CONTENTS

No Title Page
.
1. Overview 2

2. Chronology of tragedy 4

3. Sequence of the tragedy 7

4. Cause of tragedy 8

5. Court Case 8
6. Actions for Prevention 11

7. Implication of Tragedy 13

8. Liability 14

9. Problem Solving Tools 16

i. Application of line drawing
ii. FILA table

10. Discussion 20
i. Utilitarianism
ii. Duty Ethics
iii. Right Ethics
iv. Self Realization
v. BEM
vi. Code of Ethics

11. Conclusion 26

1
 12. Reference 27
1. OVERVIEW

Seventeen years ago on Saturday December 11 1993, Malaysia was traumatized by a

disaster that remains a painful memory to this day. At 1.35pm, an apartment block in Kuala
Lumpur called Highland Towers collapsed in the catastrophic blink of an eye, killing 48
people. The city's fire and rescue services faced an unprecedented catastrophe as they
struggled to find survivors in the massive heap of twisted wreckage, while relatives and
friends waited desperately for news of the missing. In the aftermath of the tragedy, came an
avalanche of urgent questions. Why had Highland Towers collapsed, and who should be
called to account?

The Highland Towers consist of three 12-storey blocks, built in phases between 1975 and
1982 at the western base of a steeply sloped hill which was later terraced extensively in the
early 1980s for proposed bungalow developments which were never completed. Each block
was respectively named Block 1 (built 1977, southern-most), Block 2 (built 1979, north-
northwest of block 1, slightly elevated than the other two, closer in to the hill) and Block 3
(built 1981, northwest of block 1, west of block 2). A swimming pool was located between
northwest side of Block 2 and northeast rear of Block 3. On Saturday, the 11th December
1993, at about 1.30p.m., after 10 days of continuous rainfall, Block 1 collapsed. Block 1
collapsed when 10 continuous days of rainfall led to a landslide after the retaining wall
behind the Tower's car park failed. The towers were home to affluent middle-class families; a
sizeable percentage of the residents were foreign expatriates. The Highland Towers were
once notorious in the 1980s and early 1990s for being a popular spot for the wealthy people
to hide their mistresses.

In 1991, a new housing development project, known as 'Bukit Antarabangsa

Development Project', commenced on the hilltop located behind the Towers. As a result, the
hill was cleared of trees and other land-covering plants, exposing the soil to land erosion that
will cause land slide. The water from the construction site was diverted into the same pipe
system used to divert the flow of East Creek. Eventually, the pipe system became overly
pressurized with the water, sand and silt from both East Creek and the construction site. The
pipes burst at various locations on the hill, and the soil had to absorb the excessive water. The
monsoon rainfall in December 1993 further worsened the situation. The water content in the

2
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. 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. The soil rammed
onto the foundation of Block One, pushing it forward for a while before causing it to snap
and bringing down the apartment block. The official death toll released by the authorities was
48, though other sources gave a number greater than 55. The victims are mainly Malaysian,
with 12 foreigners (a Briton, Japanese, 2 Indians, 2 Koreans, 3 Filipino and 3 Indonesian).
Rescuers heard knocking and voices right up to the seventh day after the collapse. Only three
people, including an infant, were pulled out from the rubble alive, and only within the first 24
hours. Baby Norhamidah Najib 18 month, was the first one pulled out from the debris,
unscathed. She was protected by her mother, Umi Rashidah Khoruman, 22 who also
survived. Japanese lady, Shizue Nakajima, was the second one is pulled out alive. She suffers
serious injuries. However she died later that night. Only two survive the collapsed building.
48 others did not manage to escape in time, rest in peace.

A month before the building fell, in November 1993, residents began to see cracks
forming and widening on the road around the Highland Towers, a sign of collapse but
unfortunately, no further investigation was carried out. In November 2002, almost nine years
after the incident, a bungalow belonging to Affin Bank chairman General (Retired) Tan Sri
Ismail Omar collapsed due to a landslide. It was located just meters away from the towers.
On 11 December 2004, in conjunction with the eleventh anniversary of the tragedy, all
former residents and victims of the Highland Towers gathered at the site as a final farewell,
after knowing that the property will be transferred to AmBank. Later, on 6 December 2008,
just five days short of the 15th anniversary of the incident, another landslide in Bukit
Antarabangsa took place just 1.5 kilometers away from Highland Towers. The landslide
buried 14 bungalows. It can be observed that all these incidents occurred late in the year, at
the height of the northeastern monsoon season when there is heavy rain.

