Dear Editor,
Reference to SN editorial titled `The Minister and the report on the dorms’ (7th Nov. 2023), as the author of the subject report, we are inclined to offer clarification on a few pertinent details which seems to be elusive. The primary purpose and title of the assignment was the development of facilities standards for dormitory plant. Hence, the document is a Facilities Standards Manual and not a condition assessment report as proclaimed and often repeated. The annex [the section, referenced in SN editorial] is a schematic condition assessment with technical and budgetary planning recommendations with a summary of consultation with end users, central and regional administrators.
Ministry of Education [MoE], with support from UNICEF, commissioned the Facilities Standards document and its components with the intended purpose to [A] inform a policy on residential accommodation of education facilities [B] to guide the creation of a Facilities Standards for dormitory plants – which was the primary objective [C] evaluate the extent of the residential facilities deficiencies to allow for budgetary planning and [D] provision of technical guidance to the Ministry of Local Government [MoLG], the Regional Democratic Councils [RDCs] etc. to effect improvements. UNICEF provided funding and supervisory guidance to the assignment development, however, it was the Planning Department of the Ministry of Education that provided the technical framework and required that an annex (document referenced in SN editorial) to be developed, which outlines the facilities’ condition assessment and include cost projection for retrofitting or reconstruction of dormitory plants to meet the minimum benchmark of the new standards.
The desired outcome of the process was to deliver the Facilities Standards document to the Ministry of Local Government, the RDCs, MoE and related management officials for implementation and allow for critical intervention by MoE as required. The Municipal and District Councils Act [C.28.01] explicitly outlines the mandate of the Ministry of Local Government, with the local government authorities, for the provision of health, education and other social services in their local district. Our information suggests that the Central Ministry provides policy, guidance and planning support to the various administration sectors. We retain the opinion that the primary reason for the tragic loss of life was the result of locked doors, absence of vigilant supervision which were further compounded by the absence of a fire alarm system.
The former, being the primary reason, is the result of a management deficiency with fatal consequences. NFPA 10 and International Fire Code documents commonly emphasize that children should not be expected or encouraged to use fire extinguishers. It’s typically recommended that in the event of a fire, children should be taught to escape safely, raise an alarm, and not attempt to extinguish the fire themselves (unless supervised by a trained adult). The obvious reasons given (NFAP et al.] is that children may not have the physical strength or dexterity to operate a fire extinguisher effectively, have limited understanding of fire safety, potential for panic and risk of injury. The apparent emphasis on assigning blame and identifying scapegoats in the aftermath of the Mahdia fire may deliver temporary satisfaction for some, but it ultimately hinders the pursuit of fundamental societal transformation. Despite the tragic loss of lives that occurred five months ago, the expected impetus for enhanced safety measures in public and private facilities remains disappointingly elusive.
Sincerely,
Deen Kamaludeen
Deen + Partners – Chartered
Architects
