology is thus at odds with both utilitarianism and egalitarianism.

The COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented both in terms of scale and measures taken by governments to curb the spread of the disease. With regard to patient confidentiality and data privacy, it is submitted that the balance is tipped in favour of sacrificing patient confidentiality and data privacy for the benefit of controlling the pandemic. The support for this argument can be seen from the fact that the Singapore Minister for Health invoked powers conferred under the Infectious Diseases Act, 37 issuing regulations which essentially made it an offence for anyone who fails to inform employers and schools that an individual was subjected to movement control measures. 38 However, having said that, the importance of privacy laws goes beyond pandemics; once the pandemic has resolved, lessons need to be learnt from the infringement of privacy laws and their many consequences. Ironically, it appears that the guardianship of data privacy is now in the hands of technology giants like Apple who are fulfilling the role of what regulators traditionally do. For instance, several countries which initially pursued the development of centralised contact tracing apps 39 (which consolidate data on central servers) have decided subsequently to adopt the decentralised architecture offered by Apple and Google (using Exposure Notifications that stores data on the user's phone only), because Apple's iOS suspends Bluetooth scanning when centralised contact tracing applications are running in the background and Apple refuses to rectify the issue citing privacy concerns. 40

Regarding the distribution of medical resources, the application of the three ethical frameworks did not lead to a unanimous conclusion. The utilitarian and egalitarian theories favour resource distribution based on a consequentialist approach to improve the overall life expectancy and overall health of the society. Deontology favours the moral approach which is to allocate resources on a first-come, first-served basis. In the past, the availability of resources did not usually enter the decision-making process and influence the option of the individual case, until resources become so scarce that it was not possible to treat all patients who could hypothetically benefit from a specific clinical treatment. 33 However, the COVID-19 pandemic has stretched the limits of medical ethics to its maximum. It is therefore submitted that where medical resources are adequate, medical policy should adopt a Rawls' distributive justice model. However, if medical resources are severely constrained, the utilitarian model appears to be the more appropriate option.