The Highland Towers had been a popular source of haunted stories in the years
thereafter, a result of the tragedy that took forty-eight lives. There were plans to repair the
two remaining blocks and re-occupy them back in 1995, but unfortunately, researches
revealed that the blocks were no longer structurally safe and the only thing that could be done
is demolish them.

3
 2. CRONOLOGY OF TRAGEDY

No. Date Event

01 1964 -Department of Town and Village (JPBK) the State began to
make an assessment.
-Kuala Lumpur Regional Office approved the application of the
proposed project
02 1974 Construction of the building was initiated by the Consortium of
Consulting Architects (KJP) for the High Land Properties Sdn
Bhd.
03 1978 Building Block 1 has been completed and given CF by Gombak
District Council and has been occupied residents.
04 1981 Building Block 2 has been completed and given CF by Gombak
District Council and has been occupied residents
05 1986 Building Block 3 has been completed and given CF by Gombak
District Council and has been occupied residents.
06 1 July 1992 Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) was established and
given responsibility to handle the project.
07 October 1992 Water began to flow down the hill slopes due to the flooding
caused by the burst pipes.
08 1993 MPAJ gave CF for the construction of the basement car park.
09 November -Serious crack were found by the resident on the road near the
apartment.
-Cracks began to form and widen on the road leading to the
towers.
10 October 1992 Water began to flow down the hill slopes due to the flooding
caused by the burst pipes.
11 November 1993 Cracks began to form and widen on the road leading to the
towers.
12 December 11, -Block 1 of the Highland Towers collapses at 1.35 pm.
1993 -124 members of the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) and about 30
military personnel and engineers from Batu Cantonment Camp
and Wardie burn Camp are deployed for search and rescue.
Hundreds of policemen, firemen and Kuala Lumpur City Hall
(DBKL) rescue teams, Malaysian Red Crescent Council

4
 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 woman 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.
13 December 12, -Residents of Block B and C of Highland Towers are ordered to
1993 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 dispatched
14 December 13 -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
15 December 15 -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.
16 December 16 -Umi and Rashidah Nur Hamidah are released from HKL
17 December 17 -The Cabinet Committee agrees to abandon rescue efforts.
18 December 18 -Rescue teams find six more bodies including one child.
19 December 19 -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.
20 December 20 -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.

5
21 December 22 -The search is ended. Dr Nik Hassan Nik Ramlan is appointed
chairman of the Technical Committee of Investigating the
Highland Towers tragedy.
Table 1: Chronology of tragedy

3. SEQUENCE OF THE TRAGEDY

(a)
 (b)

(d) (c)

Figure 1: The Sequence of the Tragedy with

Picture. (a): The retaining wall located above the
Highland Tower collapse. (b): Force equivalent
to 200 Boeing 747 jets ramp to foundation of
block 1 Highland Tower. (c): The building starts
to move in slow motion. (d): The building starts
to collapse. (e): Block 1 of Highland Tower
4. CAUSEcollapses.
completely OF TRAGEDY
(e)

The local authority set up a Technical Committee of Enquires but only the factual data
contained in the report were accepted by the Highland Court. After due consideration , the
court ruled that the landslide that brought down Block 1 was a rotational retrogressive slide
emanating from the high wall behind the second tier car park. The High Court also decided

7
that Block 1 had collapsed due to a landslide caused primarily by water which emanated from
the damaged pipe culvert, and the inadequate and unattended drains on the adjacent land. In
addition, the culvert pipe which was carrying the waters of the diverted East Stream was
leaking.

In general there are many factors that cause the tragedy from happen listed below:

i. Construction of buildings on the edge of a hill even is not suitable, especially in

equatorial and tropical climates with high rainfall.
ii. 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.
iii. Inconsistency between the Land Conservation Act with the Environment Quality Act
1974.

5. THE COURT CASE

On 15 December 1993, the Highland Towers Owners and Residents Committee was set
up (Hock & Yee, 2008). 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. The plaintiffs also alleged that they had been unable
to re-occupy Blocks 2 and 3 emanating from the collapse of Block 1, as the result of MPAJ’s
pre-collapse and post- collapse acts and omissions. Meanwhile, 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 but which could be considered a misadventure.

