Those responsible must be accountable

A witch-hunt is often launched following any fatal fire incident, a calamitous crumbling of a building, a tragic case of deliberate food adulteration, an in-house bank heist and such incidents that render loss of life and property. We almost never care for injuries or illnesses, discounting even cases that condemn one and the family to a lifetime of pain, neglect and suffering.

It is noteworthy here that 'witches' within an organisation often enough launch such an inquisition. It's somewhat like the vehicle driver who blends into the crowd and vociferously demands exemplary punishment for reckless driving after he has met with an accident.

Obviously (for any incident) someone somewhere is responsible, but why take the blame if one can avoid it by passing the buck? And they have many bucks. One glaring instance is an occurrence of fire that has caused death and devastation. Till recently, no sooner did a media reporter pose a question as to who or what could possibly have started the fire, pop came the answer, 'short circuit'.

The reason for naming such a 'blameworthy' non-entity was obvious, but we were taken for a ride by an eyewash, because even if it were an electrical mishap, someone by wilful or unwitting action (or inaction) was accountable for that undesirable electrical occurrence. Nowadays, more often than not, the authority does take time in responding to queries about what caused the fire. Actually, it should be 'who?' Growing awareness has helped to gradually establish that an inquiry is essential before a cause, and thereby a person, can be declared responsible.

Let a building in the capital subside, lean or collapse, or catch fire, and RAJUK will almost immediately emerge with a press or verbal statement that the building did not have its approval. The impression RAJUK ventilates through such assertion is that had the victim building acquired its permission, the building would have been still standing.

Deriding government legislation by a builder (owner, consultant, and contractor included) is a culpable offence, but worse is how that particular building was constructed under the very nose (read eyes) of the regulatory authority, which is RAJUK. Turning a blind eye is making mockery of the rules of the government it represents. More importantly, was that collapsed or on-fire building the only one that was without RAJUK's approval? What about thousands of other constructions which do not have planning permission and/or have been erected by violating building rules and code? Has RAJUK tried to arrest a problem before a building was struck by a tragedy?

The excuse that the RAJUK chairman proffered in the past (on national TV and elsewhere) for his authority's monitoring lapses was lack of manpower. Assuming that that issue can to some extent be addressed by recruiting more inspectors, even then there will be thousands of buildings under one officer.

To be effective, however, the modus operandi should necessitate inspectors to examine as many buildings as possible; say, two to three per week. The corrective and punitive measure/s ordered by the inspector on even one or two buildings will send the right message across to other builders and owners, all of whom fearing possible penalty/s will refrain from violation or will rectify any breach committed. That is the basic philosophy behind almost any piece of legislation.

The scenario is ditto in case of any other form of fatal incident: persecution sans inquisition, holding office of responsibility but no accountability, rhetoric without rationality.

The devastating fire at Tampaco Foils Factory at Tongi BSCIC on September 10 is a case in point. Thirty-five people lost their lives, but the puck of culpability shuttled between Titas Gas and the boiler authority for almost a week, until finally it come down to a possible explosion of stored chemicals. A probe committee failed to identify a cause (What? No expertise?), but discovered numerous irregularities. There you are! Suffice it to note here that anomalies do not drop from outer space, but are bred on earth by human follies, driven by insincerity, greed, ignorance, and lack of knowledge; a combination of all four is deadly.

The boiler was located unlawfully in the wrong place. Who decided on that location? Who was responsible for the maintenance of the boiler? There was also a whimper from the boiler inspectorate that it too was short of manpower. As if we did not already know. There was an illegal gas booster. Who paid for it? Who connected that machine to Titas gas? Inflammable chemicals were stockpiled without any apparent concern for safety. Who supervised that form of storage? Were the factory operators aware of the hazards the chemicals posed? In every avenue of sin, you will find a sinner, and yet every time, the jingle of money resounds more merrily as time passes, and the memory of the dead erodes from public attention.

There is someone, somewhere, who must take the blame every time there is an "accident". Human responsibility cannot be shifted to machine, equipment or thin air. Here's a paradigm:

October 21 was the 50th anniversary of the Aberfanmine disaster in Wales. In 1966, 144 people were killed, 116 of them children aged seven to eleven. At 9.15 am, the coal tip collapsed. Tonnes of rubble inundated the village below, and with it the school. It was the last day of the term. The tragedy appears to be an accident, suggesting no one was to blame, and yet a tribunal found the National Coal Board responsible. The conclusion read: "The Aberfan disaster is a terrifying tale of bungling ineptitude by many men charged with tasks for which they were totally unfitted, of failure to heed clear warnings, and of total lack of direction from above. Not villains but decent men, led astray by foolishness or by ignorance or by both in combination, are responsible for what happened at Aberfan."