Draft 2 -Reader Response (Cladding)
In the article “Use of cladding in buildings here have grown in recent times: Experts” from Faris Mokhtar, states that although cladding is beneficial to a building, the cladding is still considered as a fire hazard.
Mokhtar (2017) states that the usage of cladding has shown to provide many benefits for the building. According to Assistant Professor Fadeyi (2017), cladding has shown to benefit in the reduction of energy consumption and increases the sustainability of the building. According to Assistant Professor Budig (2017), he mentions that Singapore practices another style of cladding which enhances the shade of the building.
According to Mokhtar (2017), However, usage of cladding has been contributing in the rapid spreading of fire as it endangers the fire safety in the building as the oxygenation could escalate the fire. Cladding may have contributed to the fire that struck the Grenfell Tower, which led to multiple fatalities.
Cladding should be reviewed scrupulously and undergoes stringent fire test after its completion as it has the potential risk of endangering peoples’ lives.
Singapore building is considered one of the world’s most eminent and secure infrastructure. Often so that, we seldom heard any major building incident. However, in the light of recent tragedy, a woman was pronounced dead at 30 Toh Guan Road after a fire broke out. It was then found that cladding, which was used on the external of the building, is combustible and not certified with class 0 (The Channel News Asia, 2017). With such incident occurring, further concerns and questions were raised. A logical question to ask would be how did such combustible materials slip through the cracks despite having a fair amount of test?
Firstly, the reckless contractor firm. According to The Straits Times, it was shown that the contractor firm might have misplaced different model of stock in the same area. This means that the cladding used on-site might not be what it is tested for at the laboratory. Therefore, resulting in such consequential fire. Another factor that I would like to touch on includes the overstating of their qualifications and capabilities for tendering purposes. Some contractor might overlook their own morality for the sake of profits, neglecting the fact that this involves hundreds and thousands of innocent lives.
Secondly, the government. Whenever the building encountered any flaws, the contractor will always be perceived as the main source. However, in this case, government plays a critical role in ensuring that standards are met and security is maintained. It is indicated that layers of check were to be conducted to ensure that everything is in place before installation takes place (Singapore Civil Defence Force). However, even after all those checks and inspection, cladding still managed to obtain approval as fire rated with class 0? With the occurrence of such incident, it is inevitable to think if there is a slight chance of possibility that other buildings in Singapore have a similar issue but have yet to be discovered by the government?
Lastly, whole-heartedly, hope that the government would start to implement measures to prevent such incident and loophole from happening again. Such issues should never be taken lightly as Singaporeans’ lives are at stake. The government needs to enact and amend their new laws and regulation for contractor and other involved organisation. Ultimately, the final question should be what else can be done to prevent such tragic incident from occurring again.
References:
36 buildings may have combustible cladding that doesn't meet safety standards; police investigating. Channel News Asia. Retrieved, September 25, 2017, from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/36-buildings-may-have-combustible-cladding-that-doesn-t-meet-9153588
Comments
Post a Comment