The results of a probe into the collapse of the State Audit Office (SAO) building in Bangkok after a quake in Myanmar came to light this week, pointing fingers at the structure's design and technical construction without questioning any irregularities in the auditing process that may have compromised its safety.
The outcome was released on Monday by suspended Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, a political science graduate. She explained in rather vague terms that there were "critical flaws" in both "designs" and "construction techniques" concerning the building's shear walls, such as those around stairwells and elevator shafts.
"Therefore, the structural elements failed under stress," she said while insisting the steel used in the construction met the required standards. However, the concrete "was substandard and improperly applied", Ms Paetongtarn noted.
The study was conducted by civil structural experts from the Department of Public Works and Town & Country Planning, Chulalongkorn University, Kasetsart University, and King Mongkut's Institute of Technology.
However, the three-month investigation has failed to dispel doubts about what actually went wrong with this building -- the only one that collapsed on March 28 among tens of thousands of high rises.
Was its design and technology the sole culprit? Or were other factors also at play in some of the decisions made regarding its construction?
Experts in the industry noted the probe lacked precise engineering details to corroborate its accusations.
Meinhardt (Thailand), the highly regarded engineering firm that designed the building, sent a letter to the government insisting the design complied with all legal standards. It also criticised the study for omitting some important technical details.
For laymen, the probe failed to explain how such technical flaws were allowed to happen.
Construction of large-scale state projects is subject to strict auditing processes. It is a legal obligation to hire engineering consultant firms to monitor construction works, and all such processes must be approved by officials.
For example, every design change must be checked by the consultant firm and approved by an expert from the SAO. Technical work, such as the use of concrete materials and mixing, must pass cross-checking and also be approved by the consultants.
With such a high level of compliance, how can such mistakes happen? Regrettably, this probe did not look into the auditing process.
Nothing has been said about the 70 state officials who have been implicated in bidding collusion for this collapsed building. Among them are both former and current SAO executives, as well as members of 10 committees involved in the design, construction, and inspection of the SAO's office building.
The government will submit the report to the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) and the Royal Thai Police as evidence to file charges against suspects and responsible bodies. We hope this probe is just one factor in setting the tone for the lawsuits to follow in the wake of this historic tragedy.
The government and all inspectors must build a water-tight case that leaves no stone unturned and does not let any of the culprits off the hook.
That being said, the probe into the collapse of the SAO building is unlikely to solve problems in building safety and corruption in future state projects.