BEKU 4583ENGINEERING ETHICS

TITLE: CASE STUDY ON THE HIGHLAND TOWERS

TRAGEDY

GROUP MEMBERS
KANTHAAN A/L SIVAPATHY
SERAN A/L MANICKAM
SHITIAN LING
MUHAMMAD NAIM BIN MOHD RAZAKI

Introduction
Highland Towers consisted of three 12-story
blocks of apartments which known as Block 1,
2 and 3. It was constructed between years
1975 until 1978. It was once notorious 1980s
and 1990s by wealthy people.
On Saturday, 11th December 1993, after 10
days of rainfall, a landslide occurred resulting
collapsing of Block 1. The tragedy cause 48
deaths with 2 survival.

Chronology

Chronology

ANALYSIS OF MAJOR ISSUES

SURROUNDING THE FAILURE

Causes of the Highland Towers Tragedy

1)

2)

Construction of buildings on the edge of a

hill was not suitable especially in equatorial
and tropical climates with high rainfall.
Building apartment on the hillside was also
against the Land Conservation Act 1960.
The acts prohibited the development
carried out on the hillside greater than 18
degrees for reasons connected to the
environment.

Causes of the Highland Towers Tragedy

However, based on the Technical Investigation
Committee, the main cause of this incident was
occurring landslide at the hill slope rear of the
apartment building. This happen due to the:
i) Development takes place at Hill International
which is located on the hill near the condominium.
ii) Surface water flow that occurs over this
incident has caused soil erosion on hill slopes.
iii) Rubble wall at the front and rear of the building
causing slip because there is no support and
resistance of the wall.

3) The negligible characteristic of human also causes to the this tragedy;

Management
Not engaging a qualified architect, constructing insufficient and inadequate terraces,
retaining walls and drains on the hill slope.
Architect
Not having ensured adequate drainage and retaining walls were built on the hill slope
adjacent to the Highland Towers site, not complying with the requirements of the
authorities in respect of drainage, and not investigating the terracing of the hill lopes
and construction of retaining walls.
Engineer
Not having taken into account the hill or slope behind the Towers, not having
designed and constructed a foundation to accommodate the lateral loads of a
landslide and not having implemented that approved drainage scheme.
Local Authority
Negligent in respect of its duties associated with building. For example in respect of
approval of building plans, to ensure implementation of the approved drainage
system during construction.

An Analysis of the Ethical

Lapses
Defendants:

3 years after
Highland Towers
(HT) tragedy, the
owners
of
Block 2 & 3
issued

Writ

against

10

defendants
who
were
involved in this
tragedy.

1.

Highland Properties Sdn Bhd (developer)

2.

Architect

3.

Engineer

4.

Local Authority

5.

Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd (50 lots of

bungalow land owner at rear)

6.

Tropic Company (clearing works on A-M

land)

7.

Metrolux (owner of a land above A-M

land)

8.

Project Manager

9.

The State Government of Selangor

10. Director of Lands & Mines of Selangor

First Defendant
(developer)
Engaged a non-qualified architect
Constructing insufficient
Inadequate terraces, retaining walls and
drains on the hill slope

Second Defendant
(Architect)
Not having ensured adequate drainage and
retaining walls were built on the hill slope
near to the HT site
In colluding with the First and Third
Defendant (the Engineer) to obtain a
Certificate of Fitness without fulfilling the
conditions

Supervised the building

Constructed by laws and any
conditions imposed
Full responsibility for those portions
they are concerned with

Third Defendant
(Engineer)
Not having taken into account the hill slope
behind the HT
Not having ensured that the adjacent hill
slope was stable

Collude with the First and Second Defendants

to obtain the Certificate of Fitness

Fourth Defendant (Local

Authority)
Negligent in its duties associated with
building.
i.e. in respect of approval of building plan
Protected by reason of s95(2) of the Street,
Drainage and Building Act.

Not be subject to any action, claim

or liabilities
Works carried out with provisions of
this Act or any by-laws made
Inspection and approval by state
and local authorities

Seventh & Eighth Defendant

(Project Manager)

Negligence for preventing water from

flowing downhill to the A-M land and instead
directing water into the East Stream, when
they knew this would increase the water
volume and inject silt into it.

In 2000, High Court Judge apportioned the

liability to the defendants with different rates.
The case is then put to rest.
However, the local authorities received the
legal mandate that they are fully immune to
liabilities. Even committing unreasonable
negligence, they will be shielded by the law
under Section 95(2).

Recommedation

Building Professionals require considering the vicinity of the site as well as

the site itself in assessing safety-particularly in regard to adjacent hill
slopes.

Building Professionals cannot hide behind limited scopes of engagementthese are a matter between themselves and their employer, but the scope
of their duty owed to persons likely to be affected by their services is not
so limited.

Building Professionals require ensuring that others engaged to do work

likely to affect the structures they have been engaged to design/supervise
are competent and will carry out their work in a workmanlike manner.

If Building Professionals hold themselves out to have expertise in a

particular area when they are unqualified, their conduct will be measured
against the ordinarily competent qualified practitioner of such expertise.

Building Professionals must ensure the law is followed, reporting to the

authorities if necessary if their clients break the law, even at the risk of
being discharged by their client.