UNIVERSITI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA MELAKA FACULTY OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

ETHICS ENGINEERING BEKU 4583

CASE STUDY ON HIGHLAND TOWER TRAGEDY

No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Name Shaharrudin bin HJ Syahid Yik Chee Mun Gan Kent Loong Muhammad Fizree Ashraf Jarni Mohamad Izmi Hasnan bin Sha`ari

Matriks No. B010810095 B010810341 B010810132 B010810043 B010810144

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

CONTENT

Bil i 01 ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 02 ANALYSIS 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 03 DISCUSSION 3.1 3.2 3.3 04 05 06 CONCLUSION APPENDIX REFERENCE Ethical Codes

Content

Page

1-3 History and Background Chronology of Events 1 2-3 4-14 Cause of the case Sequence of the tragedy Implications of the tragedy Action taken after the tragedy Liability Application of Line Drawing Analysis to the Case 4 5 6 7 8-10 11-14 14-19 14-15 15-17 18-19 20 21-23 24

Codes of Ethics Board of Engineer Malaysia (BEM) Court

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

ABSTRACT

This case details the tragedy of the 12-Floor Highland Towers Condominium collapsed on the ethical theories and codes of ethics in engineering practice perspective. This major disaster occurred in 1993 where it caused the deaths of 48 people and lead to the evacuation of the other two blocks due to safety concerns. This case study revealed the factor that lead to the tragedy, its implications and how it reflects the importance of ethical theories and codes of ethics in engineering practice. The tragedy was explained in the chronological of events starting from the 1964 where the project was initiated, to the phase where the first block gained the Certificate of Fitness for Occupation (CFO) issued by the local authorities, and to the tragedy phase. Block one collapsed due to the failed of the poorly constructed retaining walls and the high force of the landslide that equivalent to 200 Boeing 747 jets. After the tragedy, a Technical Committee was formed to investigate the tragedy and a Cabinet Committee has been formed to address all the problems associated with the tragedy. A full report on the causes of the tragedy was completed and published in 1994. This case was brought to the justice and 10 defendants were indicted. From the ethical theories perspective, this tragedy can be avoided from the first place if the responsible engineer realized his duty ethics. The respected engineer must be concerned to the public safety referring to the Board of Engineer Malaysia (BEM), Code of Professional Conduct even though his action was accepted from the utilitarianism principle perspective of view. The tragedy has give impact in the law enforcement such as a new policy was drafted regarding development on highland areas; all highland development projects required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for project approval and etc. Conclusion that can be made through the whole case study is that the engineer must be responsible in his/her action based on the ethical theories and codes of ethics in engineering practices.

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

INTRODUCTION

1.1

History and Background The Highland Towers tragedy was one of the most tragic tragedies in Malaysia. It is the first case that involved high story apartments collapse. Highland Towers consisted of three 12-story blocks of apartments known as Blocks 1, 2 and 3. It was constructed between 1975 and 1978. Directly behind the three blocks was a steep slope. A stream originating upslope from the Metrolux land flowed across part of the slope. The Highland Towers were once notorious in the 1980s and early 1990s for being a popular spot for the wealthy people

On Saturday, December 11, 1993, about 15 years later, after 10 days of continuous rainfall, a landslide occurred resulting in the collapse of Block 1. The collapse of Block One of the apartments caused the deaths of 48 people and led to the complete evacuation of the other two blocks due to safety concerns. After the collapse of Block 1, the residents of Blocks 2 and 3 were prevented from entering their apartments by MPAJ to avoid the same tragedy repeats.

Block 1 Block 2

Block 3

Figure 1: Model of 12-Story Highland Towers Condominium

1|Page

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

1.2

Chronology of Events Event Department of Town and Village (JPBK) the State began to make an assessment. Kuala Lumpur Regional Office approved the application of the proposed project Construction of the building was initiated by the Consortium of Consulting Architects (KJP) for the High Land Properties Sdn Bhd. Building Block 1 has been completed and given CF by Gombak District Council and has been occupied residents. Building Block 2 has been completed and given CF by Gombak District Council and has been occupied residents Building Block 3 has been completed and given CF by Gombak District Council and has been occupied residents. Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) was established and given responsibility to handle the project. Water began to flow down the hill slopes due to the flooding caused by the burst pipes. MPAJ gave CF for the construction of the basement car park. Serious crack were found by the resident on the road near the apartment. 1Cracks began to form and widen on the road leading to the towers. 9 9 3

Bil Date 01 1964 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1974 1978 1981 1986 1 July 1992 October 1992 1993 November

10 11

October 1992 Water began to flow down the hill slopes due to the flooding caused by the burst pipes. November 1993 Cracks began to form and widen on the road leading to the towers.