The defendants, who they claimed were jointly or severally liable for causing or
contributing to the collapse of Block 1 and the subsequent abandonment of the other two, are
listed in Table (3). Arab – Malaysia Finance Bhd was involved when in 1991, the developer
transferred ownership of the hill slope to the finance company due to outstanding loans.

Defendents Remarks
st
1 Developer Highland Properties Sdn Bhd
2nd Draftman Engaged by the developer as the architect for the
project
3rd Engineer Engaged by the developer as the engineer for the

8
 project
th
4 Majlis Perbandaran Ampang MPAJ was the local authority for approvals
Jaya related to the project
5th Arab-Malaysia Finance Bhd Owner of 50 lots of bungalow land directly at the
rear of Highland Towers
6th Tropic The company that carried out clearing works on
the 5th defendant’s land in 1992
7th Owner of Metrolux land The higher land adjacent to the 5th defendant’s
land
8th Project manager for the 7th Was in charge of the development of the
Defendant Metrolux land
9th Selangor State Government
10th Director of Lands and Mines,
Selangor
Table 2: Defendant involved in tragedy

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

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

9
The High Court began the hearing of the suit on 10 August 1998, which lasted for about two
years. 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 (b).

Table 3: Percentage of liability apportioned by the High Court on liable defendants of the
Highland Towers court case
Liable defendants Liability percentage
st
1 Developer 15
2nd Draftsman 10
3rd Engineer 10
4th Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya 15
5th Arab-Malaysia Finance Bhd 30
7th Owner of Metrolux land 20
8th Project manager for the 7th defendant 20

The Engineer (the third defendant) along with the fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth
defendants appealed in the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court. The Court
of Appeal dismissed the appeals of these defendants and affirmed the apportionment of
liability made by the High Court among the defendants.

In the case of MPAJ, the case eventually went further to the Federal Court, which on 17
February 2006 ruled that MPAJ was not liable either for the pre-collapse or post-collapse
events at Highland Towers. The liability of the engineer as the third defendant is elaborated
in the succeeding section, those of other defendants can be found in the references.

6. ACTIONS FOR PREVENTION

This part is discussed about the action in order to prevent the disaster happen again. Below
are the few actions that can be taking:-

1. Enforce the regulation.

10
 a. Ensure the qualification of worker.

In Highland Tower case, an architect is one of the person that been blame for the
collapse of the block 1 building. This is because the architect hired is only qualified to
plan for a building not more than 3 floors, but somehow, he has already plan Highland
Tower which has 12 floors. This has showed that the construction company and
authorities do not take too serious about the qualification of the worker.

b. Provide guide for type of material and building can be built on the hillside
area.

Government should provide guidelines for the type of material and

construction that can be built around the hillside area. This will give construction
company to be more careful when built building on the hillside area.

c. Tighten the housing and construction approval on the hillside area.

Government should tighten the housing and construction approval on the

hillside area. As in Highland Tower case, the area around the building has built with
retaining wall and prepared for another new construction. This shows that people not
care about the nature of the hillside area.

2. Plan the drainage system.

The main cause of the block 1 Highland Tower collapse after 10 days rainy is the
drainage system which located above the Highland Tower. Above the Highland Tower,
there is a small stream that been diverting into a system drain and pipe. In the early 1990,
the new development in Bukit Antarabangsa begins on the other sides of the area. Water
system was diverting into the same drain and pipe above Highland Tower. This drain and
pipe become stress by the increase flow of water and silt. Thus cause the huge value of
wet mud burst forward and downward and smashing to the retaining wall and the
foundation of block 1 Highland Tower. [10] Therefore, by providing more drainage
system and build a systematic drainage might help in order to avoid this disaster happen
again.

3. Ensure the safety of construction on the hillside

11
 a. Regular check on the building after built.
 This can help taking an action before anything bad happen.
b. Control logging and replanting trees on the construction and hillside area.
 Trees have a very important role in preventing soil erosion. Their roots
very powerful in holding the soil. Besides, trees absorb and store
rainwater which reduce runoff and sediment deposit after storms.

4. Provide a workshop to give awareness about the construction.

This workshop is providing to responsible people who involved in the

construction such as local authorities and construction company in order to give them
awareness. This workshop should discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the
construction and the short term and long term consequences of the construction. Besides,
this workshop will be one of the ways to remind them the law that can takes against them
and also remind them that they should not take bribe and take serious in handling the
approval of the construction because this is about the life and safety of people. They
should think what will happen if this disaster happen to their family.

