HTC 2

CONTENT
 Overview of case study

 Causes of tragedy
 Sequence of tragedy
 The court case
 Final judgement
 Unethical practices
 Ethical theories
 Action for prevention
 Conclusion
 reference
OVERVIEW
 The Highland Towers collapse was
an apartment building collapse that
occurred on 11 December 1993 in
Taman, Malaysia.
 After 10 days of continuous
rainfall a landslide occurred
resulting in the collapse of the
block 1
 The collapse of block 1 caused the
deaths of 48 people and led to the
complete evacuation of the
remaining two blocks due to safety
concern.
Don’t think this tragedy happened only because
of natural outrage….
The cumulative daily rainfall intensity measured

from 1st to 10th December 1993 recorded at JPS
Ampang was 177.5mm and the measured
maximum daily rainfall intensity was 59.5mm.
It was not exceptional rainfall as compared to
previous measured rainfall intensity.
A study of the causes of landslides had been carried out by
Gue & Tan (2006) based on 49 investigation cases of
primarily large landslides on residual soils. The results of
the study are shown in Table
CAUSES OF NUMBER OF PERCENTAGE (%)
LANDSLIDES CASES
Design Errors 29 60
Construction Errors 4 8
Design and 10 20
Construction Errors
Geological Features 3 6
Maintenance 3 6
Total 49 100
CAUSES OF TRAGEDY
 Highland tower consisted of three 12 storey apartments
known as blocks 1,2 and3
 It was constructed between 1975 to1978 and directly behind
the three blocks was steep slope and This slope is supported
by retaining rubble walls made of boulders and cobbles of
rock of varying seize placed together by mortar at a random
fashion
 Behind the Highland Towers was a small stream of water
known as East Creek. East Creek flowed into the site of the
Highland Towers.
 so pipe system was built to divert the stream to bypass the
Highland Towers.
 In 1991, a new housing development project, known as the
Bukit Antarabangsa Development Project commenced
construction on the hilltop behind the Highland Towers. The
hill was cleared of trees and other land-covering plants,
exposing the soil to land erosion that is the leading factor of
causing landslides.
 The water from the construction site was diverted into the same
pipe system used to divert the flow of East Creek.It leads
overload the pipe system
 water, sand and silt from both East Creek and the construction
site infiltrated the pipes
 flow regime of the East Stream into the pipe culvert running
across the hill is highly undesirable and dangerous so the pipe
system became overly pressurized.
 The pipes burst at various locations on the hill, and
the soil had to absorb the excessive water.
 The water content in the soil had exceeded a
dangerous level, and the soil had literally turned into
mud.
 By October 1992, the hill slope had been almost
flooded with water, and it was reported that water was
seen flowing down the hill slopes and the retaining
walls.
 The soil rammed onto the foundation of Block 1,
incrementally pushing it forward. After of that
constant pressure, the foundations of Block 1 snapped
and in December 1993,
 Serious crack were found by the resident on the road
near the apartment and Cracks began to form and
widen on the road leading to the towers
 Soon after, a landslip took place and destroyed the
poorly constructed retaining walls.
 The landslide contained an estimated 100,000 square
meters of mud - a mass equivalent to 200 Boeing
747jets.
 December 11,1993 -Block 1 of the Highland Towers
collapses at 1.35 pm.
 12 December, complete evacuation of the remaining
two blocks for safety concern.
THE COURT CASE
 On 15 December 1993, the Highland Towers Owners and Residents
Committee was set up.
 About three years later, on 5 December 1996, 73 owners and residents
(plaintiffs) field a suit against ten parties (defendants) based on claims of
negligence, nuisance and strict liability.
1. Developer- Highland Properties Sdn Bhd
2. Draftsman – engaged by the developers as the architect for the project
3. Engineer – engaged by the developer as the engineer for the project
4. Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya -local authority for approvals
5. Arab-Malaysia Finance Bhd – owner of bungalow land at the rear of

highland towers
6. Tropic – the company that carried out clearing works
7. Owner of Metrolux land– the higher land adjacent to the 5 th defendant’s land
8. Project manager for the 7th Defendant
9. Selangor State Government
10. Director of Lands and Mines, Selangor

 On 11 August 2000, the High Court found seven defendants
liable for the collapse of Block 1 and apportioned the liability
in the percentages as shown in table
defendants Liable defendants liability

percentage
1st developer 15
2nd Draftsman 10
3rd engineer 10
4th Majlis perbandaran ampang 15
jaya( local authority)
5th Arab-malaysia finance Bhd 30
7th Owner of the metrolux land 20
8th Project manager for the 7th 20
defendants
THIS CASE STUDY RAISES
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
 What are the mistakes that causes the building