• Marks JW. Medical Definition of Hippocratic Oath. MedicineNet. Available at:  https://bit.ly/3oXMXR3. Accessed 1 December 2020.
• World Medical Association. Declaration of Geneva, The "Modern Hippocratic Oath". Available at:  https://bit.ly/3nNYfIy. Accessed 1 December2020.
• W v Egdell [1990] 1 Ch 359.
• Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (No. 26 of 2012). Available at: https://bit.ly/31SrX39.
• Singapore Medical Council. Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines 2016 Edition. Available at:  https://bit.ly/3ubNYqq. Accessed 1 November2020.
• Blumenthal D, Blumenthal R. Contact tracing must balance privacy and public health. STAT. 15 May 2020. Available at:  https://bit.ly/30OXIxn.
• Abeler J, Bäcker M, Buermeyer U, Zillessen H. COVID-19 Tracing and Data Protection can Go Together. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth; 8(4):e19359.
• Obina C, Olawale G. COVID-19: Alleged Benue state index case demands rerun of test. Vanguard [Internet]. 2 April 2020. Available at:  https://bit.ly/3nL8TiY.
• Syakriah A, Fachriansyah R, Aqil MI. COVID-19 patients become victims of Indonesia's lack of privacy protection. The Jakarta Post [Internet]. 5 March 2020. Available at:  https://bit.ly/30WgD96.
• Menezes N, Thomas B. Government publishes details of 19,240 home-quarantined people to keep a check. Bangalore Mirror [Internet]. 25 March 2020. Available at: h ttps://bit.ly/3FDeGNC.
• Baharudin H. Police's ability to use TraceTogether data raises questions on trust: Experts. The Straits Times [Internet]. 5 January 2021. Available at:  https:// bit.ly/3nKFnK9.
• Karp P. Government refuses police request for access to Australian coronavirus contact tracing app. The Guardian [Internet]. 23 April 2020. Available at:  https://bit.ly/3l42Zbg.
• Parliament of Singapore. Urgent Bill. Available at:  https://bit.ly/3oZqfrZ.
• Mandal J, Ponnambath DK, Parija SC. Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Tropical Parasitology 2016; 6(1)5-7.
• Chan KYG, Shenoy GT. Ethics and social responsibility: Asian and Western perspectives. 3rd ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education Asia, 2016.
• Gillion R, Sokol DK. Confidentiality. In: Kuhse H, Singer P, eds. A Companion to Bioethics. Blackwell: Oxford, 1998: 425-31.
• Bellefleur O, Keeling M. Utilitarianism in Public Health. Montreal, Quebec: National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy 2016. Available at:  https://bit.ly/3DPiyuGT.
• Dean R. The value of humanity in Kant's moral theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand, 2006.
• Ying L, Gayle AA, Wilder-Smith A, Rocklöv J. The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus. J Travel Med 2020; 27(2):taaa021.
• Gani R, Leach S. Transmission potential of smallpox in contemporary populations. Nature 2001; 414:748-51.
• Rosenzweig P. Privacy as a Utilitarian Value. Lawfare [Internet]. 12 November 2014. Available at: https://bit.ly/30Q5xCq.
• World Health Organisation. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Available at:  https://bit.ly/32Y9E0b.
• Ekmekci PE, Arda B. Enhancing John Rawls's Theory of Justice to Cover Health and Social Determinants of Health. Acta Bioeth 2015; 21(2):227-36.
• Daniels N. Just health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
• World Health Organisation. Shortage of personal protective equipment endangering health workers worldwide. 3 March 2020. Available at: https://bit.ly/3r69Jcj. Accessed 1 December2020.
• Kliff S, Satariano A, Silver-Greenberg J, Kulish N. There Aren't Enough Ventilators to Cope With the Coronavirus. The New York Times [Internet]. 26 March 2020. Available at:  https://nyti.ms/3xmWWn5.
• Ministry of Health. Advisory on Wearing Mask. Available at:  https://bit.ly/3HUIMOD. Accessed 1 December 2020.
• Khalik S. Medical chief rebuts doctors' mask advice. The Straits Times [Internet]. 13 February 2020. Available at:  https://bit.ly/3r7gPgx.
• Beall A. The heart-wrenching choice of who lives and dies. BBC [Internet]. 29 April 2020. Available at:  https://bbc.in/3rdrnep.
• McGleenon B. Italy coronavirus victims over 80 WON'T receive ICU treatment – UK feared on similar path. Express [Internet]. 16 March 2020. Available at:  https://bit.ly/3CQUJ44.
• Vergani M, Bertolini G, Giannini A, et al. Clinical ethics recommendations for the allocation of intensive care treatments in exceptional, resource-limited circumstances: the Italian perspective during the COVID-19 epidemic. Crit Care 2020; 24:165.
• Mulgan T. Understanding Utilitarianism. Routledge, 2014:98.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Distributive Justice. Available at:  https://stanford.io/3FOErdV. Accessed 1 December 2020.
• Gibson K. An Introduction to Ethics. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2014.
• Thomas B. Health and health care disparities: the effect of social and environmental factors on individual and population health. Int J Environ Res Public Health; 11(7):7492-507.
• Lim J. Health equity in Singapore: A plan for action. Today [Internet]. 6 July 2016. Available at:  https://bit.ly/3r8z8SM.
• Infectious Diseases Act (Cap. 137,2003 Rev. Ed.). Available at:  https://bit.ly/3HRtA4Z.
• Infectious Diseases Act. Infectious Diseases (COVID-19 — Stay Orders) Regulations 2020. Available at: https://bit.ly/3l2guYT.
• Criddle C, Kelion L. Coronavirus contact-tracing: World split between two types of app. BBC [Internet]. 7 May 2020. Available at:  https://bbc.in/3l7gQx8.
• Fouquet H. France Says Apple Bluetooth Policy Is Blocking Virus Tracker. Bloomberg [Internet]. 21 April 2020. Available at:  https://bloom.bg/3FOIUxd.

