LETTER | The Johor Baru Sultanah Aminah Hospital fire that happened on October 25, 2016, at the southern intensive care unit had killed six patients. It is a tragedy that must not be forgotten and all possible lessons need to be drawn and learnt. The people must not fall into social amnesia.

The seven-man inquiry committee had recently submitted their findings to the Health Ministry. They also urged the ministry to “declassify” the investigation report and “make it public” as reported. The body formed to probe the cause of the fire is an independent investigation committee set up by the government.

It is debatable why a public inquest or a public inquiry was not instituted in the first place so that releasing the report to the public is not an issue. Whatever it is, there is the need for the committee to ask for approval to make the report public.

Be it a public inquiry or not, why is it important to make the report public? All these inquiry systems are set up to investigate events which have or could have caused serious public concern. The critical concern with the JB hospital fire is that the most basic right of all human rights – everyone has a right to life and cannot be unjustly killed – could well have been violated.

The six patients died in a place where the sacred duty is to save lives and yet they died a cruel death. This is the greatest irony of all. The state has not protected its citizens from unwanted multiple deaths, whatever their life station in life may be. The state must answer and be accountable for its failure to uphold its responsibilities.

The public must know why such disaster had happened and be given the assurance that such incidents are not repeated. Members of the public are generally laypersons. When they walk into a public space, they must feel safe, and not be walking into a death trap. This is exactly what happened at the intensive care unit in the hospital - a death trap for the unsuspecting victims.

The former health minister Dr S Subramaniam was reported to have said that the fire was caused by a fluorescent light capacitor which ignited some combustible materials in its proximity. The framing of the causal relationship between the hospital fire and lighting capacitor is rather simplistic.

A reductionist approach of all political, legal, ethical and moral issues to merely a technical concern is rather outmoded in the 21st century. Since the cause of the fire is the capacitor, the obvious solution is to change old capacitor to new ones, or better ones. A technical issue simply requires a technical solution. The technical persons may then be the sacrificial lamb for the faults of major decision-makers.

This does not mean that the former is free of blame. But, it is probable that the key major decision-makers in the top hierarchy may have largely lost managerial control of safety for persons and the fall guy is the laughable tiny capacitor.

But the question goes deeper - was the fire foreseeable and preventable? If not, then why? A faulty capacitor leading to fire is a decades-old and low- tech issue. Since it had sparked off the fire leading to multiple deaths, something must have gone seriously wrong in the managing of risk by all relevant parties.

The public must know the full story. The citizens must have the right to determine how safe is safe enough and what risks to health and safety are acceptable. Certain democratic procedures must be established so that the public can voice out their concern over safety issues as their very own life is at stake.

Without checks and balance from the public, certain members of the hospital management and the Health Ministry could operate differently from their avowed aim to provide compassionate care to the public.
The public must also know whether crony capitalism that worships maximisation of profits over the worth of human life has infected the system.

However, without correct, relevant and updated information, the public can not exert an effective check on their own health and safety. It is of critical importance that the investigation findings be made public. The decision process pertaining to the safety of persons in public space must be democratised.

There have been concerns about whether public inquiries are appropriate for an investigation into disaster as the adversarial nature of inquiry may not lead to the truth of matters. Also, the government of the day may not like to be blamed for its failure to protect the citizens. This similarly applies to whether the investigation report prepared by the committee should be made public.

Despite the possible shortcomings of inquiries being made public, on the whole, the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages as the exact root cause(s) of the disaster are being identified. Cover-ups or bleaching of issues may have a short-term gain for the government of the day, but it shall come back to haunt the people in the long-term. Cost and benefit analysis must not be allowed to override the right to life.

The public expects the officers in the new government to have the moral courage to conduct a surgical operation to root out deep-seated malignant and toxic tumours of utter disregard of human worth and human life.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.