The massive earthquake that struck Myanmar on Friday sent tremors rippling across Thailand, and the force of the quake was felt strongly in Bangkok -- a city of towering skyscrapers.
Despite the widespread impact of the quake, only one structure -- the 30-storey State Audit Office building in Chatuchak district -- collapsed completely. Over a dozen people were killed in the disaster, while scores of others were injured and/or remain unaccounted for as of yesterday. This raises the question: Why did this particular building fail in such a catastrophic manner, while others remained standing after the earthquake?
The building, which was valued at over two billion baht, was constructed by a joint venture between Italian-Thai Development Plc and a subsidiary of China Railway No.10 Engineering Corporation (CREC).
The question that needs to be answered now is: Why did the government-owned building collapse, when numerous other structures in the quake-hit city -- many of which are older, taller or still under construction -- managed to withstand the tremor with minimal damage?
What's ironic is that the building belongs to the Auditor General's Office (AGO), the very agency that is responsible for scrutinising government entities. Were there irregularities in the construction that were overlooked? Were safety and quality standards properly enforced?
Preliminary surveys by experts suggest substandard construction materials were used in the construction of the building. That said, a structural failure of this magnitude could have been caused by multiple factors. Only a thorough investigation will be able to tell us the precise cause and the parties responsible for the tragedy.
Thailand has required buildings to be able to withstand earthquakes for quite some time.
Since 1997, buildings over 15 metres high in 10 seismically active provinces -- including Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai and Kanchanaburi -- have been required to comply with earthquake-resistant design standards.
This regulation was expanded to include Bangkok and its surrounding provinces in 2008 due to the soft soil around the capital region, which amplifies seismic waves. In 2021, the regulation was further expanded to include 40 provinces.
While the regulations do not specify the magnitude of the earthquake that the buildings must be able to withstand, most buildings in the country were built to be able to weather a 7.0-7.5 magnitude quake on the Richter scale.
Investigators must now determine if the collapsed building complied with the latest earthquake safety standards. If older buildings were able to survive the quake relatively unscathed, why did the State Audit Office building fail? Was it a design flaw, poor construction oversight, or a lack of regulatory enforcement?
Authorities must conduct a swift and transparent investigation into this disaster. If investigators find any evidence of negligence, misconduct, or, most importantly, corrupt behaviour -- whether by project owner, contractors, regulators, or inspectors -- those responsible must be held fully accountable.
The earthquake itself serves as a stark warning. Thailand may not sit directly on a major fault line and has rarely experienced severe earthquakes, but that does not mean the country -- or Bangkok -- is free from risk. Regular inspections of both new and existing buildings are essential to ensuring compliance with safety standards.