Alex Cheng Wei Ray is a family physician who works as a locum medical doctor during his free time. A He is currently pursuing a Master of Laws with the University of London. Aside from his medical qualifications, he also holds the degrees of Bachelor of Laws, Master of Professional Accounting and Master of Business Administration. He is an incoming practice trainee lawyer at Donaldson & Burkinshaw LLP.

Highlights from the Honorary Secretary

My hmdp amid the pandemic.

The Straits Times

• International
• Print Edition
• news with benefits
• SPH Rewards
• STClassifieds
• Berita Harian
• Hardwarezone
• Shin Min Daily News
• Tamil Murasu
• The Business Times
• The New Paper
• Lianhe Zaobao
• Advertise with us

Moral values/ethics

Default term listing page.

askST: What are the ethical concerns of using animals such as insects in cyborg technology?

Turbulence at Washington Post with pressure for profit

Guatemala asks LGBT pride marchers to have 'good manners' after bid to ban event

US Supreme Court justices disclose Bali hotel stay, Beyonce tickets, book deals

What makes a South-east Asian?

Where have all the virtuous role models gone?

Harvard removes binding of human skin from book in library

That cool influencer is actually a glamorised salesman

Role of Islam in Turkish education fuels secularist fears

Greece optimistic over Gaza humanitarian aid: Foreign minister

• Contributions & Style Guide
• Advertising

The Singapore Law Gazette

Ethical Dilemmas and Where to Find Them

A hearty welcome to you, my new compatriot at the Bar.

I have been asked to write a few words about ethical issues and how a young lawyer can deal with them.

When I was called, I remember thinking, not long after the champagne had metabolised and the confetti swept away, that whilst the Republic of Singapore had deemed it fit to call me a lawyer, I really had very little idea on how to stay that way.

In short, how do I keep myself from getting disbarred?

For better or for worse, we have chosen a profession constrained by a myriad of regulations and principles. Not for us the unregulated life of the independent yoga instructor. We are held to a code of ethics the state seems keen on enforcing.

The bad news is, in this job, encountering an ethical conundrum is more a question of when, rather than whether.

The media loves stories of lawyers misbehaving, of lawyers in trouble. We have recurring bouts of a much publicised series of stories of this nature, followed by much hand wringing over how the public’s perception of lawyers had been prejudicially affected.

There have been, and there will be, times where as a practitioner, you feel like this town is out to get you.

For a newly called lawyer, navigating through the minefield of all those rules and guidelines might understandably be a worry. It certainly was for me. I could barely find the practice direction for court dress, let alone remember the maximum disbursement charge for one page of black and white photocopy. I did, however, know I was not supposed to sell ladies’ undergarments in Sarawak. ( Re An Advocate [1964] MLJ 1.)

So I tell you now what I wish someone had told me when I got called.

Ethical Conundrums and Where to Find Them

In the course of a career, you are almost certainly going to meet a few ethical conundrums. If you are one of those who do not, you are either singularly fortunate, or so dense you won’t recognise an obvious ethical problem when it is staring you in the face.

There is some good news.

First, serious ethical conundrums do not happen every day. You will be quite unlucky to encounter more than half a dozen in the course of your career.

Second, serious ethical conundrums almost never come in disguise. You can usually tell right off the bat when something might be ethically problematic. A good clue is when you realise you are really hoping that this is something the authorities don’t find out about. If it is something you are keen to hide, there is a good chance there is an ethical issue.

In practical terms, the problem is not how to recognise when there might be an ethical issue. The problem is what to do once you have realised there is this issue.

There are two steps once you have realised there is an ethical issue.

First – figure out what the applicable ethical rule is.

Second – decide how you are going to proceed.

Figuring Out What the Applicable Ethical Rule is

Frame the issue, find the rule. This is something which should be in your sweet spot, it’s the core thing lawyers are taught to do. Is the issue one of a potential conflict of interest between you and your client? Is it the possibility of exploitation by you of your client? Once you have identified the issue, the rule should be easy enough to find. There are well known text book resources, both local and English. We have Ethics and Professional Responsibility, A Code for the Advocate and Solicitor by Jeffrey Pinsler SC, and resort can be had to the venerable Cordery on Solicitors and its successor publications.

