土瓜灣死人冚樓

29 January 2010

An apartment block which passed inspections in 2004 collapsed today with little warning, killing at least a woman and injuring others. 4 residents are missing.

This tragedy puts the Sha Tin-Central MTR line and Hong Kong High Speed Rail projects, both of which go underground delicate aging residential blocks, into spotlight.

Share photos on twitter with Twitpic

Share photos on twitter with Twitpic

Retweets of the following message by Charles Mok dominated the #stopxrl and #hk5 tags in twitter:

charlesmok: 好天冇地震竟然塌樓!這是起英趕美建最貴高鐵的香港!回歸十二年特區政府只保功能組別,只顧商界揾銀,不顧基層,好大喜功卻不理舊樓,終於搞出人命。今日土瓜灣,明天全香港!為公義你知點做! #stopxrl #tkwcollapse #hk5

P.S. Photo by Twitter CHANVINCI:
“民建聯九龍城支部,即李慧X辦事處就在塌樓的斜對面,為民服務的議員現身在何方? ”

(“The DAB-Kowloon Shing branch is diagonally opposite to the site. Where have all the “for the people” legislators gone?”)
#tkwcollapse æ°�建è�¯ä¹�é¾�å��æ�¯é�¨ï¼�å�³æ��æ�§X辦äº�è��å°... on Twitpic

Ironically, SAR Internal Security Minister Lee Shiu Kwong was caught on camera with a smirk (on the left-hand side of the image, behind Bowtie Tsang).
HKSAR Internal Security Minister Lee Shiu Kwong caught on camera (first from left, behind Donald Tsang) with a smirk

Further reading

http://www1.hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/art_main.php?iss_id=20100129&sec_id=6996647&art_id=13677479

http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/expressnews/20100129/news_20100129_55_644064.htm

http://martinoei.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/馬頭圍道突然塌樓事件/

http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23tkwcollapse

the collapse
the http://cuthut.com/y9I

Advertisements

continued from my previous post
反高鐵示威者行為過激? Are the hk high speed rail protesters extremists? Are they over-reacting?

As we have discussed before in the above post, the Stop-The-Rail Movement (“The Movement”) v. HKSAR is an asymmetric conflict, in which HKSAR has an overwhelmingly superior advantage. They control the police, the media, and have the initiative as the incumbant. Crucially, they are the enforcer of the law and they have the least to worry worry about being arrested and prosecuted.

Knowing they cannot wrestle control from HKSAR, The Movement has focused on two objectives
1. Attracting more supporters and
2. galvanising the existing ones

For each of the above, actions are needed, but the key question is “how much action”.

The 16 January Siege, in which officials of HKSAR as well as legislators in the SAR-Loyalist camp were trapped inside Legco for 6 hours, is a minimal show-of-force, as if to tell public, “We can make a difference.”

In order to maintain the siege, the Protesters, at times, when the Police tried to barracade them in, had to breach the Police line, and else they would risk being cut off, and the siege would have failed right then. [For a detailed analysis, visit the HK-golden forum]

Note that it was the police, representing HKSAR, who escalated the conflict in the first place, and the protesters used the minimal escalation tool, or course of action, in their arsenal (compare the example in my prior post).

There will always be debate on this, but judging by the split media and public opinion, it was probably “about right”. Notably,
1. The protesters siezed metal barracades (actions) but didn’t attack the policemen. They stayed within the law and nobody was arrested.
2. On the contrary, the police released pepper-sprays without prior warning, in order to divert attention and escort the officials and loyalists out of the Legco building into the J2-exit of the MTR Central Station. That is in clear breach of the operation protocol.

And crucially,
3. Everbody went home safe.

So, the answer to the question in the title is No, and 1-0 to the Movement.

References

1. HKgolden forum: http://forum6.hkgolden.com/view.aspx?message=2092082&page=1&highlight_id=0

2.http://daisann.com/2010/01/17/siege-of-legco.aspx

And what action. When I saw these guys rush to grab the equipment of the”enemy” and use it against them, I felt the same rush that I do when watching, say, Ronaldinho play for Brasil. This is team politics, and the cheeky, confident and plugged in demonstrators of the baat sap hau play–with apologies to la liga argentina– a “beautiful game”.

