This case involves significant public interest and residential area safety issues, especially the destruction of homes for hundreds of residents, leading to severe psychological and physical trauma and suffering. The authorities must prioritize the people, and selflessly expose and uncover all the human negligence factors behind this issue.
When the gas explosion incident in Bukit Raja occurred, I was invited to comment on this unfortunate disaster on a radio station during the first week following the incident. At that time, I had a very pessimistic premonition, worried that the relevant authorities might once again categorize this very obvious man-made disaster as a natural disaster.
This prediction, which seemed absurd at the time, has unfortunately proven correct. The authorities have indeed creatively blamed the cause on environmental factors, specifically soil erosion, and shamelessly emphasized that there was no human negligence or intentional sabotage involved.
The facts speak for themselves. In recent years, there has been almost no case involving public space safety that has demonstrated the most basic accountability and responsibility investigations. This includes last year’s incident on Sultan Ismail Road in Kuala Lumpur, where a fallen tree crushed nearly 20 cars and caused casualties; the incident where an Indian tourist went missing after falling into a hole on the sidewalk on Indian Mosque Road in Kuala Lumpur; and the tragedy in Penang where a Chinese tourist and her daughter were killed by a neighboring tree falling on them at the Overseas Chinese Museum.
Whether these accidents occur in public or private spaces, the only common denominator is that the police investigation reports ultimately did not involve any criminal elements, and no one was held accountable. Some investigations are still incomplete today, with the issues swept under the rug with a rushed and hasty conclusion.
The tragic incident in Johor Bahru, where a 5-year-old student was forgotten and locked in a school bus, ultimately leading to suffocation and death, was handled similarly. When the lawyer representing the deceased child’s parents appealed to the Attorney General’s Office to consider prosecuting the kindergarten for obvious negligence under the Children’s Act, the response was a flat rejection, with no reason given, completely disregarding the innocent sacrifice of a precious child’s life.
What’s even more surprising is that in general, in similar tort cases, judicial authorities typically first identify who is responsible before proceeding with compensation amounts or criminal penalties. The basic principle is simple: whoever is at fault should bear the responsibility! On the other hand, if an outsider who has no responsibility offers help to the victims, it is based on “goodwill.”
However, under the current handling model of the relevant authorities, the focus is directly shifted away from holding the accountable party to the law, and instead, compensation or various forms of assistance are given directly to the victims. This includes offering help to repair the homes damaged in the gas explosion incident or providing housing allowances. The issue is: why not demand that the party at fault compensate the victims directly?
