1. Question 2
Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. This is the first code of
ethic that engineers must adhere to. Your group is required to:
1) Describe why the first code of ethic is paramount important to all engineers?
All references stated will be verified and mark will be given (4 marks)
2) Highland towers in Taman Hill view, UluKlang, Selangor, Malaysia collapsed in 11
December 1993. Describe the ethical issue, leading to the tragedy (5 marks). References
are essential for high score.
3) Discuss the steps or actions that should have been taken to prevent the tragedy that are
relevance to the code of ethics (4 marks)
4) Discuss who and why with reference to responsibilities and liabilities in the highland
tower tragedy.

2. Question 2
Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. This is the first code of
ethic that engineers must adhere to. Your group is required to:
1) Describe why the first code of ethic is paramount important to all engineers?
All references stated will be verified and mark will be given (4 marks)
Answers;
This is because the duty of an engineer is to ensure the safety, health and welfare of the
public.Then, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and
equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
Engineering ethics focus on the way information is given to the public.
This is based on statement from:
a) http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
Preamble
Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession,
engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity.
Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people.
Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness,
and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and
welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that requires
adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.
b) http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/~baber/Courses/3J03/StudentPresentations/OriginsProfEt
hicsFan g.pdf
By referring to slide 16 from OrginsOf Professional Ethics presented by Yuan Fang. This
Slide show has been referring for many references such as Johnson, Deborah G. ethical
issue in engineering.
Similarities in different professional fields
- Focus on public safety and the safety of their patients and client
Differences in different professional field
- The paramount duty of engineers is to ensures: safety,health and welfare of the
public.

3. c) http://www.ckoon-law.com/Paper/ENGINEERS%20IN%20SOCIETY.pdf
5.0 THE MODERN ENGINEERS
5.1 Engineers owe responsibility to
• The general public: safety, environment
• Direct consumers of the project
• Fellow engineers
• Clients e.g. government, industry
d) http://www.scribd.com/doc/24004818/Codes-of-Ethics-of-Professional-Engineering
2) Highland towers in Taman Hill view, UluKlang, Selangor, Malaysia collapsed in 11
December 1993. Describe the ethical issue, leading to the tragedy (5 marks).
References are essential for high score.
Answers;
The ethical issuethat leading to the tragedy is second of code of ethic, Engineers shall
perform services only in the areas of their competence. Engineers shall undertake
assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical
fields involved.Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents
dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document
not prepared under their direction and control.
Another ethical issue that include to the tragedy is first of code of ethic, Engineers shall
hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. If engineers' judgment is
overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their
employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.Engineers shall
approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable
standards.
This is based article from :
a) http://constructionrisk.blogspot.com/2006/02/highland-tower-tragedy.html.
B.The EngineerThe Engineer’s defense that he was only retained to design and supervise
the structural aspects of the 3 apartment blocks, two retaining walls within the Highland
Towers compound and submit plans for the drainage and two and denied that his scope
extended to the drainage, earthworks.This was rejected by the Court. The Court held
that the Engineer must take into account the condition of the vicinity of the land upon
which the building is built, as well as the land itself, must be evaluated when assessing
the safety of the building.He should have ensured the stability of the hillslope behind
HighlandTowers.His duty was not discharged by a mere belief that the terracing of the
hillslopes and the retaining walls built on them were carried out by an engineer or other

4. consultant. He ought to have inquired as towhether this professional was qualified, and
whether what he was doing affected the safety of the Tower Blocks.[Other Aspects of the
Engineer’s negligence – gross violation of his duty of care to the purchasers in the issue of
a notification to the Authorities that the approved drainage was built when only 10% was
built]
b) http://mavrkyprojectphoto.blogspot.com/2006/02/highland-tower-collapse.html
The Third Defendant (Engineer) was liable in negligence for not having taken into
account the hill or slope behind the Towers, not having designed and constructed a
foundation to accommodate the lateral loads of a landslide or alternatively to have
ensured that the adjacent hillslope was stable, for not having implemented that
approved drainage scheme, 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.
c) http://www.digitalibrary.my/dmdocuments/malaysiakini/294_The%20Highland%20T
owers%20Tragedy.pdf
Page 60 point 155 and 158
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning, Supervision and Construction
155. The developer, the submitting person and the consultant engineer did not carry out
ground investigation to assess the stability of slope and the earthwork design behind
the Condominium in spite of the stipulated conditions in the development order.
158. The engineer committed unethical practice by signing the roads and draining
plans not designed by him, for purpose of obtaining Certificate of Fitness
d) http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
Preamble
Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession,
engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity.
Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people.
Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness,
and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and
welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that requires
adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.

5. 3) Discuss the steps or actions that should have been taken to prevent the tragedy
that are relevance to the code of ethics (4 marks)
Answers;
a) As Architect must doing complying with his duties. The architect liable in negligence
for having ensured adequate drainage and retaining walls were built on the hillslope
adjacent to the Highland Towers site.
b) As Engineer must doing complying with his duties. Engineers shall undertake
assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical
fields involved. The Engineer must take into account the condition of the vicinity of
the land upon which the building is built, as well as the land itself, must be evaluated
when assessing the safety of the building.
c) The First Defendant was liable in negligence for engaging a qualified architect,
constructing insufficient.
d) Local Authority although not 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.
e) Building Professionals need to consider the vicinity of the site as well as the site itself
in assessing safety-particularly in regard to adjacent hillslopes.
f) Building Professionals cannot hide behind limited scopes of engagement-these are a
matter between themselves and their employer, but the scope of their duty owed to
persons likely to be affected by their services is not so limited.
g) Building Professionals requiredensuring that others engaged to do work likely to affect
the structures they have been engaged to design/supervise are competent and will
carry out their work in a workmanlike manner.
h) If Building Professionals hold themselves out to have expertise in a particular area
when they are unqualified, their conduct will be measured against the ordinarily
competent qualified practitioner of such expertise.
i) Building Professionals must ensure the law is followed, reporting to the authorities if
necessary if their clients break the law, even at the risk of being discharged by their
client.

6. 4) Discuss who and why with reference to responsibilities and liabilities in the
highland tower tragedy.
Answers;
a) The First Defendant was liable in negligence for not engaging a qualified architect,
constructing insufficient and inadequate terraces, retaining walls and drains on the
hillslope which could reasonably have been foreseen to have caused the collapse
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.
b) The Second Defendant (Architect) was liable in negligence for not having ensured
adequate drainage and retaining walls were built on the hillslope 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, 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 in not investigating the terracing of
the hillslopes 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.
c) The Third Defendant (Engineer) was liable in negligence for not having taken into
account the hill or slope behind the Towers, not having designed and constructed a
foundation to accommodate the lateral loads of a landslide or alternatively to have
ensured that the adjacent hillslope was stable, for not having implemented that
approved drainage scheme, 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.
d) 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.
e) 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. Arab-Malaysian Land who carried out site clearing
works was not found liable on the evidence.
f) 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,

7. 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.
g) 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.