The Law Society of Singapore website (Members’ Library) has a convenient collection of Practice Directions and Guidance Notes on ethical issues.

Ask around, two heads are better than one . There is no point in bearing the weight of the world on your shoulders. Whatever ethical issue is on your mind, it seems highly unlikely you are the first lawyer ever to have encountered that situation. Ask your peers for their views. Ask your seniors. Even if they don’t have an exact answer, their perspectives will help you find a better answer than if you just ruminated by yourself.

Ask the Law Society, that’s what it is for. The Law Society has an Advisory Committee, which is a committee of the Professional Conduct Council, that proevides guidance to legal practitioners on their ethical obligations. Lawyers can submit a written enquiry to the Committee through the Represent Department (the Secretariat to the Committee) at  [email protected] . I can report that seeking a view from the Advisory Committee is something commonly done, and many lawyers have availed themselves of this service.

Deciding How You Are Going to Proceed

No one client is worth your career – clients come and go.

In practice, this is the difficult bit.

Knowing right from wrong is easy. Doing the right thing, that’s hard.

When lawyers get into trouble it is not usually because they didn’t know the rule. It is because they decided in that instance, it was worthwhile to take a risk on an ethical rule they knew existed.

In what situations do lawyers decide to take such a risk? Sometimes, it is when the lawyer thinks the risk is worth taking for the chance of a great reward. Cases of misusing clients’ monies or taking a client’s business opportunity often fall into this category.

If you are the sort of fellow who is going to take off with your client’s money, I am afraid I don’t have anything to say that might dissuade you. I wish you bon voyage to your place of exile, please check for extradition treaties before you buy that timeshare. I hope you miss the chicken rice.

More commonly however, it is when the lawyer thinks the risk is worth taking in order to avoid a great deal of trouble. Saying no to an important client for example, or running the risk of incurring the displeasure of a boss.

If you find yourself in that situation, I have one word of advice.

Perspective.

The same problem looks quite different depending on your age.

When you are 16, having a pimple break out the day before the big dance is the end of the world. Not so much 10 years later, when you are all sensible well-adjusted young lawyers.

It is no different in practice. The first time you lose a really big case, the pain is, as the poets say, more than the spoken word can tell. After 20 years at the Bar, one is more philosophical.

No one client is worth your career – clients come and go. Your biggest client today might be someone you won’t remember 10 years from now. Your career might last 30 or 40 years. The remainder of that career is what you are risking. Weigh that in balance when you are considering if this client is worth taking that risk.

No one boss is worth your career – it’s the same with bosses. In these current times, you do not need me to tell you that the days where the normal career path of staying in the same law firm for 30 years are over. If your present boss issues an instruction which gives you an ethical concern, voice your concern. It does not have to be confrontational. You could voice your concern as a question. Rather than making this a contest between your reading of the ethical situation versus your boss’, you could volunteer to draft an inquiry to the Law Society for guidance on this point. But do not stay silent.

Don’t Panic

I end by recalling a quote from Mark Twain that sums it up: “ I’ve had a lot of worries in my life, most of which never happened .”

At this stage, you may not have at your fingertips all of the many rules and principles of ethics and professional conduct, nor can you anticipate the various ways which you might be put to the test in the future. It matters not.

Let us instead have a sense of perspective.

The fact is that large numbers of people in this country have been called to the Bar before you, and most of them managed to complete their careers without a disciplinary hearing. It seems unlikely that, as a batch, you lot are materially different from those who have gone before you.

So chances are, you will end up being fine.

The journey might be interesting though.

Welcome to the suck. May you all live long and prosper.

Counsel Breakpoint LLC E-mail: [email protected]

KC is an independent arbitrator and counsel. He began his practice as a commercial litigator at the Singapore Bar in the 1990’s, and then moved into international arbitration. After many years as the head of the disputes department of a major international firm in Singapore. KC now practices as independent arbitrator and counsel with Breakpoint LLC. He is a Fellow of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators, and is on the panel of arbitrators of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the Asian International Arbitration Centre. KC focuses on international arbitration and has been involved in a wide variety of contested matters in South-East Asia. He handles high-value disputes from a range of industry sectors, including oil and gas, aviation, and commercial fraud.