7. IMPLICATIONS OF THE TRAGEDY

There are many impacts due to collapse of Highland Tower

i. PEOPLE

12
  About 48 people lost their lives that have been discovered and identified. The victims
are mainly Malaysian, with 12 foreigners which is 1 Britain, 1 Japanese, 2 Indians, 2
Koreans, 3 Filipina and 3 Indonesian.
 Cause loss of property worth millions of ringgit.

ii. NATION

 Doubted by foreign countries about the strength of the buildings construction in

Malaysia.

iii. GOVERNMENT

 Review of acts of environment with by the authorities.

 Amendments of existing act related to environment.

iv. ENVIRONTMENT

 Cause damage to the environment seriously affected areas.

v. DEVELOPER

 The possibility of public response on the hillside housing will decrease. This raised
concerns among developers.

8. LIABILITY

The 10 Defendants were as bellows:

1. The First Defendant (Developer) was liable in negligence for:

13
 i. Not employing reasonably fit, competent, skilled and qualified persons to design,
draw, sign and submit architectural a n d engineering drawings and plans for the
construction of Highland Towers and the hill slope behind it.

ii. Not vetting through their appointments to ensure that they are competent and
possess such skill for the task they are employed to undertake which involves
enquiries and investigations into their credentials and qualifications.

iii. Constructing insufficient and inadequate retaining walls on the Arab-

Malaysian land and the Highland Towers site without considering the
surrounding terrain, soil condition and drainage requirement.

iv. Constructing drains that were insufficient to effect proper and adequate drainage
of water run-offs on the slope and those originating from the East Stream.

v. Diversion of the East Stream from its natural path to the pipe culvert which ran
horizontally across the hill slope directly above the three blocks.

vi. Obtaining CF to occupy the three blocks when the drainage system in the
Highland Towers site and the Arab-Malaysian land was incomplete.

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.

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;
14
 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) was liable in negligence for:

i. 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 it was intended for. This included
matters relating to water courses, streams and rivers in the vicinity of the
Highland Towers site, Arab Malaysian land and the surroundings which were
under the jurisdiction of MPAJ.

ii. At the construction stage of the Highland Towers, MPAJ failed to exercise
reasonable care, skill and diligence to ensure the drainage system and the rubble
walls on Arab Malaysian land were adequately provided for and/or constructed
in a workman-like manner before the issuance of the Certificate of Fitness to the
three apartment blocks;

iii. MPAJ failed to maintain and upgrade drains and rubble walls on Highland
Towers site and Arab Malaysian land, and to provide adequate drainage
requirement to water courses, streams and rivers after the Highland Towers was
constructed;

iv. MPAJ failed to take remedial measures to remove, rectify and/or minimise the
hazards posed on the Arab-Malaysian land and the surroundings after the
collapse of Block 1;

v. MPAJ failed to prevent vandalism and theft at Blocks 2 and 3 in the aftermath
of the collapse of Block 1;

vi. MPAJ failed to maintain the East Stream which was under its jurisdiction;

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.

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.

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

15
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.

9. PROBLEM SOLVING TOOLS

a. Application of Line Drawing

Problem statement:
Before the construction of the Highland Tower was started, the defendants
mentioned in subtopic Liability that they should do the research and consider of what
were going to happen to human, animals and environment if they were going to proceed
with the construction of the Highland Tower building.

In order to solve this problem, we have decided to use line drawing that have 2 ends
which are “Positive Paradigm (PP)” and “Negative Paradigm (NP)”. PP indicates that the
points are morally acceptable while NP indicates that the points are not morally acceptable
and N indicates neutral. Below are the PP and NP for our problem statement.

i. Positive Paradigm (PP) - “The Highland Tower building should be built as planned.”
ii. Negative Paradigm (NP) - “The Highland Tower building should not be built for the
safety reason.”

After did some research, we had found several actions that the developer should
consider before the construction of the Highland Tower building is approved and start to be
built. Below are the actions that developer should consider before the construction of
Highland Tower:-
1. The building should be built on the hillside area in order to serve the resident with
the beautiful view of Kuala Lumpur.
2. The construction of the building is important to fulfill the demand of housing market
and human need.

