In the article “Use
of cladding in buildings here have grown in recent times: Experts” from Faris
Mokhtar, Today Online (June 20, 2017) states that although there are benefits
of cladding on a building, it can be a threat as it serves as a fire hazard.
The usage of cladding may had contributed to the rapid spreading of fire in the
Grenfell Tower incident, which led to multiple fatalities.
Mokhtar (2017) states that the usage of cladding
has shown to provide many benefits for the building. According to Assistant
Professor Fadeyi (2017), cladding has shown to benefit in the reduction of
energy consumption and the increases sustainability of the building.
According to Assistant Professor Budig (2017), he mentions that Singapore
practices another style of cladding which enhances the shade of the building.
Singapore uses cladding that are regulated by the
Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF). In the article, SCDF stated that
“Singapore Fire Code stipulates the fire safety requirements for all buildings
in Singapore”.
Thesis
Statement
Despite all the regulation in place, buildings in Singapore are
found to have used combustible materials for cladding. Inspection still find
buildings using cladding that allows the spread of fire.
From a Channel NewsAsia article (24 August 2017) on the fire of an
industrial building at Toh Guan, in Singapore, cladding that does not met the
Singapore Fire Code were used on the building, resulting in a loss of life.
Following the fire, inspection was done on several buildings and are found to
be using cladding that does not meet the regulation of the Singapore Fire Code
which ironically includes the Clementi Fire Station.
In my opinion, it is possible that there are more buildings that
does not have cladding that met the regulation. With new buildings constantly
getting constructed in Singapore, there will be errand contractor trying to cut
cost and uses sub-standard materials.
In another article from Today Online (24 August 2017), it is noted
that even the cladding distributor are unaware of the sub-standard cladding
which was manufactured by companies from other countries. Also, as of 26
September 2017, an article titled “Boustead Projects to remove external
cladding at property after failing SCDF safety standards” had surfaced online
on The Edge Singapore. It stated that the cladding was initially certified to
had met the regulation and even has a certificate of conformity. However, it
still fails the inspection after the sample taken from the cladding were tested
and found to not fulfil the Singapore Fire Code.
According to Building and Construction Authority(BCA) website,
Building Control Act requires building owners to engage a structural engineer
to inspect the buildings. Residential buildings are to be inspected every 10
years while commercial buildings are to be inspected every 5 years.
In conclusion, although regulated,
the use of cladding in Singapore still poses a fire risk due to unforeseen
factor. From all these articles, I feel that there are plenty of loopholes
around the system which still allows sub-standard cladding to be installed on
buildings. This poses as a fire risk, with so many buildings in Singapore. It
is possible that the Grenfell Tower incident could happen in Singapore before
the inspection could find all the sub-standard claddings.
Reference
Mokhtar, F. (2017, June 17). Use of cladding in buildings here have grown in recent times: experts. Today Online. Retrieved from http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/use-cladding-buildings-here-have-grown-recent-times-experts
Mokhtar, F. (2017, June 17). Use of cladding in buildings here have grown in recent times: experts. Today Online. Retrieved from http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/use-cladding-buildings-here-have-grown-recent-times-experts
Loh, C. J. (2017, August 24). 36 buildings may have combustible cladding that doesn't meet safety standard; police investigating. Retrieved from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/36-buildings-may-have-combustible-cladding-that-doesn-t-meet-9153588?view=DEFAULT
Chan, S. J. (2017, September 26). Boustead Projects to remove external cladding at property after failing SCDF safety standards. Retrieved from https://www.theedgesingapore.com/boustead-projects-remove-external-cladding-property-after-failing-scdf-safety-standards
Building & Construction Authority Singapore
Dear Zhong Han,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the upload.
Please find my comments below:
Do check and work on the format of the in-text citations in the response, in particular to be aware of how to cite interviews conducted by the author of the article you are using.
There are a number of problems with language use, and the correctness of the language has to be worked on. A few examples are shared below:
• “…although there are benefits of cladding on a building…”
• “The usage of cladding may had contributed to…”
• “Mokhtar (2017) states that the usage of cladding has shown to provide…”
The reader response could do with greater coherence. For instance, paragraph three seems rather abrupt. The paragraph also has no clear indication what the main idea is.
The controlling idea in the thesis is more or less there, however, what is lacking is your take on the idea, i.e. given the current scenario (despite regulations that combustible materials are still used in buildings) what your take/proposal is. Don’t wait till the conclusion to state your stand. After all, the purpose of writing a reader response is to have your voice heard on the subject of interest.
Para 5 could be written more concisely.
I see good research put in to bring relevant support into your writing – good job there. What needs a relook is the correctness, clarity, completeness, and conciseness of the writing.
The conclusion where you state your stand/take on the subject could be written more concretely. Also, don’t wait till the conclusion to state your stand. Do it in the response as the discussion unfolds. >>> “…I feel that there are plenty of loopholes around the system…” – what exactly are the loopholes you are talking about, and where do these loopholes appear? The readers would certainly be interested in that.
Regards,
Ms. Lim