collapse?
 Who should responsible for the collapse of the
building?
 What action can be used in order to prevent it
happen again?
JUDGMENT-TRUE CAUSES OF
TRAGEDY
on 3 November 1997, the Coroner’s Court found no
incriminating factors in the 48 deaths and ruled the incident
was not a natural disasters. Based on studies conducted by
the Technical Investigation Committee the main cause of
this incident is given below
 Improper drainage system and clearance of vegetation
cover
mud flood in pipe drains developed due to the
clearing plants for proposed project which is located 150
meters above the Highland Towers apartments. It was
developed by MBF and Arab- Malaysian Finance Bhd.
(Shareholders). Furthermore this mud flood has caused
the road around apartment cracked. and clearing plants
also leads the soil erosion which is accelerating the
landslide .
 Inadequate designing of retaining wall
Rubble wall at the front and rear of
the building causing slip because there is no
support and resistance of the wall. Fault occurred
resulting in support for the front of the building
becomes more fragile, while the burden on the
back of the building is increasing and causing
unstable situation to the apartment. Thus creates
very high pressure on the pile of buildings,
especially the pile at the front. When the pile is
broken it began to swing and collapse.
UNETHICAL PRACTICES
Construction of buildings on the edge of a hill even is not suitable, especially in
equatorial and tropical climates with high rainfall.
Building apartment on the hillside is also against with the Land Conservation
Act 1960. The Act prohibits the development carried out on the hillsides with
slopes greater than 18 degree for reasons connected to the environment.
UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR OF DEPENDENTS:
1st defendant: DEVELOPER
Not employing reasonably fit, competent, skilled and qualified persons to
design, draw, sign and submit architectural and engineering drawings and plans
for the construction of Highland Towers and the hill slope behind it.
Constructing inadequate retaining wall and drainage system and old rail pile
was used in foundation due to financial issues.
Obtaining CF to occupy the three blocks when the drainage system in the Highland
Towers site and the Arab-Malaysian land was incomplete.
 2nd defendant: DRAFTSMAN(ARCHITECT)
 not complying with the requirements of the authorities in respect of
drainage, in colluding with the First Defendant and Third Defendant
(the Engineer) to obtain a Certificate of Fitness without fulfilling the
conditions imposed by the Fourth Defendant (the Local Authority), in
so doing not complying with his duties as Architect.
 not investigating the terracing of the hill slopes and construction of
retaining walls even though he was aware they would affect the
buildings
 3rd defendant: ENGINEER
 approved drainage scheme are not implemented.
 Not having taken into account the hill or slope behind the Towers
 For colluding with the First and Second Defendants to obtain a
Certificate of Fitness without fulfilling the conditions imposed by the
Fourth Defendant(local authority)
 4th defendant: LOCAL AUTHORITY(MPAJ)
 At the planning and design stage of Highland Towers, MPAJ had not
taken reasonable care, skill and diligence in checking the plans
submitted to ascertain whether they are reasonably fit for the
purpose
 In respect of its duties associated with building. i.e. in respect of
approval of building plans and design and to ensure implementation
of the approved drainage system during construction, and in the
issue of the Certificate of Fitness to three apartment blocks.
 7th defendant: PROJECT MANAGER
To preventing water from flowing downhill (into their site) they

diverted the water into the East Stream even though they knew this
would increase the volume of water and inject silt, especially where
there was extensive clearing on their land, into the East Stream,
which is contribute to the failure of the drainage system and
collapse of Block 1.
ETHICAL THEORY RELATED TO THIS
CASE STUDY
 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
• A Registered Engineer shall at all times hold paramount the safety,
health and welfare of the public.
• A Registered Engineer shall conduct himself honorably,
responsibly, ethically and lawfully so as to enhance the honor,
reputation and usefulness of the profession.
• In this case Ir. Wong’s misconduct .
 UTILITARIANISM
• Utilitarianism is a moral theory that advocates actions that promote
overall happiness or pleasure and rejects actions that cause
unhappiness or harm.
• In this case,developer,architect,engineer,local authorities action
towards the construction of highland tower which is unsafe for users
 DUTY BASED ETHICS:
• Duty based ethics teaches that some acts are right or

wrong because of the sorts of things they are, and
people have a duty to act accordingly, regardless of the
good or bad consequences that may be produced.
• In this case this incident that happens to Highland Tower,
because of The responsible parties should not take
action in proper ways to do their duty to people.
ETHICAL CANONS VIOLATION
The 6 fundamental canons of engineering ethics according to the
NSPE
1) Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.
( violated)
2) Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3) Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful

manner. ( violated)
4) Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5) Avoid deceptive acts.
6) Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and

lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and
usefulness of the profession. (violated )
ACTION FOR PREVENTION
 Awareness about importance of duty ethics and
professional code of conducts
 Enforce the regulation.
a) Ensure the qualification of worker

b) Provide guide for type of material and building can be built on the
hillside area.
c) Tighten the housing and construction approval on the hillside area
 Ensure the safety of construction on the hillside
a) Regular check on the building after built
b) Control logging and replanting trees on the construction and hillside area
 Provide a workshop to give awareness about the
construction.
CONCLUSION
 From this case study we can easily realized that
reliability of the structure is not only technology
dependent it’s also dependent to the quality of design,
construction, and maintenance.
 Engineers should be familiar with the natural features of
the work site and its consequences.
 Every architect, engineer and developer must never
allow an unsafe condition to persist or develop at the
construction site. They should also ensure at all times
that there is no threat to public health and welfare and
they should remember their integrity and ability which
are vital to the practice of their profession.
REFERENCE
 Lessons Learned From Highland Towers, Murgan D.
Maniam, Pengarah Undang-Undang, Majlis Perbandaran
Pulau Pinang
 Engineering Ethics Note (BENU 4853), Chapter 3
Understanding ethical problems.
 Report of the Task Force on Bukit Antarabangsa

HTC 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HTC 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HTC 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTENT

 Overview of case study

 The court case

 Action for prevention

The cumulative daily rainfall intensity measured

2. Draftsman – engaged by the developers as the architect for the project

3. Engineer – engaged by the developer as the engineer for the project

4. Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya -local authority for approvals

5. Arab-Malaysia Finance Bhd – owner of bungalow land at the rear of

8. Project manager for the 7th Defendant

9. Selangor State Government

10. Director of Lands and Mines, Selangor

defendants Liable defendants liability

 What are the mistakes that causes the building

To preventing water from flowing downhill (into their site) they

• Duty based ethics teaches that some acts are right or

3) Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful

5) Avoid deceptive acts.

6) Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and

a) Ensure the qualification of worker

You might also like