2|Page

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

12

December 11, 1993

13

December 12

14

December 13

15 16 17 18 19

December 15 December 16 December 17 December 18 December 19

20 21 22

December 20 December 21 December 22

Block 1 of the Highland Towers collapses at 1.35 pm. 124 members of the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) and about 30 military personnel and engineers from Batu Cantonment Camp and Wardieburn Camp are deployed for search and rescue. Hundreds of policemen, firemen and Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) rescue teams, Malaysian Red Cresent Council volunteers arrived earlier. Rescue team spots somebody waving a stick. A maid of one of the residents at Level 7, Umi Rashidah Khoruman, 22, and her daughter Nur Hamidah Najib, 18 months are found. Shizue Nakajima, 50, a Japanese women was also pulled from the debris but pronounced dead at 12 midnight in Kuala Lumpur Hospital (HKL). Dr Abdul Wahid from HKL Shahrum stated Nakajima suffered severe internal bleeding. Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and many cabinet ministers visit the site. Residents of Block B and C of Highland Towers are ordered to vacate their homes after declaring unsafe. Search and rescue teams from Singapore, France and Japan arrived in Malaysia to help. Nuri and Alouette helicopters from the RMAF were also despatched A team from France with two rescue dogs joins the operation. They use heartbeat detectors to search for survivors and dig a 4.5 meter hole for access. A Committee Cabinet is established specifically to deal with problems relating to the Highland Towers tragedy Rescuers find six bodies. Four are believed to be of two Koreans and two locals. Rescue teams decide to use machines to break concrete and steel as well as bulldozers to remove debris to open a route. Umi and Rashidah Nur Hamidah are released from HKL The Cabinet Committee agrees to abandon rescue efforts. Rescue teams find six more bodies including one child. Rescue teams find three bodies. One of a woman, located about eight meters inside the parking area, was found at 7 p.m. The second body, also a woman, was found near the first body at 8.30 p.m. while the third, a man, was found at 10.15 p.m. the night. So far, 25 corpses, including one who embraced the Qur'an found in Level 12 are discovered. Also found were the remains of a woman wearing a sari and shielding a child. The police confirms that 48 bodies were recovered from the Highland Towers debris. The search is ended. Dr Nik Hassan Nik Ramlan is appointed chairman of the Technical Committee of Investigating the Highland Towers tragedy.

3|Page

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

ANALYSIS

2.1

Cause of the case In general there are many factors that cause the tragedy from happen listed below: 1. Construction of buildings on the edge of a hill even is not suitable, especially in equatorial and tropical climates with high rainfall. 2. 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. 3. Inconsistency between Environment Quality Act 1974. the Land Conservation Act with the

Based on studies conducted by the Technical Investigation Committee the main cause of this incident is occurring landslips at the hill slope rear of the apartment building. However, there are other causes that caused the fault which led to the collapse of Highland Tower building, stated below: I. Since development takes place at Hill International which is located on the hill near the condominium water has seeped into the hillside, causing mud flood. This is due to the clearing plants, located 150 meters above the Highland Towers apartments. It was developed by Malaysia Borneo Finance (MBF) and Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd. (Shareholders). Furthermore this mud flood has caused the road around apartment cracked. Surface water flow that occurs over this incident has caused soil erosion on hill slopes. This phenomenon caused the soil structure slope becomes weak until the occurrence of landslide. 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.

II.

III.

4|Page

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

2.2

Sequence of the Tragedy

Figure 2: The Retaining Wall Collapsed

Figure 3: Force equivalent to 200 Boeing 747 jets ramp to foundation of block one

Figure 4

Figure 6: Block one completely collapsed 5|Page

Figure 5

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

2.3

Implications of the tragedy 1. About 48 people lost their lives that have been discovered and identified. The victims are mainly Malaysian, with 12 foreigners (1 Britain, 1Japanese, 2 Indians, 2 Koreans, 3 Filipina and 3 Indonesian). Cause loss of property worth millions of ringgit. Review of acts of environment with by the authorities. Cause damage to the environment seriously affected areas. The possibility of public response on the hillside housing will decrease. This raised concerns among developers. Environmental damage of surrounding area Amendments of existing act related to environment Possibilities of decreasing demands over residential on hillsides.

