Archived

[…]

From the outset, the government’s approach to the fire was highly politicized and combative. In the immediate aftermath, Chief Executive John Lee’s public remarks prioritized repeated expressions of gratitude to Chinese President Xi Jinping before supporting local efforts to relieve the incident. Reporters directly questioned why firefighters were acknowledged only as an afterthought.

The government then moved quickly to cast expressions of public concern as a security threat. The National Security Office warned of “hostile forces” using the disaster to disrupt Hong Kong, framing individuals who voiced dissatisfaction as “distorting the efforts of the government.”

As the fire raised concerns over potential corruption issues, a university student who urged a comprehensive investigation and demanded accountability was arrested by national security police for sedition. Volunteers delivering supplies to affected families reported intimidation by the government-led community service corps, and some were even detained. More recently, foreign journalists were summoned by Beijing’s security agency in Hong Kong and warned against publishing information that could “distort” the government’s relief efforts. Meanwhile, local commentators announced they could no longer write about the fire due to “obvious reasons.”

These actions highlighted a governing approach shaped primarily by political risk mitigation rather than public administration. In today’s Hong Kong, public sentiment and civic engagement are treated as potential security concerns. While the situation in Hong Kong is often described as resembling that in the mainland, this comparison overlooks crucial distinctions. Despite the authoritarian system under Beijing’s rule, mainland authorities do possess institutional mechanisms that absorb public pressure and enforce administrative responsibility in ways Hong Kong currently does not.

[…]