IBUS 6002 University of Sydney Ethics Management at A Small Cross Border Enterprise Argument Essay The tutor will give specific scenarios for each case stu

IBUS 6002 University of Sydney Ethics Management at A Small Cross Border Enterprise Argument Essay The tutor will give specific scenarios for each case study with 2 possible solutions. Each group will be required to represent one of the solutions.

The case has a core point, choosing Solution A or solution B

Choose one solution first, then provide rational and analysis

Argument Essay Structure:

1. intro: background+ dilemma + solution (100-150)

2. Rational+ analysis 

a. provides some reasons why you agree this solution according to the importance. 

b. analyzes the benefits of the solution 

How analyze? Refer to the content of lecture (eg, some theory, Hofstede, leadership) and readings we studied in class (the attached file “lecture and readings”), you can also find other sources and referred it.  

3. Critical thinking Consideration of rationale’s the opposing option may use during the debate and other supporting information including similar recent events.

4.. Conclusion (50-100 words) 

5. Reference (APA 6th) when you use the content of reading, please also help me referred it. HKU780
SAY GOO
ETHICS MANAGEMENT AT A SMALL CROSSBORDER ENTERPRISE (B): MISCONDUCT IN A
PUBLIC OFFICE
In the second quarter of 2006, Choi & Leng Paper Ltd (“C&L”), 1 a privately owned
manufacturer of containerboard, experienced a sudden setback. The company lost one of its
major customers and was facing acute cash flow problems. The company’s majority owners,
Gaylord Choi and his wife, Winifred Leng, immediately started approaching customers who
had outstanding payments to C&L and demanded settlement. One such client was Million
Rich Printing (“Million Rich”), owned by Christopher Wong.
Million Rich had entered rough waters itself and was unable to settle its outstanding bills. At
the same time, losing C&L as a supplier would mean the end for Million Rich. Christopher
was eager to secure C&L as a supplier and called in the help of his wife, Emily, who was in
charge of the printing office at a large university. A deal was struck in which C&L was
guaranteed to win a large order from the university through a public tender process. In
exchange, C&L would continue supplying paper to Million Rich and defer settlement of
outstanding debts.
On 21 December 2007, Gaylord was contacted by Hong Kong’s Independent Commission
Against Corruption (“ICAC”). ICAC was investigating Emily for a possible corruption
offence. What liabilities did C&L and its owners face as a result of their deal with the
university?
1
Names of people and companies used in this case are fictional. Any similarity to actual persons or entities is coincidental and is
not the intent of ACRC
Jeroen van den Berg prepared this case under the supervision of Say Goo and it is based on the input of the ICAC. This case is
not intended to show effective or ineffective handling of decision or business processes.
© 2008 by The Asia Case Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong and the Independent Commission Against Corruption
of the HKSAR. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise (including the Internet) – without the permission of The University of Hong
Kong.
Ref. 08/391C
1
This document is authorized for use only in Sally Anne Gaunt’s IBUS6002, Sem 1 2020 at University of Sydney from May 2020 to Jun 2020.
08/391C
Ethics Management at a Small Cross-Border Enterprise (B): Misconduct in a public office
Gaylord Makes a Sale to a University
When Christopher contacted Gaylord and told him he could secure a deal for him with one of
Hong Kong’s largest universities, Gaylord was eager to hear more. While such a deal would
not replace the recently lost business, it would cushion the blow and put an end to C&L’s
cash flow problems. However, Gaylord had never sold his products to the government or any
other public bodies before and was unfamiliar with the tender process used by them.
According to Christopher, the fact that Gaylord was unfamiliar with the tender process did not
matter. All Gaylord had to do was give Emily a price and the names of some of his
competitors. She would prepare all the necessary documents for Gaylord to sign and make
sure that C&L would obtain the business at a good price. Gaylord agreed to Cristopher’s
suggestion. After all, he was certain C&L could offer the best range of paper products at the
most competitive prices. Moreover, because he was not offering any kickbacks to obtain the
contract, he was convinced that what he was doing was not against the Prevention of Bribery
Ordinance [see Appendix 1]. C&L was subsequently awarded the contract in August 2006.
2
This document is authorized for use only in Sally Anne Gaunt’s IBUS6002, Sem 1 2020 at University of Sydney from May 2020 to Jun 2020.
08/391C
Ethics Management at a Small Cross-Border Enterprise (B): Misconduct in a public office
APPENDIX 1: EXTRACTS FROM THE PREVENTION OF BRIBERY ORDINANCE
(LAWS OF HONG KONG CAP. 201)
Section 4
Bribery
(1)
Any person who, whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere, without lawful authority or
reasonable excuse, offers any advantage to a public servant as an inducement to or
reward for or otherwise on account of that public servant’s(a) performing or abstaining from performing, or having performed or abstained
from performing, any act in his capacity as a public servant;
(b) expediting, delaying, hindering or preventing, or having expedited, delayed,
hindered or prevented, the performance of an act, whether by that public servant
or by any other public servant in his or that other public servant’s capacity as a
public servant; or
(c) assisting, favouring, hindering or delaying, or having assisted, favoured, hindered
or delayed, any person in the transaction of any business with a public body,
shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)
Any public servant who, whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere, without lawful authority
or reasonable excuse, solicits or accepts any advantage as an inducement to or reward
for or otherwise on account of his(a) performing or abstaining from performing, or having performed or abstained
from performing, any act in his capacity as a public servant;
(b) expediting, delaying, hindering or preventing, or having expedited, delayed,
hindered or prevented, the performance of an act, whether by himself or by any
other public servant in his or that other public servant’s capacity as a public
servant; or
(c) assisting, favouring, hindering or delaying, or having assisted, favoured, hindered
or delayed, any person in the transaction of any business with a public body,
shall be guilty of an offence.
(3)
If a public servant other than a prescribed officer solicits or accepts an advantage with
the permission of the public body of which he is an employee being permission which
complies with subsection (4), neither he nor the person who offered the advantage shall
