Beer Chang Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Seems to me that buildings in Thailand are not subject to the strict fire codes of the West, so perhaps it's worth paying a little extra for a building that looks safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 You cannot judge a book by its cover and paying more money does not really mean a safer home. A building may look safe, but you really have to try and find out the reputation of the builder. If you are not up on your building safety codes, I would try and hire a qualified inspector. If it were me, I would make sure the electrical system was grounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 Seems to me that buildings in Thailand are not subject to the strict fire codes of the West, so perhaps it's worth paying a little extra for a building that looks safe. My guess is we've all been in buildings (discos, for example) in Thailand that, if you really thought about a fire happening, you might leave the building before that ever happened presuming you had a fair amount of common sense. There are many unlicensed establishments in premises that haven't been inspected (plus, as you may have noticed, the presence of a fire suppression system such as a sprinkler system is extremely rare). The Santika fire in Bangkok last year is an example of a disaster waiting to happen. Not inspected, not properly inspected, overloaded with people, etc. And what's worse sometimes is the practice of some establishments to block, lock, or chain the few emergency exits that a place might have (presuming there are any). But, like everybody else, we expats rarely worry about such things. Typically we're in an open-air bar or restaurant and that poses little risk to anybody (easy to get out of there). I've on rare occasion noted to a friend that the place we were in at the time sure seemed like a fire deathtrap but, frankly, that hasn't stopped me yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 BC, I thought you were talking about a building to purchase. Never mind. I read where the Thai prosecutors are charging seven people in the January 1, 2009 nightclub death of 66 people. Looks like they are going after the band member that lit the fireworks, a person from the lighting company, the general manager, maketing manager, and the entertainment manager. I didn't see where the owner of the building is being charged. Maybe he bought his way out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 I didn't see where the owner of the building is being charged. Maybe he bought his way out? Just because he/she owned the building wouldn't make him/her liable for anything. As long as the owner just rented the space and had nothing to do with blocking emergency exits or setting off of the pyrotechnics indoors, I can't see why there would be any liability for the owner. When they talk in the press about that place being "unlicensed", I'm not sure what they're talking about - but maybe it's the business activity itself that has to be licensed and not the building. Even in the states there are different rules for different activities (i.e., a lot tougher restrictions on bars or discos where hundreds of people are packed in versus the rules for a place selling clothes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Just because he/she owned the building wouldn't make him/her liable for anything. Since the law was your profession, I am sure you know much more than the common lay person, but I should think the owners have some culpability here. It was said there was only one fire extinguisher in the entire building. Not sure what the Thai laws are, but that's not right. Also reported, the owners rented to the nightclub, even though nightclubs were banned in that area. Police ownership has also been rumored. Owner of the building have no liability here? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Admittedly, my experience back in the states may mean diddley when trying to apply it to asian practices. From what limited experience I have here, many of these commercial buildings are built by rich land owners (not by user/owners) who simply rent out the space and then, in the usual case, it's up to the tenant to obtain licensing and approval for whatever business he is going to run there and, also, to comply with laws about how many fire extinguishers, how many people to allow in there at one time, what activities (pyrotechnics, for example) to conduct there, and to be responsible, of course, for safely conducting activities there. And, of course, there are many commercial examples (especially in Thailand) where the owner only owns the land and the land renter constructs the mall, building, or whatever. I could conjure up a scenario where even a building owner in the west could be liable in the Santika situation. For example, if the law said the building required a sprinkler system and it didn't have one. Or, as another example, the law required a certain number of exit doors (and/or that the all exit doors opened out versus opening in) and those were missing or faulty. Generally, they'd have to find something the owner failed to legally provide and then prove that the failure was at least in part the cause of the injuries or deaths. So far, I haven't read anything in the Thai press about that (but the newspaper reports are notoriously lacking in details and investigative reporting). If I was investigating this particular fire and found that the original building didn't comply with existing fire codes or whatever, my next task would be to look for which inspectors signed the approval forms (electrical inspections, mechanical inspections, general construction inspections, and occupancy permit)and at least attempt to find out why (perhaps a little tea money?) any failures occurred in that realm. But, to be fair, I haven't heard anything about that angle as yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 It is very hard to find out exactly what happened and who is responsible. This account states, "The Bangkok nightclub where 59 people died in a fire on New Year’s Eve was only registered as a night-time food stall, had no fire exits and a single fire extinguisher." Bangkok: Blaze nightclub had no licence or safety measures - Telegraph And this, "A preliminary inspection of the club's safety system was called "substandard" by police Lieut. Gen. Jongrak Jutanont." Bangkok nightclub fire kills 61 new year's revellers - CTV News And this from one of the survivors, "He said: "Everyone started running for the door. But the door seemed tiny and people were jammed up against it. If there was another way out, none of us knew about it, and all the windows were barred." Bangkok nightclub fire: British man saved by 'angel' who dragged him out - Telegraph Who knows the true story? After all, this is Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graymo Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 The Thong Lor Police apparently 'fined' the venue many times times for operating illegally. Lo and behold it was then the Thong Lor Police who were assigned to investigate the fire... The place should have been shut down long before the tragic event. I suppose the ranking cop who had the shares in Santika will get further promotion whilst others take the fall. Ironic perhaps that the man accused of setting off the fireworks on that night, Saravuth Ariya is the lead singer of the unfortunately named band Burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts