Highland Towers Tragedy

UNIVERSITI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA MELAKA

FACULTY OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

ETHICS ENGINEERING

BEKU 4583

CASE STUDY ON HIGHLAND TOWER TRAGEDY

No. Name Matriks No.

1. Shaharrudin bin HJ Syahid B010810095

2. Yik Chee Mun B010810341

3. Gan Kent Loong B010810132

4. Muhammad Fizree Ashraf Jarni B010810043

5. Mohamad Izmi Hasnan bin Sha`ari B010810144

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka | Case Study On Highland Tower Tragedy

CONTENT

Bil Content Page

i ABSTRACT

01 INTRODUCTION 1-3

1.1 History and Background 1

1.2 Chronology of Events 2-3

02 ANALYSIS 4-14

2.1 Cause of the case 4

2.2 Sequence of the tragedy 5

2.3 Implications of the tragedy 6

2.4 Action taken after the tragedy 7

2.5 Liability 8-10

2.6 Application of Line Drawing Analysis to the Case 11-14

03 DISCUSSION 14-19

3.1 Ethical Codes 14-15

3.2 Codes of Ethics 15-17

3.3 Board of Engineer Malaysia (BEM) Court 18-19

04 CONCLUSION 20

05 APPENDIX 21-23

06 REFERENCE 24

Figure 4


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.


1 | P a g e

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.

Figure 1: Model of 12-Story Highland Towers

Condominium

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3


2 | P a g e

1.2 Chronology of Events

Bil 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.


residents


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

1

9

9

3

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.


3 | P a g e

12 December 11, 1993

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.

13 December 12 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

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.

21 December 21 The police confirms that 48 bodies were recovered from the Highland Towers debris.

22 December 22 The search is ended. Dr Nik Hassan Nik Ramlan is appointed chairman of the Technical Committee of Investigating the Highland Towers tragedy.


4 | P a g e

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 the Land Conservation Act with the

Environment Quality Act 1974.

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.


5 | P a g e

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 6: Block one completely collapsed

Figure 4

Figure 5


6 | P a g e

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).

2. Cause loss of property worth millions of ringgit.

3. Review of acts of environment with by the authorities.

4. Cause damage to the environment seriously affected areas.

5. The possibility of public response on the hillside housing will decrease.

This raised concerns among developers.

6. Environmental damage of surrounding area

7. Amendments of existing act related to environment

8. Possibilities of decreasing demands over residential on hillsides.


7 | P a g e

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.

2. 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.

3. The Cabinet has decided to stop immediately the all tall

building projects approved in the hills until a new policy is approved.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Following the Cabinet decision, state governments have taken

immediate action to freeze all apartment building in the hills.

7. As a result the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Federal

government will formulate a policy relating to development in the

highlands.

8. In addition, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be

required for any development project in the highlands before a decision

is rendered.

9. 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.


8 | P a g e

2.5 Liability

The following were the findings on liability by the Court:

1. The First Defendant was liable in negligence for:

i. Not engaging a qualified architect;

ii. 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.

Figure 5: The lateral sideways pressure is so high, and affecting the foundation of the front snap


9 | P a g e

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.


10 | P a g e

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.


11 | P a g e

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:

i. Positive paradigm - “the condominium should be built as planned.”

ii. Negative paradigm - “not to build the condominium for the safety reason.”

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.


12 | P a g e

With the problem added to the line:

Negative paradigm (NP) Positive paradigm

(PP)

P 3 4 6 5 1 2

Not to build the condominium 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.


13 | P a g e

Do building

built according

to

specifications

and standards?

Are organizations

appointed meet

the criteria that

are appropriate to

their job?

Is the soil

structure safe

for

construction?

Developer wants to build a

highland tower

Design according specification

Design buildings according

to their skills

Build the building according

the safety

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No


14 | P a g e

Does structure of

embankment

made can ensure

the safety?

Is every safety

issue fore seen

and able to

solve?

Not to build the condominium

Build the building

Build the building according safety

Yes

Yes

No

No


15 | P a g e

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.


16 | P a g e

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, don’t 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.


17 | P a g e

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.


18 | P a g e

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 Tower’s 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;


19 | P a g e

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. 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.


20 | P a g e

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.


21 | P a g e

APPENDIX

Figure 7: Model of the Block 1 Before Collapsed

Figure 8: Highland Towers Tragedy in Newspaper


22 | P a g e

Figure 9: Highland Towers Tragedy from the top view

Figure 10: The first survivor of the Highland Tower Tragedy, Nur Hamidah Najib


23 | P a g e

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


24 | P a g e

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-11-

december-1993/

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

banned.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

Highland Towers Tragedy

Documents

Transcript of Highland Towers Tragedy