Sparks Fly
One way or another the aftermath of the tragic Tai Po fire is going to dominate Hong Kong’s political life throughout the coming year, and possibly for the whole of the new LegCo term. In the closing stages of the just completed election, every candidate pledged full support for recovery efforts. There is no reason to doubt them: every politician knows that the campaign for the next election effectively begins as soon as votes have been counted in the last one. The whole community will be watching how promises are honoured.
Circumstances are bound to keep the subject in the public eye. Even though the rescue and recovery phase is virtually complete, there are bound to be new items from time to time – DNA identification of a victim, clarification about an unaccounted-for resident etc. The media are also bound to follow up on the interim arrangements made for the surviving victims. In the short term, these have been a modest success story: huge outpouring of public support in cash and kind, prompt government action, nobody left without food or clothing or a roof over their head. But as time passes, some problems are bound to arise as measures that may have been suitable as a stopgap solution become the settled way of life for those affected on a longer-term basis.
Thereafter public interest will divide into two broad streams: permanent resettlement of those whose homes were affected; and the various investigations into what went wrong.
Public sentiment on the first aspect is likely to lean heavily in favour of putting the flat owners back into the situation they would have been in had the fire not happened. The emotional response is perfectly understandable, and indeed laudable, but implementation will not be straightforward. We do not know at this stage whether the damaged blocks are or can be rendered safe or how much repair/remediation would cost, or if demolition and redevelopment is the most practicable option. Moreover we would also have to ascertain the views of the owners themselves. Some may have a sentimental attachment to the present site while others may have an equal or stronger aversion to it. Personal feelings will bear on each individual’s view and it may be better to pause before we attempt to gauge these to allow the mood to settle. If possible and reasonable, perhaps owners could be given an option either to return to a repaired/redeveloped site, or to acquire a similar HOS property in another location.
Individual circumstances may vary of course. Some owners will have paid off their mortgage entirely, others may be relatively recent purchasers with a large amount still owed to the bank. The insurance situation will also be different for the families. Navigating in this area will require great skill by the civil servants concerned. Home ownership is the largest single investment most families make and it is not merely an asset, it is their home, so emotions will play a big part.
To deal with the second aspect, the government established three working groups (or task forces), one each for investigation and regulation, emergency support and fund raising, and emergency accommodation, led respectively by the chief secretary, deputy chief secretary and deputy financial secretary. Sitting above them all will be an independent committee to be chaired by a high court judge.
The three task forces will no doubt go about their work urgently and we can expect to see a string of new regulations and stepped-up enforcement efforts. Some of the issues will be quite controversial, for example at what stage should recurrent support cease and individuals be expected to take responsibility for their own livelihood again; will any funds be left in the kitty after temporary emergency needs are met and can any balance be deployed for long term solutions etc. These will provide a steady stream of news stories and ensure the subject remains top of mind.
But most interest will doubtless be on the independent committee. The terms of reference, the mode of operation (will all hearings be open), the system for inviting witnesses (will they be under oath) etc will all be subject to careful scrutiny. Another option would have been to establish a full-scale Commission of Inquiry under chapter 86 of the laws of Hong Kong rather than a simple committee which carries a more administrative image.
The argument in favour of a committee is that it is less formal, it can be established and carry out its work more quickly and be providing conclusions and concrete suggestions earlier. On the other hand these matters can be dealt with adequately by the three task forces. And in terms of assessing accountability, a committee – even one headed by a judge – does not carry the same weight as a statutory Commission which has the power to summon witnesses and compel evidence under oath. Some outgoing LegCo members are known to favour the Commission option and one of them, Doreen Kong Yuk-foon, said so publicly. I welcome the decision of the chief executive to invite the judge to request upgrading of the committee to a Commission if he feels it desirable, and I urge him to accept this invitation.
One group of victims of this tragedy has been largely overlooked up to now, and that is the general public. All the attention has naturally been on those who died, or were injured, or seriously affected in other ways. But the fact is the whole community was traumatised by the spectacle of so many high-rise blocks going up in flames. Most of us live in similar towers and it could have happened to any of us. The whole community deserves transparency and accountability.