be guilty of an offence under this section.
(4)
For the purposes of subsection (3) permission shall be in writing and(a) be given before the advantage is offered, solicited or accepted; or
(b) in any case where an advantage has been offered or accepted without prior
permission, be applied for and given as soon as reasonably possible after such
offer or acceptance, and for such permission to be effective for the purposes of
subsection (3), the public body shall, before giving such permission, have regard
to the circumstances in which it is sought.
Section 6
(1)
Bribery for procuring withdrawal of tenders
Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, offers any advantage
to
any other person as an inducement to or a reward for or otherwise on account of
the
withdrawal of a tender, or the refraining from the making of a tender, for any
contract with a public body for the performance of any work, the providing of any
service, the doing of any thing or the supplying of any article, material or substance,
shall be guilty of an offence.
3
This document is authorized for use only in Sally Anne Gaunt’s IBUS6002, Sem 1 2020 at University of Sydney from May 2020 to Jun 2020.
08/391C
(2)
Ethics Management at a Small Cross-Border Enterprise (B): Misconduct in a public office
Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, solicits or accepts any
advantage as an inducement to or a reward for or otherwise on account of the
withdrawal of a tender, or the refraining from the making of a tender, for such a
contract as is referred to in subsection (1), shall be guilty of an offence.
Section 9
Corrupt transaction with agents
(1)
Any agent who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, solicits or accepts any
advantage as an inducement to or reward for or otherwise on account of his;
(a) doing or forbearing to do, or having done or forborne to do, any act in relation to
his principal’s affairs or business; or
(b) showing or forbearing to show, or having shown or forborne to show, favour or
disfavour to any person in relation to his principal’s affairs or business, shall be
guilty of an offence.
(2)
Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, offers any advantage
to any agent as an inducement to or reward for or otherwise on account of the agent’s(a) doing or forbearing to do, or having done or forborne to do, any act in relation to
his principal’s affairs or business; or
(b) showing or forbearing to show, or having shown or forborne to show, favour or
disfavour to any person in relation to his principal’s affairs or business,
shall be guilty of an offence.
(3)
Any agent who, with intent to deceive his principal, uses any receipt, account or other
document(a) in respect of which the principal is interested; and
(b) which contains any statement which is false or erroneous or defective in any
material particular; and
(c) which to his knowledge is intended to mislead the principal,
shall be guilty of an offence.
(4)
If an agent solicits or accepts an advantage with the permission of his principal,
being permission which complies with subsection (5), neither he nor the person
who offered the advantage shall be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2).
(5)
For the purposes of subsection (4) permission shall(a) be given before the advantage is offered, solicited or accepted; or
(b) in any case where an advantage has been offered or accepted without prior
permission, be applied for and given as soon as reasonably possible after such
offer or acceptance, and for such permission to be effective for the purposes of
subsection (4), the principal shall, before giving such permission, have regard to
the circumstances in which it is sought.
Section 11
Giver and acceptor of bribe to be guilty notwithstanding that purpose
not carried out, etc.
(1)
If, in any proceedings for an offence under any section in this Part, it is proved that the
accused accepted any advantage, believing or suspecting or having grounds to believe
or suspect that the advantage was given as an inducement to or reward for or otherwise
on account of his doing or forbearing to do or having done or forborne to do, any act
referred to in that section, it shall be no defence that –
(a) he did not actually have the power, right or opportunity so to do or forbear;
(b) he accepted the advantage without intending so to do or forbear; or
4
This document is authorized for use only in Sally Anne Gaunt’s IBUS6002, Sem 1 2020 at University of Sydney from May 2020 to Jun 2020.
08/391C
Ethics Management at a Small Cross-Border Enterprise (B): Misconduct in a public office
(c) he did not in fact so do or forbear.
(2)
If, in any proceedings for an offence under any section in this Part, it is proved that
the accused offered any advantage to any other person as an inducement to or reward
for or otherwise on account of that other person’s doing or forbearing to do, or
having done or forborne to do, any act referred to in that section, believing or
suspecting or having reason to believe or suspect that such other person had the
power, right or opportunity so to do or forbear, it shall be no defence that such other
person had no such power, right or opportunity.
Section 19
Custom not to be a defence
In any proceedings for an offence under this Ordinance, it shall not be a defence to show
that any such advantage as is mentioned in this Ordinance is customary in any profession,
trade, vocation or calling.
Section 2
Interpretation
‘Advantage’ means:
(a) any gift, loan, fee, reward or commission consisting of money or of any valuable
security or of other property or interest in property of any description;
(b) any office, employment or contract;
(c) any payment, release, discharge or liquidation of any loan, obligation or other liability,
whether in whole or in part;
(d) any other service, or favour (other than entertainment), including protection from any
penalty or disability incurred or apprehended or from any action or proceedings of a
disciplinary, civil or criminal nature, whether or not already instituted;
(e) the exercise or forbearance from the exercise of any right or any power or duty; and
(f) any offer, undertaking or promise, whether conditional or unconditional, of any
advantage within the meaning of any of the preceding paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)
but does not include an election donation within the meaning of the Elections (Corrupt
and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap 554), particulars of which are included in an
election return in accordance with that Ordinance.
‘Entertainment’ means:
The provision of food or drink, for consumption on the occasion when it is provided, and of
any other entertainment connected with, or provided at the same time as, such provisions.
5
This document is authorized for use only in Sally Anne Gaunt’s IBUS6002, Sem 1 2020 at University of Sydney from May 2020 to Jun 2020.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment