Before the smoke had even cleared at Wang Fuk Court, Hongkongers were already drawing their own conclusions.
A construction worker who grew up climbing bamboo scaffolding looked at the charred tower and spoke with quiet certainty: certified nets do not burn like that.
“A cigarette can’t light them,” he said. “Even a blowtorch barely gets bamboo to burn — it only chars.”
Death toll in Hong Kong blaze rises after more bodies found
Online experiments that circulated within hours appeared to confirm what residents had long suspected: bamboo under intense heat darkens, but refuses to spread flames.
Yet in Tai Po, the nets were reduced to ash while the bamboo frame remained almost unscathed.
It was this unsettling contrast — and the speed at which the fire tore upward — that led a 24-year-old university student to launch a petition demanding an independent investigation.
He barely had time to gather signatures before police arrested him for “incitement”.
The message was clear: Even grief had boundaries, and asking questions was now a political act.
From that moment, sorrow gave way to anger. And the city’s fault lines — rights versus sovereignty, people versus power — snapped sharply back into focus.
Loading…A deeper fracture
The blaze that consumed Wang Fuk Court burned for two days, but its political shock waves may echo for weeks, even months.
It did more than destroy homes. It revived one of Hong Kong’s most visceral fears: that lives can be reduced to collateral in a system that no longer listens.
What should have been a moment of collective mourning instead widened the fracture between Hongkongers demanding accountability and a government increasingly shaped by Beijing’s doctrine that sovereignty sits above all else.
And this time, the anger was not directed at local officials alone — it was aimed squarely at Beijing.
For many residents, the horror of the fire lay not only in the ferocity of the flames but in the recognition that everything they had worked for — homes bought with decades of savings, belongings accumulated through sacrifice — could be erased in a night.
Hong Kong’s housing crisis has long fed collective anxiety, but this disaster struck its deepest nerve: in a city where ordinary families already struggle with extremely unaffordable flats, even the illusion of safety can no longer be taken for granted.
The sense of betrayal deepened when Beijing issued a warning not to let “a disaster disrupt Hong Kong”, reinforcing the belief that the state prioritised protecting its authority, not its people.
What has been largely missing is the principle that once made Hong Kong governable — that when something goes wrong, the government owes the public not only an explanation, but accountability. (AP: Chan Long Hei)
When grief becomes political risk
The unease grew when volunteers and NGOs who rushed to help the displaced were abruptly ordered to leave the site.
Many had been distributing food, locating documents, offering emotional support. Suddenly, they were told to withdraw on Sunday.
For many Hongkongers, the scene was familiar. A compassionate response — neighbours helping one another — had become politically sensitive.
Authorities appeared to fear that the disaster zone, with swelling crowds and rising frustration, might become a gathering point for something larger.
In a city still haunted by 2019, solidarity itself had become suspect.
Inside Wang Fuk Court, residents were not surprised that the fire spread so fast. Some had long questioned whether the scaffolding nets used during a renovation met flame-retardant standards.
Others filed complaints as early as 2023 warning of fire risks.
A contractor even wrote to the Fire Services Department requesting clarity on safety requirements — letters that, residents say, went unanswered.
When the alarms failed to sound and the flames climbed from the lower floors to the roof within minutes, suspicions hardened into conviction: someone should have known, and someone should have acted.
Loading
The arrest of the petition organiser — paired with the removal of volunteers — made something unavoidable: the space for Hongkongers to demand answers, or simply to show up for one another, has been quietly but steadily erased.
Under the national security regime, the line between civic action and political threat has blurred beyond recognition.
What used to be routine — filing complaints, demanding accountability, launching petitions, helping neighbours — now carries an implied risk.
Beijing’s insistence that sovereignty cannot be challenged has reshaped even the vocabulary of disaster: A call for answers can be reframed as agitation; grief can be interpreted as defiance; volunteerism can be treated as “gathering”.
This worldview stands in stark contrast to Hong Kong’s own political culture, shaped over decades by courts that earned public trust, an investigative tradition that valued transparency, and a society that once expected — even demanded — accountability from those in power.
A hillside slogan reading “One country, two systems; reunifying China” is displayed in China’s Xiamen, as seen from Dadan Island, in Kinmen, Taiwan, in October. (Reuters: Ann Wang)
Two systems, one eroding trust
For residents, the questions were immediate and practical. Why did the alarms fail? Why did the nets ignite so quickly? Why were earlier warnings ignored? Who will take responsibility?
For authorities, the questions were political. Could public anger spill into unrest? Could demands for accountability turn into mobilisation? Could crowds at the disaster site grow into something larger? Who must be monitored — not who must be heard?
This is why, for many, the fire now stands as a symbol of something larger — a reckoning not only with safety failures but with a governance model that asks citizens to trust a system that no longer feels accountable to them.
While officials have pledged support for displaced residents, the shift toward a political narrative has been unmistakable: The arrest, the “care teams”, the warnings about “disruption”.
Online experiments that circulated within hours appeared to confirm what residents had long suspected: bamboo under intense heat darkens, but refuses to spread flames. (Reuters: Tyrone Siu)
What has been largely missing is the principle that once made Hong Kong governable — that when something goes wrong, the government owes the public not only an explanation, but accountability.
This tension is no longer peripheral.
It goes to the heart of Hong Kong’s identity. If the mainland’s worldview is built on the primacy of the state, Hong Kong’s was shaped by the belief that individuals have the right to safety, dignity and due process.
The Tai Po fire showed what happens when those two systems collide.
In the days after the blaze, residents sifted through ash — passports, wedding photos, a child’s cherished toy — fragments of lives interrupted.
But the emotional landscape of the city was shaped by a different kind of loss: The erosion of faith that the system exists to protect them, not to discipline them.
Beijing may want the flames in Tai Po to fade quickly. But what they revealed may not.