2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

6|Page

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

2.4

Action taken after the tragedy 1. A Cabinet Committee has been formed to address all the problems associated with the tragedy. It was chaired by Deputy Prime Minister and composed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Ministry of Information, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment and the Ministry of Works. The Committee is based in the Office of the National Security Council. The state government has set up a special investigative body that handled by MPAJ to determine the cause of the incident. A full report on the causes of the tragedy was completed and published in 1994. The Cabinet has decided to stop immediately the all tall building projects approved in the hills until a new policy is approved. Cabinet has decided to hold tall building development projects not yet constructed postponed until a decision is made. While projects under construction may be continued only after the developer submits verification of stability and security of the other consultant within a month. The Cabinet has also directed that all buildings of more than 5 storey high in the hills to obtain verification from a qualified consultant in the 6 months to prove the stability and safety of the building interior. Following the Cabinet decision, state governments have taken immediate action to freeze all apartment building in the hills. As a result the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Federal government will formulate a policy relating to development in the highlands. In addition, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be required for any development project in the highlands before a decision is rendered. Several existing Acts relating to development projects in the highlands is said to be amended and enforced to ensure that such tragedies will not recur.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

7|Page

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

2.5

Liability The following were the findings on liability by the Court:

1. The First Defendant was liable in negligence for: i. ii. Not engaging a qualified architect; Constructing insufficient and inadequate terraces, retaining walls and drains on the hillslope which could reasonably have been foreseen to have caused the collapse iii. Diverting the East Stream from its natural course and failing to ensure the pipe culvert diversion was adequate, and in nuisance for not maintaining drains and retaining walls.

2. The Second Defendant (Architect) was liable in negligence for: i. Not having ensured adequate drainage and retaining walls were built on the hill slopes adjacent to the Highland Towers site, which he foresaw or ought to have foreseen, would pose a danger to the buildings he was in charge of; ii. In 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, and; iii. In not investigating the terracing of the hill slopes and construction of retaining walls even though he was aware they would affect the buildings he was in charge of, and also in nuisance as he was an unreasonable user of land.

8|Page

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

3. The Third Defendant (Engineer) was liable in negligence for: i. Not having taken into account the hill or slope behind the Towers; ii. Not having designed and constructed a foundation to

accommodate the lateral loads of a landslide or alternatively to have ensured that the adjacent hill slopes was stable, for not having implemented that approved drainage scheme; iii. For colluding with the First and Second Defendants to obtain a Certificate of Fitness without fulfilling the

conditions imposed by the Fourth Defendant and also in nuisance as he was an unreasonable user of land.

4. The Fourth Defendant (Local Authority) although negligent in respect of its duties associated with building. i.e. in respect of approval of building plans, to ensure implementation of the approved drainage system during construction, and in the issue of the Certificate of Fitness, was nonetheless conferred immunity by reason of s95(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act. The Fourth Defendant was however not immune in respect of its negligence in carrying out its post building functions of maintaining the East Stream. This also attracted liability in nuisance.

5. The Fifth Defendant (Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd) was liable in negligence in failing to maintain the drains on its land, and in taking measures to restore stability on its land after the collapse.

6. The Sixth Defendant (an abortive purchaser of the Arab-Malaysian Land who carried out site clearing works) was not found liable on the evidence.

9|Page

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

7. The Seventh Defendant (Metrolux Properties) and its Project Manager, the Eighth Defendant, who were liable in negligence and nuisance for preventing water from flowing downhill (into their site) and instead directing water into the East Stream, when they knew or ought to have known that this would increase the volume of water and inject silt, especially where there was extensive clearing on their land, into the East Stream where it would be deposited, which would in turn (as proved) cause or contribute to the failure of the drainage system and collapse of Block 1.

8. The Ninth and Tenth Defendants (essentially the State Government) were not found liable due to a technical issue in respect of the particular party sued.

10 | P a g e

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

2.6

Application of Line Drawing Analysis to the Case

Problem: Before the construction of the condominium was initiated, the defendants mentioned in subtopic Liability should do the research and consider of what were going to happen to the environment, to the human and the animals if they were going to proceed with the construction of the condominium. Line drawing had been using in this analysis, at one end is placed a positive paradigm which indicates that the points are morally acceptable. At the other end is negative paradigm which indicates the points are not morally acceptable: Positive paradigm - the condominium should be built as planned. Negative paradigm - not to build the condominium for the safety reason.

i. ii.

After we did research about this case, we have found several actions that the developer should considerate before the construction of the condominium is approved and initiated.

1. Constructing the condominium can accommodate the high demand on the housing market. 2. Construction of the condominium on the hill benefit the residents with the great view of Kuala Lumpur they can get 3. Clearing the ground-covering plantation makes way for the construction but it can destroy the animals habitat and damage the rain catchment area, exposing the soil to absorb excessive water during the rain and led to erosion. 4. Cutting the slope enables the developer to build the wall to support the land form but it can weaken the land structure. 5. Diverting water stream from the existed route flow allows the developer to construct a new platform level but it can weaken the retaining wall if the diverted water stream is damaged that can cause land slippage. 6. Flattening the hillside land to make it as condominium base can damage the stability of the land.

