By Tom Fowdy
The Wang Fuk Court complex fire in Hong Kong, claiming over 160 lives so far, is without a doubt a tragedy. My heart goes out to the poor people who have perished, and the families of those who have lost loved ones in such a disaster. There is little doubt that the companies responsible for the gross negligence that brought about this horrible event must be swiftly brought to justice and regulations upgraded accordingly. This is a sentiment widely shared by anyone.
Despite this, the tragedy has seen several media organisations and groups pounce on it in order to score political points. The overriding point they wish to make is that the disaster must be somehow "Chinese Mainland fault," as a Reuters article from last week quotes: "Hong Kong fire poses test for Chinese Mainland grip on the city" and as a recent Guardian column headlines: "Silenced by Chinese Mainland, Hong Kong struggles to voice its grief over the Tai Po fire disaster." The running theme is obvious, that the Tai Po fire must be reduced to a controversy relating to "influence" of the Chinese Mainland in Hong Kong and thus must become a broader "political" question about the sovereignty of the territory and subsequently rejecting it.
The Ad-reductio media line over Hong Kong and the Chinese Mainland has been endemic ever since the imposition of the National Security Law in 2020. It simplifies and misrepresents every single event and challenge the city faces down to, using above descriptors such as "Chinese Mainland grip" and pushing an unspoken set of assumptions that Beijing has no right to exert its interests in the city, and is a de-facto foreign entity suppressing the "true will" of the city that ought to be "liberated" from its presence.
This line of thinking shapes a broader narrative that desperately hopes for things in Hong Kong to go wrong in order to prove the underlying political agenda behind it. Every challenge, every setback and mistake in the city is subsequently attributed to this political question, and in turn it is actively "hoped" that things go wrong in order for this point to be affirmed, a political-psychological phenomenon I describe as "wishcasting." Hence, the overriding point they communicate is that "the Chinese Mainland 'presence' in Hong Kong is manifesting the city's 'decline', through being a threat to the rule of law, prosperity, and role as an international financial centre."
So how exactly, does the aftermath of a tragic fire lead to such conclusions? Their argument is two-fold. First, they argue that the "oppression of civil society" by the national security law prevents an adequate public response to the Tai Po disaster in holding authorities accountable. Building on this, they then push to try and link the tragedy to the Chinese Mainland in practical terms by creating rows over the causes of the fire relating to bamboo scaffolding and the companies involved. This allows them to project the standard talking point set out above, endemic amongst those pursuing Hong Kong separatism, that the Chinese Mainland is thus a malignant, illegitimate presence undermining the city's identity as a whole. By tying both strands of the argument together, the Tai Po fire becomes a comprehensive anti-China push.
However, can we truly say there is no accountability for this? Multiple arrests have been made and an anti-corruption inquiry is being launched. We can safely say that even if there is accountability, with the agenda media organisations and hostile diaspora groups are pushing, it will never be enough, quite plainly because they are seeking to ignite a much higher degree of anti-state dissent as seen in the 2019-2020 riots, so they will otherwise continue to make a political issue out of it regardless of the outcome. For as above notes, their objective is to incite unrest in Hong Kong wherever possible, with whatever possible. Once someone is against you from an identity-based or emotional dynamic, nothing you can say will change their disposition.
Finally, gross negligence by property developers and flouting safety regulations is not just a Hong Kong issue, it is a worldwide one. In London in 2017, the installation of flammable cladding on Grenfell Tower led to 72 deaths. The inquiry to prosecute those responsible for it is still ongoing. If we follow the logic of those pushing anti-China arguments, then on the premise of Britain's ideology and "rule of law" alone such an event could not have happened. The fundamental problem here is thus not politics, but greed. Companies like to cut corners for the sake of profit, and such regulation flouting in real estate is actually even worse in Britain than it is in Hong Kong.
On that note, there is little doubt whatsoever that those responsible should be held accountable and punished, but this can be done in ways that avoid becoming trojan horses for groups who have absolutely no interest or concern for the prosperity or well-being of Hong Kong. Instead, they desperately want it to fail, purely to score political points.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | The era of detente has begun, ending the anti-China epoch of 2019-2024
Opinion | Would Trump oppose 'Taiwan independence' for a trade deal
Opinion | Trump's deal over TikTok is the least worst choice, I'd take it
Comment