Swiss Bank secrecy policy

Article: Swiss to Review Banking Secrecy Laws
published on 07.03.2009

by s928163

The Swiss banks are known for its tight secrecy policy. For nearly 300 years, the Swiss government has been resisting in loosening this policy. Even with the mounting pressure in the recent years, the Swiss government insists that such policy is important for their most important industry, the Financials. Abolishing the secrecy policy will cause customer loss, and endanger the county’s financial system. However, is it morally right to protect the depositors who have violated tax laws in their own country? Does Switzerland have the moral obligation to assist other countries in taxation fraud investigation? In the following article, it will be analyzed with respect of the four perspectives.
In consideration of the perspective of law, the tax evasion is not considered a crime under Swiss law. Only when the terrorism and other criminal matters are involved would the banks waive private information. In the meanwhile, with the efforts to protect their customers’ Right to their bank secrecy, the Swiss government might be able to stay in the boundary of the perspective of Right. However, when considering the human right of the other countries, it is clearly wrong to withhold crucial information of those who have violated law in their own country.

Now judging from the morality of “what we owe others”, when the Switzerland decided not to assist other countries in investigation of the taxation fraud, they have actively complicated the guilty actors. Citizens who benefit from their society have a moral obligation to contribute to that society, and to obey the laws. In ensuring their own benefit, the Swiss banks have deprived other’s entitlement of justice.

Link to the lecture:
The four perspectives and the morality of "what we owe others" in view of swiss action.

New rules for accident-management?

Article: Dutch officials say faulty altimeter played role in Turkish plane crash
published on 04.03.2009

by s425331


Wednesday, February 25, 2009; 1030h: A Boeing 737-800 of Turkish Airlines crashes near Schiphol Airport. The results were 9 deceased and many dozens of wounded people . One week after, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, the first conclusions about the Turkish Airlines crash at Schiphol Airport were published by Schiphol Airport and a few other Dutch institutions. They mentioned that a faulty altimeter, following by a pilot failure was the cause of the crash.
Directly after these conclusions were drawn, the Turkish media claimed that the Dutch authorities pushed their conclusions in such a way that all responsibility for the crash is put in the shoes of the pilots and cabin crew of Turkish Airlines, most probably in order to avoid damage claims. The reaction of the Turkish transportation minister was that “it would be wrong to make assumptions and blame anybody”, since a plane crash has many aspects and all angles needs to be enlightened before conclusions can be drawn.
In my view, the Turkish transportation minister has a point here, unfortunately due to the freedom to speak: for all parties who are concerned with this airplane crash, it is legally not forbidden to publish their opinions about the reasons for the crash. According to the Functional Tradition, freedom (and thus freedom to speak) leads to rationality, which again leads to maximization of self-interest, which could be opposed to social interest/morality.
In other words, while an internationally working, independent research agency is still investigating the crash, Schiphol Airport and Turkish Airlines are figuratively fighting with heavy weighting claims and statements about each other. By doing so, they are trying to save their own reputation and to avoid damage claims; not knowing that this self-interest seeking may hurt the dozens of (relatives of the) victims of the crash who want to hear the real story behind the crash.
Therefore, I am in favor of internationally set social rules which will limit the freedom to speak for parties who are concerned with accidents which have enormous consequences for a lot of people. At least these parties should be limited in their freedom to draw conclusions about these accidents, while independent organizations are still investigating their cases.

Link to the lecture:
Funtional Tradition and self interest seeking character trait of human beings and organizations, and it’s application within the Turkish Airlines crash