11 | P a g e

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

With the problem added to the line:

Negative paradigm (NP) (PP)

Positive paradigm

P3 4

2 Build the condominium

Not to build the condominium

Conclusion: According to the line-drawing analysis above, we can conclude that the developer should not build the condominium and constructing the condominium was the worst ethical choice because it damaged the environment, harmed the animals life and endangered the life of human-being.

Application of Flow Charting to the Case

For this case the flow chart deals with the decision-making process that might have gone as the decided whether or not to build to build the Highland Towers condominium.

12 | P a g e

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

Developer wants to build a highland tower

Do building built according to specifications and standards?

Yes

Design according specification

No

Are organizations appointed meet the criteria that are appropriate to their job?

Yes

Design buildings according to their skills

No

Is the soil structure safe for construction?

Yes

Build the building according the safety

No

13 | P a g e

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

Does structure of embankment made can ensure the safety?

Yes

Build the building according safety

No

Is every safety issue fore seen and able to solve?

Yes

Build the building

No Not to build the condominium

14 | P a g e

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

DISCUSSION
3.1 Ethical Codes 1. Utilitarianism This theory seek to produce the most utility, defined as a balance between good and bad consequences of an action, taking account the consequences for everyone affected. So, this theory is suitable for discussing with the collapse of the highland tower case. As the population increasing in Malaysia, this lead to the high demands of house living. Therefore, many lands are use to build houses like terrace house, flat house, bangle and etc. With the unsuitable topology area of hills, geology, and unstable soil-sand mix type that contribute to landslide, this is one of the main causes of tragedy. Heavy rain forced water to seep into hill soil, then cause flood of mud that cracked the roads around the condo. Surface water overflow eroded the soil on the slope. Hence the soil structure become unstable and resulted slippage and landslide. Utilitarianism holds that those actions are good that serve to maximize human well-being, it tries to balance the needs of society with the needs of individual, with emphasis on what will provide the most benefit to the population. But, the unsystematic drainage system was build around the highland tower is another causes of tragedy. The contractor never checks in details with the landscape area. Although the construction of highland tower will lead the most good for the population, the construction design must be well designed. Another cause is the design mistakes of concrete wall at the back of Block 1 of the tower. So, this lead the supporting wall on the front and rear of the building collapsed and let the slippage occurred and the highland tower collapsed on its side.

15 | P a g e

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

2. Duty ethics This are duties that should be performed (the duty to treat others fairly or the duty not to injure others). Duty ethics are those actions that could be written down on a list of duties: be honest, dont cause suffering to other people, be fair to others, etc. Inconsistency between the Land Conservation Act with the Environment Quality Act 1974. Besides that, the 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. With those statements state above, it is affect/injure other people

3.2

Codes of Ethics Code of Professional Conduct (BEM) 1. A Registered Engineer shall at all times hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. When the professional advice of a Professional Engineer is overruled and amended contrary to his advice, the Professional Engineer shall, if the amendment may in his opinion give rise to situation that may endanger life and/or property, notify his employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate and explain the consequences to be expected as a result of his advice being overruled and amended. For the Second Defendant (Architect) did not having ensured adequate drainage and retaining walls were built on the hill slopes adjacent to the Highland Towers site, which he foresaw or ought to have foreseen, would pose a danger to the buildings he was in charge of. Moreover, the Architect did not also investigating the terracing of the hill slopes and construction of retaining walls even though he was aware they would affect the buildings he was in charge of, and also in nuisance as he was an unreasonable user of land.

16 | P a g e

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

For the third defendant (Engineer), the engineer did not having taken into account the hill or slope behind the Towers, not having implemented that approved drainage scheme. Furthermore, the engineers did not design and constructed a foundation to accommodate the lateral loads of a landslide or alternatively to have ensured that adjacent hill slopes was stable.

5.0

A Registered Engineer shall conduct himself honourably, responsibly, ethically and lawfully so as to enhance the honour, reputation and usefulness of the profession. For the second defendant of the case (Architect), a Registered Engineer shall check with due diligence the accuracy of facts and data before he signs or endorses any statement or claim. He shall not sign on such documents unless, where necessary, qualifications on errors and inaccuracies have been made. Architect did not complying with the requirements of the authorities in respect of drainage, in colluding with the Developer and the Engineer to obtain a Certificate of Fitness without fulfilling the conditions imposed by the Local Authority, in so doing not complying with his duties as Architect. Besides, the Engineer colluding with the Architect to obtain a Certificate of Fitness without fulfilling the conditions imposed by the local Authority and also in nuisance as he was an unreasonable user of land.

