OPINION> EDITORIALS
Building standards
(China Daily)
Updated: 2009-05-27 07:38

For those anxious to get rid of the haunting suspicions and enquiries surrounding the school buildings flattened by the Wenchuan earthquake, there might be good news. A joint survey by three of the country's top engineering schools did not single out building quality as the main cause for the collapse of structures. Poor construction alone would not have resulted in a destruction of such magnitude, we are now told, as the causes were multiple.

We already know that the quake was too strong for the buildings to withstand. Some schools were unfortunately located at the most vulnerable locations, and classroom buildings are inherently at greater risk. Various explanations had been given with a view to direct people's anger against nature. That so many school buildings were razed to the ground, killing so many, was an inevitable consequence of a natural disaster, they said as soon as questions were raised about building quality.

The joint investigation does highlight the common weakness of classroom buildings - larger average floor area, larger doors and windows, and other architectural factors, which make them inherently vulnerable. That, however, does not eliminate poor building quality as one of the causes. Schools built in the early 1990s in accordance with State standards, it found, turned out to be more quake-resistant.

On the other hand, those built earlier or not up to the prescribed standards, were affected much more severely.

Building standards

A survey like this was not meant to apportion blame. What we need at this point is a cool-headed study of the real causes of the heavy loss, of lives and property, on school campuses. That is the only way we can emerge stronger from the disaster.

From the rather ambiguously worded conclusion we have heard so far, however, deficiency of quality cannot be denied in many schools built in the past two decades. When standards were cited in discussions about school buildings, it was claimed that budgetary constraints had compelled local authorities to settle for lower standards. To what extent was that true? Are the suspicions of corruption entirely groundless? These questions need to be answered.

Some local authorities may prefer a categorical negative answer to any such speculative enquiry. That may offer the officials some respite, but the questions will keep lingering.

And, as long as the questions remain in the public mind, the local authorities cannot expect to be relieved of the responsibility to answer these disturbing questions.

For the sake of their own credibility, the authorities should be more responsive in addressing public concerns. They have nothing to fear as long as they had conformed to standards and procedure at every stage of construction.

That said, there is no reason to resist a closer look at the quality problems that may have reduced the school buildings to rubble.

(China Daily 05/27/2009 page8)