Conflagration Underscores Problem with Safety

Conflagration Underscores Problem with Safety
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 8, 2011

"It passed inspection. How how could such an accident occur?" A fire of undetermined origin took nine lives in a Taichung nightclub. Taichung City Mayor Jason Hu was stunned. The entire nation was stunned. Safety inspections by governments at all levels failed to ensure public safety. They failed to prevent business owners from flouting the law for the sake of larger profits. That being the case, who if anyone can ensure public safety?

Sixteen years ago, the Wei Er Kang Restaurant fire in Taichung shocked the entire nation by taking 64 lives. Then mayor Lin Po-jung was impeached by the Control Yuan and suspended by the Executive Yuan for six months. This provided the public on Taiwan with a painful lesson in public safety. This provided the government on Taiwan with an opportunity to review existing safety measures. The fire prevention codes and regulations were completely rewritten. Non-flammable materials were made mandatory for public spaces. Restaurants and bars were required to purchase accident insurance. Police and fire fighters were separated and made independent. This allowed fire fighting to be more professional.

Sixteen years later, a fire in a Taichung City night club has claimed nine lives. According to the city government, the night club passed 21 safety inspections conductted over a period of five years. It was registered as a juice bar. But according to Deputy Mayor Hsiao Chia-chi, the city government still subjected it to the most stringent safety inspection standards. For example, the recent recent fire may have been caused by insulation foam on the ceiling which failed to pass inspection three years earlier. As a result, water and electricity were cut. The store came under new management. It was renamed "Huck" and resumed operations as a juice bar.

Based on the above account, the store was clearly registered as one thing, but operated as something else altogether. The city government failed to conduct a serious investigation. Juice bars are still public facilities. Foam insulation must still prevent fires. Did safety inspections ascertain whether it was safe? The most expedient way for business owners to maximize profits is to minimize operating costs. But competent authorities must keep public safety in mind. They must demand that business owners abide by the most stringent industry standards.

As everyone knows, Taichung has the most varied entertainment facilities on Taiwan. The more difficult an industry is to manage, the more severe government regulations must be. Otherwise, regulations will have no effect. Three years ago, the Taichung City Government explicitly forbade open flames in public facilities. This applied even to wedding receptions. The city government imposed regulations, but no penalties. Not only did it fail to impose penalties, it even failed to conduct inspections. Nightclubs conducted business as usual, behind closed doors. Only customers knew that male strippers were putting on a show, replete with fireworks.

The general public may not know that public facilities are not allowed to stage fireworks displays. But business owners are. The male strippers who staged the performance were reportedly stand ins. But the nightclub owner should have informed them that their show could not include open flames. The male strippers' employer should also have informed them that any show involving open flames were prohibited. Why did the performers juggle torches in such a tiny space? According to the performers, the club was too dark. They could not tell the the stage ceiling was too low. Clearly they failed to do their homework by checking out the venue. In any event, it was clear that shows involving open flames were prohibited. So why were business owners unafraid to defy the law? The only explanation is that this night club in Taichung was not alone in holding such shows. Night club owners never ran into any problems. Night club owners never got caught. As a result they grew ever bolder.

Performers putting on such shows never intended that their shows lead to such catastrophes. But besides being creative, novel, and popular, shows must also be responsible. They must be responsible for their own safety and for the safety of their customers. The male strippers should have been accompanied by two or three monitors to guard against the risk of fire. Had this been done, a disaster might not have ensued. Clearly fire prevention was not something the group paid much attention to, or cared much about. But who today would dare stage a similar performance?

Night clubs are about entertainment. Few people pay any attention to safety. Who bothers to check on the number of emergency exits and their locations before entering? After a few drinks, one's alertness diminishes. The juggled torches turn into a roaring conflagration. Guests assumed they were merely special effects. When they realized something was wrong, some used their own water glasses to fight the fire. They failed to realize their glasses were filled with liquor, and not water. As a result the situation soon spiraled out of control. But one can hardly blame the guests for having too good a time. When the male strippers first fled the scene, did anyone notice that no one was using the fire extinguishers next to the stage?

