Appointment with danger

Appointment with danger

Shocking news stories come to light almost every day here and
this tendency has made our people too busy to decide which
dreadful experiences are worth learning from to prevent future
disasters.

To mention a few consequential news items since last week:
there were hair-raising stories about the finding of buried
fetuses, the victims of illegal abortions; a fire at Bank
Indonesia's new building; rumors about President Soeharto's death
and the subsequent fall of the rupiah against the U.S. dollar.

These stories followed the ugly news about haze, monetary
turbulence, a plane crash and other adversities. In such a
climate the people seem to believe that they should prepare
themselves for more unpleasant news.

In this situation, just several days after the fire at the
unfinished tower of the central bank, still few care to talk
about it although the tragedy claimed 15 lives, nine of them in
lifts.

The cause of the tragedy is still under police investigation,
but since so many buildings have been struck by fire here --
including parts of the National Police headquarters in January
1996 -- unanswered questions still hang in the air. Why after the
fire at Bank Indonesia had been spotted was the electricity not
immediately switched off? This would have prevented many people
jumping into lifts -- which later turned into infernos -- to
escape. Surely if the panic-stricken people had been trained in
fire drills they would have known to run to the fire escapes.

How true was the statement by an official watching the fire
fighting there that the use of helicopters in an effort to rescue
trapped workers and fight the fire actually made the
conflagration worse because of the wind caused by the rotors? Was
it really an arson attack? Merdeka daily reported on Tuesday that
about half an hour before the fire broke at 9 a.m. its editorial
office received a telephone call from someone who claimed he and
his five colleagues had set a fire at Bank Indonesia on Jl. MH
Thamrin.

Did the bank officials in charge of the construction of the
tower carefully supervise the blueprints and focus their
attention on building safety to provide enough opportunities for
employees to escape in case of fire? Did they use building
materials strong enough to withstand fire? Did they check whether
the developer carried out the job as ordered in the planning?
Were extinguishers ready around the clock on each floor on the
day of the disaster? Were fire exits clearly marked for everybody
to see and located not too far from the lifts?

Further questions include: Why have people been reluctant to
learn from deadly fire tragedies? Have there not been too many
complaints already about a lack of workable fire prevention
systems in high-rise buildings? Aren't we aware that there are a
lot of careless building owners with the result that fires are
sparked from electrical short circuits, and there is an absence
of decent fire escapes?

There has also been lack of responsibility on the part of city
officials in charge of regular supervision of fire prevention
equipment in public buildings. No violators have been punished in
any fire accidents and the building owners' stubbornness has made
the city's fire inspectors reluctant to carry out their jobs. The
city public order office always frets about the lack of staff to
carry out supervision jobs at public buildings but they always
have enough officers to conduct regular raids to round up
prostitutes.

With this kind of attitude this country has in fact made an
appointment with danger and when this appointment is kept the
cost will be far too expensive.