The inferno that engulfed Wang Fuk Court residential compound in Hong Kong is still burning, but questions are already being asked about what the deadliest fire in more than 70 years means for Beijing’s grip on power in the city.
The death toll from the blaze, which tore apart seven of the eight high-rise apartment buildings in Wang Fuk Court, a residential compound home to 4,800 people, is still rising. Hundreds of people are still missing.
But as firefighters work to bring the fire under control and make progress with rescue efforts, anger is already swelling among Hongkongers about the causes of the fire.
The fire has also tapped into the social anxiety in Hong Kong around affordable housing, where sky-high property prices mean that many people live in tightly packed high-rise apartments that can become death traps when disaster strikes.
Did we learn nothing from Grenfell? Stop covering the outside of the building in flammable shit.
TL;Dr: They want the Hong Kong leader to focus on the renovation company’s possible corruption, not the bamboo that didn’t burn.
The Hong Kong leader responded to the fire by promising to replace (traditional Hong Kong) bamboo scaffolding with (mainland China) steel, because they’re claiming it might have been an accelerant.
Residents argue that this is a distraction (most of the bamboo is still standing) from the real issue: the company doing the renovation/maintenance seems shoddy/corrupt and should be investigated.
At this point, the article gets unfocused and jumps around a lot.
By the end, she’s talking about the upcoming elections being compromised by the Chinese government.
The company also heavily used styrofoam in the renovation process, which is highly flammable.
Not unfocused at all imo. The article says that Hong Kong would traditionally hold an open inquiry in cases like this and then goes on to explain why that is probably not going to happen for this disaster (hint: authoritarians don’t like open enquiries). And then at the end of the article there are some reactions from other more remotely involved parties + some context about those remarks. The end of an article is where those reactions are traditionally put and reactions from various parties are always going to be more varied in nature, but that doesn’t make them non topical or “unfocused”.
The last two paragraphs are tangentially about the fire, and don’t engage with the anger at all - which was the subject of the headline.
It’s like I was watching a news segment where they stop reporting and cut to a talking head who started analyzing political responses to the fire.
How much Chinese companies are donating to relief efforts and the political parallels of an election being delayed (covid before, the fire now) are tangentially related, but in my opinion, that’s no longer focused on “Anger swelling in Hong Kong over deadliest fire in more than 70 years”.
Maybe that the government reactions don’t engage with the anger, is what makes those reactions worthy of inclusion? Actually, scratch that, whether or not those reactions do or don’t acknowledge the anger is irrelevant to whether or not they should be included. Those reactions are relevant to the article because they inform us of what the other involved parties are doing.
In this article those reactions at the end do not fit in with the main story of the angry people, because they don’t acknowledge that anger. I’d call them tone-deaf reactions, but a journalist isn’t allowed to write that (except in opinion pieces), so the journalist can only give those tone-deaf reactions as they were (+ provide some context about them, which I appreciated). That the anger of those people was so far only responded to with tone-deaf reactions, makes those tone-deaf reactions very relevant to the anger of the people.
Three Arrested in HK High Rise Fire
HONG KONG (AP) — Hong Kong’s deadliest fire in decades burned through the night, leaving at least 44 people dead and 279 reported missing with rescuers still pulling residents from blazing high-rise apartment buildings into the morning.
Police had arrested three men on suspicion of manslaughter in connection with fire which began Wednesday afternoon in a housing complex in Tai Po district, a suburb in the New Territories. By Thursday morning local time, the fire was yet to be put out and rescues continued.
Hundreds of residents were evacuated as the fire spread across seven of the eight towers in the Wang Fuk Court complex, as bright flames and smoke shot out of windows.
Forty of the 44 fatalities were declared dead at the scene, officials said. At least 62 others were injured, many suffering from burn and inhalation injuries.
Authorities suspected some materials on the exterior walls of the high-rise buildings did not meet fire resistance standards, as the rapid spread of the fire was unusual.
Police also said they found Styrofoam materials – that are highly flammable – outside the windows on each floor near the lift lobby of the one unaffected tower, believed to be installed by a construction company.
“We have reason to believe that those in charge of the construction company were grossly negligent,” said Eileen Chung, a senior superintendent of police. The three men arrested, aged 52 to 68, are the directors and an engineering consultant of the firm.
The fire at four of the buildings was “coming under control” by Thursday morning, according to the Fire Services Department.
Article continues.
Several other articles linked here as well. Videos were horrifying. Seven of the eight towers went up. Immediately reminded me of the 2017 Grenfell Tower Fire
Petroleum products exacerbated this situation. So much plastic. So much.
…this is tragic…