16
3. Flatten the hillside area for construction will cause the area have higher possibility to
get landslide and damage the stability of the land.
4. The building should be built if the worker hired is highly qualified for the
construction and the building is suitable for the area.
5. Clear and deforest the hillside area enable developer built the retaining wall to
support the land but it can weaken the structure of the hillside area and damage the
nature of the hillside area.
6. Developer can construct new construction area by diverting the small stream located
above the Highland Tower building, but it can damaged the retaining wall and smash
the foundation of Highland Tower building when the drainage system has been stress
with water flow and silt.
7. Clear and deforest the hillside area in order to makes way for the building
construction and new development without care that the action can damage the rain
catchment area, destroy the animal’s habitat and expose the area to soil erosion.
8. The building should be built but do regular check on the building after built and
maintain the hillside area by replanting trees and provide systematic drainage system.

Line Drawing

NP N PP

P 6 3 5 7 2 1 4 8
The Highland Tower The Highland Tower
building should not building should be
be built built

Conclusion
Based on the line drawing analysis, we can conclude that the Highland Tower
building should not be built as planned. It is because the construction of the building will
cause higher risk to human safety and life, destroy the animal’s habitat and environment
if they still proceed the construction of the Highland Tower building.

17
 b. FILA Table

Another problem solving we used in order to solve the Highland Tower case is FILA
Table which F indicates Facts, I indicate ideas, L indicates learning issues and A indicates
action. Table 1 is the FILA table for the Highland Tower case.

Table 4: FILA Table for the Highland Tower case.

Facts Ideas
1. The building has 12 floors.  Architecture draftsman was not a
2. The building was built in the hillside fully qualified and registered
area. architect.
3. There are 3 block of Highland Tower  Civil engineer design unstable
and block 1 is the block which retaining wall around the Highland
collapse in the tragedy. Tower area which lack of care and
4. The building collapse after 10 days of concern of the nature of the hillside
rain. area.
5. About 48 people lost their lives that  Developer not employing skilled and
have been discovered and identified. qualified persons to design the plan of
The victims are mainly Malaysian, Highland Tower building.
with 12 foreigners (1 Britain,  MPAJ was not strict in checking the
1Japanese, 2 Indians, 2 Koreans, 3 plans submitted to ascertain whether
Filipina and 3 Indonesian). they are safe to build.
6. Cause loss of property worth millions  The drainage system built above the
of ringgit. Highland Tower in for diverting the
7. Cause damage to the environment small stream located above the
which seriously affected the areas. Highland Tower was not safe and
8. Environmental damage of systematically to be used.
surrounding area.  The area around the Highland Tower
has built with retaining wall in order
to prepare for another new
construction.
 The other area above the Highland
Tower was cleared and deforested for

18
 new development of Bukit
Antarabangsa.
 The development of Bukit
Antarabangsa share the same
drainage system located above the
Highland Tower.

Learning Issues Action

 Why the buildings collapse?  Enforce the Regulation.
 Where the mistakes that causes the  Plan the drainage system.
building collapse?  Tighten the approval of housing and
 Who should responsible for the construction in hillside area.
collapse of the building?  Ensure the qualification of worker
 What action can be used in order to hired.
prevent it happen again?  Conduct regular inspection on the
building built at the hillside area.
 Replanting trees on the building
located in hillside area.
 Provide guidelines for the building
which want to be built on the hillside
area.
 Provide workshop to give awareness
for the responsible people.

10. DISCUSSIONS

Ethical theory
Ethical theory help us to understand and solve ethical problems. Ethical theory is a
comprehensive perspective on morality that clarifies, organizes and guide moral reflection. It
also provide a framework for making moral choices and resolving moral dilemmas. There are
five main ethical theories which are Utilitarianism, Right ethics, Duty Ethics, Virtue ethics
and Self-realization ethics. We will discuss the role of Utilitarianism, tight ethics, duty ethics
and self-realization ethics below.