The Wei Er Kang Restaurant fire broke out six years ago. The Control Yuan exacted Draconian punishments. This time, the Control Yuan will find it difficult to absolve the Taichung City Government of responsibility. Twenty one safety inspections were conducted over five years. The building department, labor affairs department, and fire department conducted joint safety inspections. Three times the club passed muster. Was this due to inadequate attention to detail? Were the competent authorities negligent in their duties? No matter what the Control Yuan investigation uncovers, the Taichung City Government's first step must be to correct its errors. It must conduct a thorough inspection of all the city's public facilities. It must check their registrations against their operations, making sure they match. It must thoroughly inspect all facilities for safety, and bring them into compliance. Any business owners found in violation, must be thoroughly investigated and severely punished. Some must even be shut down. After all, human life is paramount. Negligence cannot be permitted.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2011.03.08
社論－這一把大火燒出的安檢問題
本報訊

　「安檢過關怎麼還會出事？」台中夜店一把無名火，奪走九條人命，讓台中市市長胡志強錯愕，更讓全國民眾驚愕。如果各級政府機關的安檢工作竟然防堵不了公安問題，阻止不了業者為賺取更大利益違規違法，那麼民眾的人身安全誰來保障？

　十六年前，台中市發生震驚全國的衛爾康西餐廳大火，奪走六十四條人命，時任市長的林柏榕因此遭到監察院彈劾，並經行政院停職半年處分，這個慘痛的教訓讓台灣公共安全有一個重新檢討的機會。當時的消防法規制度幾乎面臨全面的檢討重建，除了要求公共場所必須使用防火建材，餐飲業必須強制投保公共意外險，同時在體制上也促成警消分立，讓消防工作愈趨專業化。

　十六年過去了，台中市又發生奪走九條人命的夜店大火。根據市府資料，這家夜店五年廿一次安檢過關，儘管該店登記的是飲料店，但副市長蕭家旗指稱，市府仍是以最嚴格的標準進行安檢。舉例來說，這次疑為肇禍的天花板隔音泡棉三年前就不合格，該店因而遭到斷水斷電處分，業者更換人頭，改名「哈克」後，再以飲料店申請復業迄今。

　從上述情節看來，該店登記與經營項目顯然不一，市府並未嚴查；飲料店仍屬公共場合，隔音泡棉仍然應具防火效果，稽查到底查出了沒有？對業者而言，降低成本就是爭取最大經營利潤的作法；但對主管機關而言，卻應從公共安全的角度，以最嚴格的標準要求業者做好一切防護措施。

　眾所周知，台中是全台娛樂場所新興花樣最多的地方，愈是難管愈是要雷厲風行，否則難收管理之實效。三年前，台中市政府即明令在任何公共場所不得進行明火秀，包括婚嫁都不能有類似活動，然而，市府明令禁止，卻無罰則，非但沒有罰則，甚至連稽查能力都無，夜店關起門來做生意，除了上門的客人，沒人知道裡頭大搞猛男焰火秀。

　一般民眾或許不知道公共場所不能有明火秀，業者卻不能不知道。這次上場表演的猛男，據稱只是代班人，夜店老闆應該告知不能有明火秀，除了夜店老闆，猛男所屬表演團體的老闆也該告知不能有明火秀，為什麼該名表演者，還是在狹小的空間拋出煙火棒？據該名表演者聲稱，店裡光線太暗，他不知道天花板距離舞台這麼近，顯然他上場前甚至勘查場地最基本的功課都沒做，但不論如何，不能有明火秀是清清楚楚的，業者何敢以身試法？唯一的解釋只有一個：台中市各家夜店中，類似表演顯然不只這一件，沒出事沒被抓包，膽子就愈來愈大！

　原本娛樂大眾的創意表演，卻釀成巨災，絕非表演者所願見，但是，任何表演除了創意、新鮮、熱門，還是要負責，對自己與客人的安危負責，如果猛男出場，他所屬的團體還有二、三個隨行者，注意焰火可能引致的風險，或許也不致於釀災致此。然而，相關的周邊防護顯然亦未受到表演團體的注意，遑論重視，誰還敢邀請類似的表演呢？

　夜店逸樂，少有人注意安全，更遑論進門前先檢查逃生口有幾個？各在哪裡？喝了酒之後，警覺性降低，甩火變大火，客人還以為是特效，驚覺不對勁之後，甚至有人拿起杯子澆水滅火，恍若未覺自己杯中是酒不是水，導致事態一發不可收拾，但是，能怪客人玩過頭嗎？當猛男率先逃離現場時，誰還注意到舞台邊的滅火器竟無人使用呢？

　十六年前的衛爾康大火，監察院痛下彈劾之重手，這一次，監察院勢必很難放過台中市政府的管理監督之責。五年廿一次安檢中，有三次是建管、工務與消防單位的聯合安檢，全部過關，這中間有人謀不臧之處？還是相關單位疏於稽查職守？不論監察院調查結果為何，台中市政府第一步要做的是拴緊螺絲，進行全市公共場所的總體檢，從登記與經營項目是否名副其實、到各種設施是否符合安全規格，徹底清查並改正不符法令規範的店家，凡不合規定者，務必要嚴查重罰，甚至勒令歇業也在所不惜，畢竟人命關天，一點都閃失不得。