The Supreme Court's decision ordering the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) to compensate relatives of people killed in the 1995 collapse of the Phran Nok pier should make authorities more wary of their duty to safeguard public safety.
The ruling came 20 years after the incident that claimed 29 lives. Even today, many people will still remember the heart-breaking image of a rescuer retrieving the body of a young girl out of the water with a school bag still attached to her shoulder.
The court told the BMA to pay 12.6 million baht plus 7.5% interest to relatives of 12 out of the 29 people killed. BMA Deputy City Clerk Sanya Chenimit said City Hall will comply with the court's order.
Considering the human losses and the length of time the case has taken before the final ruling, the BMA should waste no time in processing the payment. It is the least the authority can do for people who lost their loved ones in the tragedy.
What is more important than the financial compensation in this case is a clear message that the ruling has sent − that state agencies must actively work to ensure that facilities used by the public are in a safe state of repair.
The Supreme Court's decision was forthright when it said the BMA failed in its duty because it did not order the Phran Nok pier to be closed for maintenance even though it knew the facility was old and damaged.
The ruling was also specific in its explanation that the BMA's act of putting up signboards warning commuters that the pier could accommodate only 60 people was not considered proactive enough.
The court reasoned that as a regulating authority, the BMA should have followed up the warning with appropriate measures to ensure the limit would not be violated.
In the pier case, the court said if City Hall decided that only 60 people could stand on it at the same time, it must follow up the warning with appropriate action.
In this case, it should have installed safety barricades to regulate the number of people getting on the pontoon, the court said.
The Supreme Court's decision and rationale behind it should serve as a guiding principle for all state agencies responsible for protecting public safety and the public interest.
After 20 years, the public shock and outrage over the pier collapse may have subsided but the truth remains that not all public facilities have been put under the most stringent watch or care.
Both the BMA and police have released lists of dangerous areas around the city where crimes often occur. Has enough been done to make them less dangerous?
Have authorities installed more lighting and CCTV cameras?
How about "death trap" minibuses that are often in the news for reckless driving? There have been many fatalities already so a lawsuit should not be necessary to force an improvement.
The derelict New World Department Store is another example. The BMA took the building's owner to court in 1994 for illegally adding seven floors more than permitted. The Supreme Court ordered the shopping mall's owner to remove the additional floors in 1997.
The owner defied the order, however, choosing to pay a daily fine. In 2004, part of the building collapsed, killing a passer-by. The BMA last year declared the mall off-limits and ordered it closed for public safety.
The BMA also said last year that the building will be demolished if it is found to be unsafe. At present, no finding has yet been reported about its structural integrity and the damaged building is still allowed to stand.