– the siego of legco in the eyes of Daisann, a Gwai-Lo in Hong Kong

3。 [信報-羅耕] 政府目中無人 http://forum5.hkgolden.com/view.aspx?type=BW&message=2097291
shortlink: http://ls.gd/207

See also: 立法局包圍戰之
[反高鐵] 點解我地要突破警方防線 (附圖解釋)

When you have an asymmetric conflict like the StopXRL movement, do drastic measures from the weaker side always equal irrational over-reactions? 喺反高鐵呢種唔對稱嘅對抗中,強硬行動係唔係一定過激?

Imagine two antagonists (or countries). Let’s call them Sam and Joe. Sam is rich and have a lot of weapons available, but Joe is strong. They are in a dispute over something and their conflict is escalating.

Consider their weapons:

Sam: fist, handknife, handgun, M-16, M1A1 tank, Apache helicopter, F-15 fighter, F-22 fighter, Satellite Laser system

Joe: fist, handknife, AK47, Mig 31 fighter jet, Satellite Laser system

As their conflict escalate, they would pull out bigger and more powerful weapons from their war chest. Now, as Joe is stronger, Sam loses out in the fist fight, and pulls out a handgun. Joe has no choice but to get his AK47. Sam pulls out his M-16, but as he is not as good a marksman, he called in an M1A1. Joe had no choice but to call in his Mig 31 fighter jet. The conflict escalates into a space war.

Now let’s put ourselves in Joe’s shoes. Was he irrational or “over-reacting”? No. He just made use of his limited resources as well as he could. The problem is that Sam was in a much convenient position to escalate a conflict, and in each escalation he chose to put Joe in an uncomfortable position.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, what choices did the governement or the police give the protesters? We tried sit-ins and conflict-free demonstrations. The government simply ignored us. When we want dialogues, what did they give us? Has the Hong Kong SARS actually tried to act like a government for the people of the people, even if it is not by the people? 當喺中聯辦綁條絲帶都會被人剪傷手, 你仲想同佢和諧落去?

Don’t take things on their face values. There are often reasons, even logical ones, behind conflict escalations.

Further Reading:
王岸然:從反高鐵到擲胸圍皆八十後 http://www.hkej.com/template/blog/php/blog_details.php?blog_posts_id=43269

Conflict Escalation: theory
http://www.mediate.com/articles/jordan.cfm
Brinkmanship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_%28game%29

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/escalation/
Constructive Escalation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_attrition_%28game%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conflict_process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_resolution

About hkXRL and Mai Po
高鐵工程或令米埔水位降 http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/090802/4/di3l.html

China: Peking to Canton
length: thousands of km
time: 10 hours
top speed: ?
average speed: ?
cost: 200billion people’s dollar
(source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1935188.stm)

WuHan-Canton line:
lengh: 1029km
Top speed: 400km/h
Cost: 93Billion

Hong Kong: Kowloon to Canton
length: 26 km aka a big blackhole beneath New Territories
time: ? (unclear, for passengers need to get through the border control)
topspeed: 200km/hour
average speed: 130km/h
cost: 70 billion hk dollars (i.e. a quarter of the entire length of Canton-Peking line) 2.5 billion per km, over 10 times the average of the chinese line

See also
高鐵世紀騙局 http://ka-yue.com/blog/%E5%8F%8D%E9%AB%98%E9%90%B5%EF%BC%81%EF%BC%81%EF%BC%81%EF%BC%81%EF%BC%81

Charts on HK low speed rail

高鐵工程或令米埔水位降
【明報專訊】全長26公里的廣深港高速鐵路香港段,部分會穿越國際重要濕地米埔、農地及郊野公園,民間學者兼有機菜農文思慧發現,港鐵的環評報告承認隧道工程有可能導致地下水位下降,但未有詳細評估水位下降對地面生態及農業的影響,擔心這項失誤會造成生態災難,要求今日開會審批的環諮會環評小組否決該份環評報告。…

文思慧今日會向環諮會提交廣深港環評不足的文章,要求該會環評小組認真審視是否通過報告。她引述環評的「水文地質報告」部分,指報告承認「隧道工程可能引致地下水不受控,湧入挖掘中的工地」,因而有地下水位下降的風險;地下水位下降,會引起上層土壤沉降,及破壞地面建築及設施。….

Related post
九廣高鐵成本效益
short link: http://wp.me/pHENS-1K