 "Flames swept through bamboo scaffolding spanning several buildings at the Wang Fuk Court housing estate in Tai Po, Hong Kong, on November 26. (Reuters)")
The fire in Hong Kong’s high-rise apartment complex has left at least 75 dead and hundreds missing, shaking the city.
Since the mass pro-democracy protests of 2019, Hong Kong has witnessed a slew of changes — including alterations to its legislature and the silencing of critics and pro-democracy candidates.
Now, with the Legislative Council election just over a week away and the sentencing of media tycoon Jimmy Lai pending, all eyes are on Hong Kong.
“I think Beijing is attaching great importance to two issues — number one, how will the government handle this tragedy? And secondly, will we see a changing perception of the citizens towards the Hong Kong government,” said Sonny Lo, a political scientist who has written several books on Hong Kong politics.
“The government has done well on national security, but national security includes a human-security dimension.”
Hong Kong government and CPC act
The Hong Kong government and China’s Communist Party both responded with alacrity to the crisis. Police have already taken action against the construction company overseeing the renovations.
But analysts say Hong Kong’s sky-high property prices have long been a source of anger, and that the incident could increase antipathy towards the authorities. From faulty fire alarms to workers smoking cigarettes and the risks of traditional bamboo scaffolding, many have wondered whether risks were ignored and whether safety systems were properly installed and operational.
As they huddled in shelters, some residents criticised what they saw as negligence and cost-cutting behind the fire — sentiments echoed widely online. Around 10 p.m. on Wednesday night, with flames still shooting out of windows, Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing urged an “all-out effort” to extinguish the fire and minimise casualties and losses, according to state media.
Xi “expressed sympathy to the families of the victims and those affected by the disaster” and “attached great importance to the accident and immediately sought updates on the rescue efforts and casualties.” Hong Kong leader John Lee later held a news conference after touring shelters for survivors.
Some 4,600 people live in the complex’s eight towers, seven of which caught fire.
“The priority is to extinguish the fire and rescue the residents who are trapped,” Lee said. “The second is to support the injured. The third is to support and recover. Then we’ll launch a thorough investigation.”
At 5:54 a.m., just hours after Lee’s news conference and before the fire was fully under control, police announced their initial findings on how the blaze had spread and said three officials from the construction company had been arrested.
Police said the towers had been covered with sheets of protective mesh and plastic that may not meet fire standards, and that some windows on one of the unaffected buildings had been sealed with foam material installed by the construction company carrying out maintenance work.
“We have reason to believe that the company’s responsible parties were grossly negligent, which led to this accident and caused the fire to spread uncontrollably, resulting in major casualties,” said Eileen Chung, a Hong Kong police superintendent.
Three men from the construction company — two directors and one engineering consultant — were arrested on suspicion of manslaughter.
Who is responsible?
While protests are now tightly controlled in Hong Kong, a full range of online forums remains accessible and may provide an early barometer of public mood.
Analysts say public anger and concern may spread beyond the construction firms to the government’s fire-safety and building regulators, and pressure is likely to build for extensive and open investigations into what happened.
Traditionally, the Hong Kong government has staged open inquiries into large-scale tragedies, often headed by an independent judge. One comparison raised by experts is a commission of inquiry into a fire in a Kowloon commercial building that killed 41 people in 1996, a year before the handover of Hong Kong from Britain to China.
That inquiry sparked new building and fire-safety laws and regulations. But it may no longer be enough.
“I believe we need to seriously review fire safety and site-safety management across the entire industry, including government oversight,” said Chau Sze Kit, chairman of the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union.
With inputs from agencies