19
 i. Utilitarianism

In this case study, utilitarianism is one of the ethical theory that apply to all defendants
liable in causing this tragedy. Utilitarianism define maximize the overall good, taking into
equal account all those affected by our actions. This theory try to balance the needs of society
with needs of the individual, with an emphases in the most beneficial to the most people.
There are two versions of utilitarianism which are act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism.
Act utilitarianism define that individual actions should be judge based on the most good
produced even if moral rules should be broken. In this tragedy, highland tower is seen to be a
high demand accommodate during the time when highland tower was plan to build in Taman
Hillview, Ulu Klang, Selangor. In order to earn more profit, the developer implement the plan
to build highland tower below the hill slope even he knowing that it is unsafe. Developer also
not hiring qualified engineer to design, draw, sign and submit architectural and engineering
drawings and plans for the construction of Highland Towers and the hill slope behind it. The
architect in colluding with developer and engineer to obtain a Certificate of Fitness even they
not fulfill the conditions imposed by the MPAJ. As an engineer, he is not taking into account
the hill slope behind the towers which will bring harm to public life. MPAJ is not taking care
in checking the plans submitted to ascertain whether they are reasonably fit for the purpose it
was intended for. Act utilitarianism seems to justify wrong doings in this tragedy to fulfill
individual needs rather than society needs.
Rule utilitarianism define that moral rules must be adhered at all time. Rule
utilitarianism was developed primary as a way of correcting problems with act utilitarianism.
In this case study, all moral values has been broken in order to earn maximum profit. Rule
utilitarianism emphasis on principle, faithful, trustee and professional in planning a project.
Lessons from this tragedy, people should have ethical thinking when develop something and
people should consider the possible consequence of unethical act that will endanger public
safety.

ii. Right Ethics

A right is an expectation about something to deserve or a way to act that is justified

through a legal or moral foundation. Humans have all types of rights, including legal, moral,
spiritual, natural and fundamental rights. Examples of rights include the right to education
provided by society or the right to bear arms. Ethical behaviour must recognize and respect a
series of rights that belong to each person, animal or society.
Right ethics is the respect towards human rights. The incident that happen to Highland
Tower due to the collapse of the building. People who are resident of Highland Tower have
the right of human rights is not to be injured, be informed about the risks and safety of one's
surrounding environment, liveable environment, pursuit of happiness, decent human life and
many more. There are also special moral rights, rights held by particular individuals rather
than by every human being.

iii. Duty Ethics

20
 Duties are a direct result of the acceptance of rights. Each person has a duty to uphold
or respect another person's rights, just as he has the duty to uphold your rights. Once a person
accepts a right, or is told as in legal rights, he must uphold that right for himself and others.

Duty ethics is to respect individual's autonomy. Some of the examples of duty ethics
is people deserve respect because they are capable of recognizing and voluntarily responding
to moral duty. Autonomy which is also a moral self-determination or self-governance, means
having the capacity to govern one’s life in accordance to moral duties. It is a moral duty to do
what is right because it is right, unconditionally and without special incentives attached. For
example, we should be honest because honesty is required by duty; it is required by our basic
duty to respect the autonomy of others, rather than to deceive and exploit them. For example
the incident that happens to Highland Tower, due to the collapse of the building. The
responsible person should take action in proper ways to do their duty to people who are the
victim from that incident and also have a duty to respect what people claim for their right.

iv. Self-Realization

          The first effort to prevent landslides in the country is that the government should
undertake replanting trees on hill slopes, especially in areas that have been developed. The
noble cause is the best way to keep the slopes and areas developed from being exposed to the
risk of landslides. These efforts can also strengthen land through the development process.
There is no doubt that the development is carried out causing lots of trees felled and
excavated the hill in the name of development. Forests and hills are pegs to the ecosystem of
the earth. Logging and uncontrolled deforestation has loosened the soil texture, making the
slope of loose and collapsed. In Malaysia, heavy rain will cause soil on the hillsides become
loose and slide. Therefore, large trees are rooted in and cover crops should be planted to save
development area exposed to the weather and heavy rain. This can help restrict the movement
of soil from the groundwater flow brought the slide unstable slopes. Efforts grow back trees
or plants; can compress back ground relaxation due to development. Landslide that occurred
at Highland Tower and Hill Condominiums International, for example, is still a nightmare of
due ignores weak slope close to home. Obviously, to prevent landslides, the government must
replant trees on hill slopes.
          The second attempt can be done to prevent landslides is that the government planned to
build a drainage system. Planned drainage system essential to allow rain water to flow from
the slopes of the hills well and continue to drain or river and sea. Water will not stagnate in
the area causing flooding. This condition can indirectly prevent soil erosion and landslides.
The drainage system is built to function as a strong fortress on the hillside. Planned drainage
system can compress the soil structure on the hillside. If there is no drainage system built into
the hillside, heavy rain in the hills will cause stagnant water and absorb the hillside through
the soil until the soil becomes loose and the structure is not strong. This could invite
consequences such as flash floods, soil erosion and landslides. Upland areas developed very
risky development of landslides and mudflows. So it was. It is clear that the planned
construction of a drainage system to prevent landslides.

