Draft 3-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, it is considered fire hazard.
Mokhtar (2017) reports 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.
Thesis statement:
Combustible building materials such as 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?
According to The Straits Times, it was reported that the contractor firm might have misplaced and mixed up the different model of stock in the same area. This implies that the cladding used on-site might not be what it is tested and accredited for. Therefore, resulting in such consequential fire. Another factor that I would like to add on includes the lack of business ethical where firm deliberately uses cheaper materials to reduce their operating and production cost. It is concluded that in the case of Grenfell tower, combustible cladding which is lower in cost are used. (The Guardians, 2017). Cooperation overlooking their own morality for the sake of profits, neglecting the fact that this involves hundreds and thousands of innocent lives.
Customary, 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. Singapore Civil Defence Force, SCDF indicates that layers of check were to be conducted to ensure that everything is in place before installation takes place. However, despite having such throughout checks and inspection, how did combustible cladding still managed to obtain approval as fire rated with class 0?
The message is clear, such issues should not be taken lightly as Singaporeans’ lives are at stake. The catastrophic consequences of this failure clearly indicate that more needs to be done. Government needs to enact and amend their new laws and regulation for contractor and other involved organisation. With the occurrence of such incident, it is inevitable to doubt the safety of building in Singapore. Ultimately, the final question should be if other buildings have similar issues but have yet to be discovered by the government?
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