On 7 May, the breaking of the Wall in Hari entered the tenth day. The Government has been involved in the temporary resettlement of the population, but the related responsibilities have not been clarified and specific solutions have not been possible.

Small area owners are “equivalent to a reasonable solution”. At the end of April, the heavy wall of a 31-storey residential building in the northern region of Harasun resulted in the fragmentation of the wall of the 4-21 building and the emergency evacuation of more than 200 residents of the entire building, resulting in an all-weather round. According to the population, more than 240 owners lost more than $16 million.

Can the wall not be dismantled, the structure of which is passive, the mistake of one person, the weight of 160 million, and the purchase of a bill by a buildinger?

Renovation cannot replace public security with personal preferences, guarantee the security of individual spaces and of public areas, is a basic guideline for the conduct itself and a norm that should be observed by all interested parties in the renovation.

Tenants cannot claim only for their own self-interest and for the safety of the public; the owner is not in possession and should assume responsibility for the management of the house; the construction party cannot “depend money” to challenge the underlying line of building security; the property industry cannot afford to ignore the risk when it has the responsibility to maintain order in the small areas; and the relevant State authorities are more in need of strict inspection of team qualifications to close down from the source.

Laws and regulations, such as the Regulations on the Management of Indoor Clothing in Housing, have already laid down various red lines, and who is wantingly and who is looking for shelter must be made clear. Security incidents must not be spared, and the perpetrators must be punished in order to prevent the recurrence of risks.

It is, of course, a better and faster solution not only for accountability. Residents cannot be allowed to bear the brunt of the skirmishes, while they endure long procedural responsibilities.

Behind the events themselves, the breaking of the Wall in Hari was a cause of concern throughout the network, not only in terms of the absurd loss of the wall and the cost of $160 million, but also in the resonance of anger over barbaric improvements.

It is untenable that, when the rugged wall in Hari was tired, a owner of a small area in the White Yun region of the State of Hiroshima was renovated in the course of the renovation, causing house-in-building and fragmentation.

In recent years, in order to expand indoor space or to pursue the desired pattern, a number of owners have taken steps to remove some of the non-responsible walls and to change the tube line at random, thus burying the security of the entire future building and, more directly, breaking the wall.

The heavy wall, which is referred to as the life wall of the building, lies both in its key role in the building and in its irreversibility to the destruction of the wall. Even if theoretically feasible, reality is often the case, when the “downside” is instantaneous, the weight has been assigned to the other insurrectional structures. Even if the wall were to be filled, it would not be possible to reclassify the forces assigned.

The walls have a clear public character, with the private separation of walls and the threat to public security. Once a problem arises, civil responsibility, criminal responsibility, one cannot go.

The cartling of the Wall in Hari has given people a “improved course” worth $160 million, and the owner cannot do so with the will of the owner. With regard to public security, no chain can be removed from any part of the equation, and the battered walls are to be filled by means of a consciously weak wall, a system-wide wind wall, and a well-regulated wall.

Electricity information, precision reading, new waves