Related posts you may also like

How to Succeed in Your First Year as an Associate

There are many good articles and videos online – and you will also hear from your seniors

Emerging Legal Practices: AI, Digital Media and ESG

A pioneering lawyer in each of these fast-rising practices talks about the scope of these fields and

Thriving in the Hybrid Workplace: Thoughts and Tips

So, you’ve just returned from your call break, and have been called to the Bar. Congratulations! You

COVID-19 Update: Our services are available as usual.Hire the best Singapore assignment writers to work for you, so you can ensure highest grades ! Order now

• Nursing /Healthcare
• Social Science
• Math Assignments
• Computer & IT
• Building Construction
• Homework Help
• Dissertation
• Ghost writing
• Proofreading & Editing
• Research paper
• Report writing
• Online Exam Help
• Reviews 4.9/5

Analyse a Real-live Case Study in Singapore to Explain the Moral Justifications: Couselling Ethics Case Study, SUSS, Singapore

Assignment Brief:

To be involved in counselling is to be involved in ethics. Analyse a real-live case study in Singapore to explain the moral justifications and its limitations. Apply, using an 8-step ethical decision-making model on how the matter may be resolved.

In an essay format, describe your counselling interventions to Dr. Susan Lim using the 8-step ethical decision-making model. You are expected to identify her moral dilemma(s) and guide her towards making a moral decision. As a medical professional, she was charged by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) for excessive charging of professional fees.

Hire a Professional Essay & Assignment Writer for completing your Academic Assessments

Native Singapore Writers Team

• 100% Plagiarism-Free Essay
• Highest Satisfaction Rate
• Free Revision
• On-Time Delivery
• Read the full story of the case relating to Dr. Susan Lim and from any related sources to conceptualise the key issues surrounding this case. For this assignment, you can assume that Dr. Susan came to see you as soon as the issue is known by SMC and they have communicated the issue of probable misconduct to her.
• The immediate stakeholders are Dr. Susan Lim, Singapore Medical Council (SMC), and the Brunei family. You need to read the sources related to this case.
• You may assume that the newspaper reports are as true as it can be.
• As the attending counsellor, you are expected to identify the specific moral dilemma(s) Dr. Susan Lim may face.
• Apply, using the 8-step ethical decision model to briefly explain how you can help Dr. Susan Lim resolve her moral dilemma and to arrive at a moral decision.
• Defend and critique the moral position of Dr. Susan Lim using any ONE of the moral theories taught in this module. You are also expected to identify the limitations of the theory chosen.

If you're stressed up because of counselling ethics case study assignments then we are here to offer you the best online assignment help services at reasonable prices. Get reliable counselling ethics assignment help services from the professional assignment help experts of singaporeassignmenthelp.com. So stop panicking, make a call to us, and avail of high-quality nursing law & ethics assignment help services from professionals.

Looking for Plagiarism free Answers for your college/ university Assignments.

• Minor Project Seminar evaluation Guidelines: Market Segmentation, Assignment AU
• SFM202407- Strategic Financial Management, Assignment, OTHM Level 7, EBIC
• PSBA300CW: Initial literature review and project planning report: ACADEMIC WRITING 3, Assignment, CU
• 6022CL: International Business in Emerging Markets, Coursework, CU
• PSY376: TMA01 (Tutor-Marked Assignment) SUSS: Psychology of Trauma: Theories and Applications
• OSH 7017 WRIT: Critically evaluate the positive and negative aspects of work on worker health, safety and wellbeing: Worker Safety, Health and Wellbeing, Assignment, UOB
• BUS104: TMA (Tutor-Marked Assignment) SUSS- Organisational Behaviour in the Technology Era
• MKT6044: Business Development (MAIN), Coursework, BCU
• Scientific Enquiry And Social Studies Curriculum, TMA (Tutor-Marked Assignment), SUSS
• Business Ethics (BE) Gender Identification, Case Study

Ask Your Homework Today!

We have over 1000 academic writers ready and waiting to help you achieve academic success