TGTM: Hong Kong on fire
« previous post | next post »
Post 2/3
Three days after the inferno, the HK NatSec Office brands the fire “以火乱港 2.0” — the exact same phrase they used for 2019 rioters.
Translation: they’re prepping to blame “anti-China forces” so no tycoon or cadre ever sees a courtroom. pic.twitter.com/ndkFLHrCoE— The Great Translation Movement 大翻译运动 (@TGTM_Official) November 30, 2025
yǐ huǒ luàn gǎng 以火乱港
("to sow chaos in Hong Kong through setting fires")
The Wang Fuk Court fire resulted in more than 151 deaths. From the start, the government kept insisting on the magic / superstitious / zodiacal number of 36 dead, when that was clearly a ludicrously low figure.
Notable deadly fires in Hong Kong's history include the 1996 Garley Building fire, which resulted in 41 deaths. Other significant fires include a 1962 blaze in Sham Shui Po that killed 44 people and a 1997 nightclub fire that killed 17.
The Wang Fuk Court fire is the first major conflagration in Hong Kong since the PRC took control over the city.
The Wang Fuk Court conflagration was NOT because of the bamboo scaffolding, but due to substandard, highly flammable materials used for the netting and for styrofoam insulation.
Selected readings
- "Malign Woodpeckers and Other Hegemonic Behavior" (4/18/22)
- "The Great Translation Movement" (4/19/22)
- "No Fire Critics Allowed in Hong Kong,Authorities move to silence dissent after the blaze that killed 151", by the Editorial Board, WSJ (12/2/25)
- "The fire that Hong Kong wants you to forget", by Anthena Tong, Nikkei Asia (12/2/25)
- "Hong Kong chief says supervision failed, warns against 'exploiting' fire", by Kenji Kawase, Nikkei Asia (12/2/25)
[Thanks to Mark Metcalf]
Olaf Zimmermann said,
December 4, 2025 @ 8:58 pm
What's the Cantonese word for 'Grenfell'?
Victor Mair said,
December 4, 2025 @ 9:29 pm
格伦费尔塔火灾
wgj said,
December 5, 2025 @ 6:30 am
Catastrophes don't need to have one cause only – in fact, usually more than one thing need to go wrong for a catastrophe to occur. The fact that substandard material was used does not rule out arson. The question is, have the authorities provided any evidence for arson? Or is their rhetoric of "chaos" not in reference to the fire itself, but the aftermath (i. e. the war of propaganda)?
David Marjanović said,
December 5, 2025 @ 5:17 pm
Unless maybe if any tycoons or cadres are suddenly deemed to be "anti-China forces" for unrelated reasons.