17 | P a g e

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

3.3

Board of Engineer Malaysia (BEM) Court A Technical Committee was formed to investigate the tragedy and lead by Dr Nik Hassan Nik Ramlan. After the investigation finished, the committee came up with a result that concluded:

1. Retaining walls were constructed in a haphazardous manner; some were located on the Highland Towers Site with the rest in the Arab Malaysian Land; 2. All drainage and geo-technical experts who testified in this case agree that the flow regime of the East Stream into the pipe culvert running across the hill is highly undesirable and dangerous.

Due to the technical committee result, Ir. Wong Yuen Kean was called to a hearing by The Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) for his involvement in The Highland Towers collapse. At the hearing: (i) BEM found Ir. Wong guilty on the grounds that he: a) Did not dispute that he was responsible for the drainage design; b) Admitted that the whole drainage system was not complete; c) Had assisted/advised the Majlis Daerah Gombak in the application for CFO as the drainage system was an integral part of the project; and d) Had failed to exercise due care that the slope was reasonably stable.

(ii)

In mitigation, Ir. Wong pleaded that: a) From the completion of the towers to the collapse, others may have constructed walls which made the slope steeper, causing its collapse; b) He had no previous charges against him; c) Apart from the Highland Towers, he had at all material time conducted his professional duty based on his judgment and had never intended to compromise on safety; d) He was not the sole person responsible for the collapse of the Towers; the court had decided that he was only 10% liable for it;

18 | P a g e

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

e) The Board considers the long stop liability as after some time others may change the surrounding of a building; and f) Cancellation of registration is too severe and harsh. In the end of the hearing, BEM have concluded that: a) Ir. Wongs misconduct showed that he had no regard for public safety, which resulted in the death of 48 people, thus contravening Rule 26 of the Registration of Engineers Rules 1972; and b) Cancelled his registration under Section 15 of the Registration of Engineers Act 1967.

19 | P a g e

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

CONCLUSION

Highland Tower tragedy need to be taken deep lessons to all parties that involves in retaining the environment. It is not due to low utilization of science and technology, but the attitudes of people who rely on extreme science and technology and forgot remembrance of the creator that we cannot against the natural law. We cannot simply harm the environment for our own important. It is also picture a human failure in managing the development in harmony parallel with the environment. High-rise building constructions are supposed not to neglect the law regulation and also avoid human greedy of profit that only benefits certain parties. It actually reflects the appreciation of our Environmental Ethics very weak among the citizens of Malaysia and should be improved. All must play their role so that this black tragedy will not reoccur. In addition these phenomena picture our country to the outsider and of course will reflect bad impression to our nation. It will reduce the business interest from outsider that causes economy decrease and indirectly reduce credibility of our country.

20 | P a g e

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

APPENDIX

Figure 7: Model of the Block 1 Before Collapsed

Figure 8: Highland Towers Tragedy in Newspaper

21 | P a g e

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

Figure 9: Highland Towers Tragedy from the top view

Figure 10: The first survivor of the Highland Tower Tragedy, Nur Hamidah Najib 22 | P a g e

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

Figure 11: History Channel produces a special documentary contained the unseen footage from Malaysian Fire Service and The French Rescue Team

Figure 12: Block Two and Block Three

23 | P a g e

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

REFERENCE
Journal 1. The Institution f Engineers, Malaysia, Miri Branch (IEM) - Engineers Newsletter (Issue 2007 No. 2 (30th June 2007)). 2. Board of Engineer Malaysia (BEM) Ingenieur (DEC 2008 - FEB 2009).

3. The Highland Tower Tragedy, Lim Kit Siang 4. Lessons Learned From Highland Towers, Murgan D. Maniam, Pengarah Undang-Undang, Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang.

Website 1. http://mavrkyprojectphoto.blogspot.com/2006/02/highland-tower-collapse.html

2. http://worldisaster.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/highland-towers-collapse-11december-1993/

3. http://landslides-gib.blogspot.com/2008/12/malaysia-hillside-developmentsbanned.html

4. http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/facts_about__highland_towers_collapse

5. http://www.ipsofactoj.com/highcourt/2001/Part4/hct2001(4)-009.htm

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Towers_collapse

7. http://mavrkyprojectphoto.blogspot.com/2006/02/highland-tower-collapse.html

8. http://www.hba.org.my/archive/focus/HT/1993/12-18THDEC.htm

24 | P a g e