Who is turning fatal blaze into a political blame game?

The Wang Fuk Court housing complex fire in Tai Po, Hong Kong, which has claimed 160 lives so far, is without doubt a tragedy. My heart goes out to the poor people who have perished, and the families of those who have lost loved ones.

There is little doubt that the companies responsible for the gross negligence that brought about this horrible tragedy must be swiftly brought to justice and regulations upgraded accordingly.

However, the tragedy saw several media organizations and groups pounce on it to score political points. They claim that this is somehow "China's fault". As a Reuters article posted on Nov 27 put it: "Hong Kong fire poses test for China's grip on the city", and as the headline of a column on Dec 8 in The Guardian screams: "Silenced by China, 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 China's "influence" in Hong Kong and thus must become a broader "political" question about the sovereignty of the territory.

The "reduction to absurdity" media line over Hong Kong has been endemic since the adoption of Hong Kong's national security law in 2020. It simplifies and misrepresents every single event and challenge the city faces, using descriptors such as "China's grip" and pushing an unspoken set of assumptions that Beijing has no right to exert its interests in the city.

In doing so, this typically feeds into a broader narrative that seeks to "wishcast" failure, decline and misfortune on the city after its return to the motherland.

In this case, their argument is two-fold. First, they argue that the "oppression of civil society" under the national security law prevents an adequate public response holding authorities accountable for the Tai Po tragedy. Building on this, they then try and link the tragedy to China 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 endemic among those pursuing Hong Kong separatism — that China is 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.

Can we truly say there is no accountability for the fire? Multiple arrests have been made and an anti-corruption inquiry is being launched. However, we can safely assume that despite the accountability, in the narrative being pushed by the aforesaid media organizations and hostile diaspora groups it will never be enough, plainly because they are seeking to ignite a much higher degree of anti-State dissent, as seen in the 2019-20 riots. So they will continue to make a political issue out of it regardless of the outcome; 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 say will change their disposition.

Finally, gross negligence by property developers and flouting of safety regulations is not just a Hong Kong phenomenon, it is a worldwide one.

In 2017, the installation of flammable cladding on Grenfell Tower in London was blamed for the fire that claimed 72 lives there. 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 a tragedy should not have taken place there. The fundamental problem here, therefore, is not the politics, but greed. Companies like to cut corners for the sake of profit and that compromises lives.

On that note, there is little doubt whatsoever that those responsible for the tragedy should be held accountable and punished, but this can be done in ways that stop groups who have absolutely no interest or concern for the prosperity or well-being of Hong Kong from becoming Trojan horses. Instead, they desperately want it to fail, purely to score political points.

The author is a British political and international-relations analyst.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.