V. Divyashree, 12, one of the three pupils drowned in the bridge collapse tragedy at SK Kuala Dipang in Jeram, Perak on Oct. 26 scored 4 As and 3 Bs in the UPSR results yesterday.
But the UPSR results were no comfort to her or her family. Divyashree’s life and her ambition to become an orthopaedic surgeon were snuffed out when together with two other pupils, N. Dina Deve and M. Devatharshini attending a 1Malaysia camp organized by the Education Ministry’s Co-curriculum Centre, she was drowned when the Kuala Dipang suspension bridge collapsed because of criminal negligence.
This morning, together with Perak Pakatan Rakyat elected representatives including MPs Ngeh Koo Ham (Bruas), M. Kulasegaran (Ipoh Barat), Nga Kor Ming (Taiping) and Perak State Assembly members A. Sivanesan (Sungkai), legitimate and legal Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar (Tronoh), Leong Mee Ming (Jalong), I was at the Ipoh High Court to extend support, sympathy and solidarity to the parents of the three victims of the Kuala Dipang tragedy to file a hundred-million ringgit suit against the Education Ministry for their death.
The Kuala Dipang tragedy claiming three young innocent lives should never have happened as they are casualties of a lengthening catalogue of criminal negligence and sharp drop in performance and standards of public authorities represented by greater lack of public accountability. Transparency and good governance.
Hardly a day passes without an example of such deplorable drop in standards, performance and lack of accountability of the public authorities, for instance, the unchecked rise in crime index and rampant corruption in the country.
There are at least two such items in today’s press, viz:
-
News report of “Datuk killed fleeing robbers” on a former Master Builder’s president Datuk Patrick Wong who died after he fell from the first floor of his house at Bukit Bandaraya, Bangsar while fleeing armed robbers;
-
The vindication of the beliefs of all right-thinking Malaysians that DAP political aide Teoh Beng Hock would still be alive today if the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC) had not broken the law in unlawfully grilling witnesses – as ruled by the Kuala Lumpur High Court (Appellate and Special Powers Division) judge Justice Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof yesterday in the landmark Tan Boon Wah case that the MACC cannot interrogate witnesses beyond office hours.
The battle to ensure greater accountability, transparency and good governance in the Najib premiership suffered a grave blow yesterday hen Parliament was not allowed to debate a motion of “definite, urgent, public importance” Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) 2009 which returned the worst results for Malaysia in 15 years – not only the worst CPI rank of 56 and CPI score of 4.5, but the worst single-year drop in CPI rank by nine placings from last year’s 47th to 56th position and fall of CPI score of 0.6 from last year’s 5.1 to the present 4.5.
Huguette Labelle, chairman of Transparency International, cannot be more right when she said it was “essential to identify where corruption blocks good governance and accountability, in order to break its corrosive cycle”, adding:
“Stemming corruption requires strong oversight by parliaments, a well performing judiciary, independent and properly resourced audit and anti-corruption agencies, vigorous law enforcement, transparency in public budgets, revenue and aid flows. “
The Malaysian Parliament has failed its first test – to provide strong oversight to stem corruption.
I wish them justice for their suit. No amount of money can compensate the families for their loss, but it may help upgrade the attitude of those who are entrusted with the safety of our children.
As for transparency and accountability: are Selangor still giving only ‘close one eye’ (acquired since elected) disclosures on their personal assets? Either PR are going to have to be more careful about their campaign promises, or they’re going to have to qualify them with “unless we decide not to la”. Reneging on campaign promises and asking people to stop criticising (again in the press this week) is not innovative.
If I recall the pictures (seen in the papers of course) taken of the bridge on the damage that had occured correctly, it appears that the tie-back had failed.
Lets me describe the design concept of a typical suspension bridge. (Yes it is show off time.) It is a simple engineering structure. The entire loading upon the suspension bridge (i.e. imposed load and self-weight), as it is typical of all such bridges, is being held-up by the tensile strength of the cables used.
The bridge deck is suspended on a series of vertical cables lined-up at regular spacing along the entire length of the deck – from one end of the bridge to the other.
At each of these end is erected a tower (commonly in the form of a steel frame). Between the two towers, a main suspension cable is draped. The two ends of this main suspension cable must be held-back (imagine, tug-of-war) for it to stay in position.
The top end of the vertical cables found along the deck are tied to the main suspension cable.
So here the tensile loading in the vertical cables (coming from the bridge deck) will be transfered to the main suspension cable above as a result of which (and in addition to its own weight) the main cable droops between the two towers. This gives the bridge its signature appearance. It also results in the transfer of the tensile loads in the vertical cables over to the main suspension cable.
It is this pulling force in the main suspension cable that must be resisted. Hence, comes the anchorage for each of the two ends of the main cable.
The anchorage design involves in the main two considerations. First, the weight of the anchorage (usually a large block of mass concrete) must be sufficiently large in order for it to counter the pulling force in the main cable. Second, the connection between the main suspension cable and the anchorage must be adequately strong othewise the connection might well fail even before the entire anchorage block is yanked out of its position.
Finally, because the entire support system of a suspension bridge consists mainly of cables therefore more severely than structures of other design, it will suffer structural instability. The Millennium Bridge is notorious for the same problem. This is a tricky problem especially if the bridge spans across a long distance. A series of criss-crossing steel members must be incorporated into the bridge deck to resist and hopefully minimise lateral movements.
Now decide for yourself, based on what you could recall of the failed bridge, what could possibly be the problem. Anchorage failure, is it? Well I believe it is.
taiking, the failure of the bridge has currently been attributed to overloading, hasn’t it? If I remember the pictures correctly, the mode of failure was the block being pulled out of the ground. Is the design of the anchor in a bridge such as this one purely a matter of mass and attachment, or is the depth of bury and ground quality taken into account as well?
Another that strikes me is that the span sounded great compared to the pictures of the wreckage I saw. The height of the towers between which the main cable was suspended would have a great effect on the tension in the cable, wouldn’t it? Are these kinds of structures usually built with a rule-of-thumb relating tower height to span? I imagine it’s much more complex than that for mega-projects like road or capital city scenic bridges, was wondering how one would proceed for rural jobs like this one.