On November 26, a fire broke out in an apartment complex in Hong Kong and claimed over 151 lives. Within hours, churches and citizen-led relief efforts converged on the engulfed buildings and provided aid, medical, and mental relief to residents who were affected. Firefighters had to rely on citizens’ supplies for food and warmth.
By contrast, government-organized NGOs (GONGOs) only stepped in with the assistance of the police the next day, and there were no signs of immediate cross-departmental coordination activated as seen in post-typhoon relief.
The contrast between swift action by citizens and the sluggish response by the authorities is one sign showing the extent of dysfunctional governance of the city under John Lee’s leadership. The attempt by ministers of Lee’s cabinet to save face proved an embarrassment as well. Officials first blamed the bamboo scaffolding for the blaze, but it later proved that the flammable mesh nettings that wrapped the bamboo and the flammable foam boards were to blame. The government’s flip-flopping stances have drawn much criticism from builders, former officials, and the wider public.
Despite the spin by the officials, the colossal failure of regulatory oversight across governmental departments is clear, especially in dealing with bid rigging in building maintenance contracts. Since the city imposed a mandatory building inspection and maintenance regime in the 2010s, corruption in relation to building maintenance has become more prevalent, with contractors and consultants jailed. Indeed, two months before the fire in Tai Po, the city’s Competition Commission arrested contractors and consultants responsible for 25 maintenance projects, with a contract value of HK$600 million (US$77.1 million). The Buildings Department, the city’s building regulator, has the authority to inspect these maintenance projects, but rarely does so proactively.
Before the two national security laws, Hong Kong’s civil society had been serving as an imperfect guardrail to these malpractices. The pro-democracy parties assisted homeowners in vetting questionable maintenance contractors on a regular basis, with prodemocracy district councillors raising residents’ concerns to relevant government department officials in district councils. Free and independent media, such as Jimmy Lai’s Apple Daily and Next Magazine, exposed the substandard projects and corruption cases, and FactWire created a database of building maintenance contracts.
These imperfect guardrails could have prevented the tragedy from happening – but they have all been destroyed under the national security regime.
Pro-democracy campaigners are jailed, have been silenced, or are living in exile. Their respective parties and unions were ordered or coerced to disband. Jimmy Lai has been in jail, pending a verdict in his trial under the national security law, for five years; his Apple Daily and Next Magazine were both forced to close. The media outlets that remain are facing tougher self-censorship at editorial desks.
Departmental officials could not care less about the complaints made by former pro-democracy politicians, who continue their community organizing and reflect community concerns. Indeed, residents of the fire-engulfed Wang Fuk Court, along with pro-democracy campaigners, raised the alarm bells as early as in 2024. Nevertheless, the city’s Labor Department and Buildings Department only issued warnings to the contractors, with no much-needed intervention.
With very little room to avoid the blame, the Hong Kong authorities have doubled down on their national security rhetoric. The government is taking a tough stance in attempts to score back some political points before the patriots-only Legislative Council Election, which will be held just two weeks after the fire. From arresting a student who launched a petition calling for accountability, to stopping former pro-democracy politicians and scholars from holding a press conference, these actions show the authorities would like to monopolize the narrative of the cause of the fire and emphasize the government-led relief effort, with no room allowing people to question that framing. The establishment of the Independent Review Commission, which has no power to summon any relevant person as a statutory Commission of Inquiry, will only serve as a distraction rather than truly bringing accountability.
John Lee may once have thought this patriots-only regime would mean smooth sailing for his government. From legislating the domestic national security law (known as Article 23) to jailing average citizens who voice their dissent online and offline, he was once heading toward being the first-ever chief executive of the city to finish two full terms. Nevertheless, this catastrophic fire reveals the emptiness of his promise to bring Hong Kong “from chaos to stability, from stability to prosperity” (由亂入治，由治入興). Without opposition voices, Hong Kong’s government cannot address major structural weaknesses – and seems uninterested in even trying.
