Thoughts on the Quanzhou Hotel Collapse Incident

Thoughts on the Quanzhou Hotel Collapse

20200311

A hotel in Quanzhou collapsed, killing many people, which is heartbreaking. After the incident, a series of news came out on the Internet. The hotel had been renovated, had various violations, and had been asked to make corrections many times. It can be said that most of the voices were condemning it. However, one thing seemed to be ignored.

Under the current circumstances, it can be said that general business activities have stopped, and travel is even rarer, or almost impossible, so this hotel can still operate. There is a situation. It turns out that this place was requisitioned as a temporary isolation place for the epidemic.

If we ignore other violations, rectifications, etc., and just talk about being expropriated, are there any issues that need to be considered? There are similar questions on the Internet, but not many. Most of them talk about the past and present life of the hotel. Of course, this does not mean that these cannot be talked about, but in addition, should we also talk about other things.

An article on Sina said that the hotel was expropriated based on its unique location, close to the provincial highway, close to the urban exit, not a residential area, and close to relevant hospitals, etc., but is it true? There are other factors that are unknown.

I will not comment here on the countermeasures during the epidemic, but expenses will inevitably be incurred, and I don’t know how these expenses will be disposed of. There is news that people who were passively quarantined during the epidemic were required to pay fees after they were released from quarantine, and some of them were very high, and they were questioned. Then, similarly, it is unknown whether there are expenses involved in the expropriation of civil facilities. And whether this factor is also involved in the expropriation of the hotel, I don’t know if there will be an answer.

After an accident, the basic procedure is to pursue accountability. This is certainly necessary, but on the other hand, should accountability be carried out at the same time, and the two kinds of accountability should not be confused, that is to say , these are two different things.

For example, let’s talk about knives. If they are used well, they are tools. If they are not used well, they are weapons. It has nothing to do with the knives themselves.

Again, if this hotel is not expropriated, the owner will be responsible for the consequences and bear corresponding responsibilities. After being expropriated, things changed, and the person responsible for this situation also changed. I don’t know if this kind of thinking is reasonable.

There is a question here, that is, whether the situation of this hotel is understood, and whether the expropriation procedures are standardized. Since we already knew that he had violated the rules, but still wanted to expropriate him, is there anything worthy of discussion?

Let’s talk about the owner of the hotel. After receiving the request to be expropriated, can he refuse or resist? Maybe not. This kind of expropriation may be unconditional.

Think more about the relationship between expropriation and collapse. There is no relationship between the two. In other words, it was not the expropriation that caused the collapse of the hotel. The building itself had hidden dangers.

Consider another point, the victims. If there is no expropriation and the hotel does not open, then if collapse is inevitable, only some specific groups of people, waiters, and construction workers will become victims, and no other people. After the hotel was requisitioned, some waiters were added to the appeal staff, and then there were medical staff and quarantined people. The latter three categories of people were related to the requisition, that is to say, among this group of people of the deaths were caused by expropriation.

Perhaps this must be an unexplainable thing. While thinking about it, another problem came to mind, which was the switchman problem.

Originally, life and death were due to the criminal's evil deeds, but they were passed on to the switchman, who completed the work that was supposed to be done by God, leaving him in a dilemma. The only thing that can determine his behavior is profit. Of course, this profit It's not about him, but it is indeed only this profit factor that can determine his behavior. There is a saying in China that one should choose the lesser of two evils, and this should also be true. The key here is that the switchman cannot do nothing. He must do something and make a choice.

So in the Quanzhou building collapse incident, it should be worth thinking about who is the criminal, who is the switchman, and who is the victim. Obviously the owner of the hotel must be a criminal, there is no doubt about this, so what kind of role will the person who decided to commandeer this hotel be? They will not be victims, nor are they switchmen. Perhaps they should be the same kind as criminals. It is they who tie these medical staff and patients to the track of this disaster, so they have become a part of the disaster. If it weren't for their decision, these people would have had nothing to do with this matter.

Things are so weird and unpredictable. There may be no switchmen here, no one can intervene, everything is fate.

I don’t know what the significance of this kind of thinking is, but compared with those who just denounce hotel operators, it should have an extra perspective of thinking, and this kind of thinking will have an impact on similar things. , has a warning effect.