cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/46626951
Uncomfortable questions are being raised over who is to blame for Hong Kong’s deadliest blaze in decades.
As the territory mourns over the high-rise apartment fire that killed at least 156 people, anger and frustration are mounting over building safety lapses, suspected construction corruption and lax government oversight.
But bigger issues are at play. Some political analysts and observers say the tragedy could be the “tip of an iceberg” in Hong Kong, a city whose skyline is built on high-rise buildings. Suspicions of bid-rigging and use of hazardous construction materials in renovation projects across other housing estates have left many worried the disaster could be repeated.
[…]
Seven of 20 additional samples collected later from the site failed to meet safety standards […] Some fire alarms failed to sound when the fire started, residents and officials said.
[…]
“It did open a Pandora’s box,” said John Burns, an honorary professor of politics and public administration at the University of Hong Kong.
“You’ve got all of these issues which have been swept under the table,” Burns said. “Because of all that we now know – or believe we know – about bid-rigging, collusion, corruption, no fire alarms, government negligence, all of these things have come out.”
[…]
The Office for Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong warned that the city’s tough national security law would be imposed against “anti-China” forces who use the fire to “incite hatred against authorities.”
The disaster may overshadow an election Sunday for Hong Kong’s Legislative Council if angry voters stay away, said Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a locally based political scientist and a senior research fellow at Paris’ Asia Centre think tank. Turnout for such votes is scrutinized by Beijing as an indicator of approval of the semi-autonomous territory’s “patriots-only” governance system.
“The question for the Hong Kong government is: do they care about what the people think?” Burns said. “They absolutely should. (And) if they ignore public opinion, I think, on this issue, this is a huge mistake.”