21
          The planned development is also an effort be made to reduce the occurrence of
landslides. Government needs to confront competition with strategic development and smart.
Strategic actions and systematic practice development is very important to ensure that
development does not invite consequences. Planned development must be people-friendly,
taking into account the safety and welfare of the people. It cannot be stopped development,
but development should be planned properly to reduce the phenomenon of catastrophic to the
conservation of nature and man. Development such as housing, farming and tourism must be
planned carefully for the sake of security in the long term. The farm that have been built on a
hillside terrace besides laying out a path to save the crops and slopes. Government or
developers need to examine the integrity of the land on the hillside from time to time to
prevent landslides untoward happens. The amount of government should also set quotas for
development on the slopes of the hill. In addition, certain parties such as developers need to
create an Emergency Response Plan to respond quickly when a sign of slope movement
occurs. Development planning should look natural symbiosis with the projects to be
developed. Clearly, the development planned to avoid mishaps such as landslides.
          Finally, law enforcement should be implemented to prevent the occurrence of which
can be fatal. Strict enforcement can prevent some of the development projects as ‘very
lightly’. Enforcement without ‘favouritism’ is to prevent irresponsible act. The government
should regulate logging and deforestation in the country. In this regard, the government
should limit the number of licenses approved for deforestation. Only trees that are old enough
are allowed to cut timber concession license and must be revised. Approval of Certificate of
Fitness Residential and development in upland areas and slopes should be given proper
attention by the relevant ministries. Those who violate the regulations should be punished as
imprisonment or fines as a lesson not to repeat the offense. Fixing act as Development Act,
the Land Act and the Forestry Act to protect the rights and critical situations and saved.
Obviously, the strict enforcement could have an impact on the for-profit regardless of social
welfare.
          In conclusion, Malaysians still have space efforts and to prevent landslides. An effort
of all parties is hoped that this landslide is inevitable. All security measures and regulations
should not be underestimated because of that attitude may invite consequences. Malaysians
are expected to reflect on the words of Chief Seattle that ‘We do not inherit the earth from
our ancestor; instead we have borrowed it from our descendants’. Therefore, we need to take
care of something that we've borrowed so that we can return to the situation that is still good.
v. 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 bad manner; some were located on the
Highland Towers Site with the rest in the Arab Malaysian Land;

22
 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 Tower’s collapse.
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 Tower’s collapse.

At the hearing:

1. 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.

2. 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;
a. 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;
b. The Board considers the long stop liability as after some time others may
change the surrounding of a building; and
c. Cancellation of registration is too severe and harsh.

In the end of the hearing, BEM have concluded that:

23
 a. Ir. Wong’s 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.

vi. Code of Ethics

Code of Professional Conduct (BEM)

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 that drainage and
retaining walls were build on the hill slopes behind the Highland Towers site. 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.

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.

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

24
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.

11. 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

25
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.

12. REFERENCE

[1] Lessons Learned From Highland Towers, Murgan D. Maniam, Pengarah

Undang-Undang, Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang.
[2] Engineering Ethics Note (BENU 4853), Chapter 3 Understanding ethical

26
 problems.
[3] Report of the Task Force on Bukit Antarabangsa
[4] Gue, S. S., & Cheah, S. W. “Geotechnical Challenges in Slope Engineering of
Infrastructures.” 2008
[5] Mohd Asbi Othman, Mahadzer Mahmud, Ashaari Mohammad & Mohd Jamal
Sulaiman (2007), “Landmark Landslides in Malaysia.”
[6] Farisham Abu Samah. “Landslides in the Hillside Development in the Hulu
Klang Valley.”
[7] The Highland Towers Judgment – Civil Suit No. S5-21-174-1996
[8] Registration Of Engineer ACT 1967
[9] Board Of Engineers Malaysia Guidelines
[10] Video of the The Highlands Tower Tragedy 3/4, minutes 10.27 to 13.00 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edVQY4E4864

27