Whose governance failed? Hong Kong fire divides social media

A devastating fire in Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po, New Territories, has resulted in significant casualties. In its aftermath, discussion has diverged sharply across social media platforms. On X, some users have attributed the tragedy to the “mainlandisation” of Hong Kong’s governance. Meanwhile, on the mainland’s Weibo platform, many netizens have taken the opposite angle, arguing instead that the incident shows Hong Kong’s management is far inferior to that of Shenzhen.

Following Security Secretary Chris Tang’s 28 November warning about fake news circulating online to sow division — where he stressed that “those who wish to disrupt Hong Kong should not be given any space” — the response from Beijing came swiftly. On 29 November, the Chinese central government’s Office for Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong issued a statement expressing its “staunch support for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in strictly punishing in accordance with the law anti-China disruptors capitalising on disasters to create chaos”, while also voicing its “firm opposition to any external interference”.

On 28 November, Hong Kong media outlet Wen Wei Po reported that individuals described as “remnants of the black-clad violence”, wearing black masks, attempted to set up tents during disaster-relief activities.

Interviewed academics commented that the opposing sentiments on social media platforms were not rational and the issue should not be viewed from the perspective of a mainland-Hong Kong conflict, as the crucial thing is to quickly identify the root cause in order to prevent similar incidents in the future. Another academic who wished to remain unnamed suggested that the Hong Kong SAR government is undoubtedly facing “a larger governance challenge”.

There are high-rise buildings in both Hong Kong and its neighbouring mainland city of Shenzhen. On Sina Weibo, many netizens compared the governance of Shenzhen and Hong Kong, and suggested that bamboo scaffolding in Hong Kong should be phased out.

A netizen commented “Hong Kong’s management is far inferior to Shenzhen’s”, noting that Shenzhen conducts fire drills at heights of 150 metres “with better technique than Hong Kong”, and added that “Hong Kong is now truly a city with flailing management and significant chronic issues”. Another netizen suggested that the Hong Kong government should learn from Shenzhen’s urban infrastructure.

On X, some netizens argued that Tang’s insistence on preventing “disruptors” from exploiting the disaster signalled that the fire had become a landmark moment in the perceived mainlandisation of Hong Kong’s governance. Others went further, suggesting that there was a deliberate attempt to divert public attention toward the safety of bamboo scaffolding — speculating, for instance, that the flammable netting involved might have been manufactured on the mainland. The Hong Kong government, however, has clarified that the netting in question meets flame-retardant requirements.

Another netizen stated that the Hong Kong fire did not start from residential buildings, but rather from deep within the system, claiming that “under the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) governance, societal focus has shifted: there is to be no criticism, accountability and oversight”.

Chan Wai-keung, Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s Hong Kong Community College lecturer, said in an interview with Lianhe Zaobao that he felt that some of the discussions on social media platforms were irrational. He noted that the whole world uses products made in mainland China — it is not a matter of mainlandisation. He added that the safety of bamboo and netting should be reviewed, and questions should be raised about whether the use of foam boards was appropriate: “Did the authorities notice these during inspections, or was there some sloppiness?”

He said, “The key is to identify the root cause of the fire and prevent similar incidents from happening again, rather than viewing the issue through the lens of mainland China-Hong Kong antagonism, which is utterly pointless.”

A mainland Chinese academic who requested anonymity observed that the world is experiencing severe extremisation and polarisation, as exemplified by US President Donald Trump, and that Hong Kong and the mainland are no exception. Given the gravity of this fire, both extremes can find justification for their narratives, “which has placed the Hong Kong government in a difficult position”.

Another academic, who requested anonymity, said that Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee is now facing “a significant test of governance”. Any local government would face such a test after a major incident involving casualties, let alone the fact that “Hong Kong is a place where various pressures are especially pronounced”.

Other academics also argue that the incident cannot be grossly simplified into the mainlandisation of Hong Kong’s governance; if it were truly a “mainlandisation”, an accountability mechanism would already have been triggered. By 30 November, the fire in Hong Kong had left 146 people dead.

According to the mainland’s Regulations on the Reporting, Investigation and Disposition of Production Safety Accidents, safety incidents are classified into four levels: ordinary accidents, large accidents, serious accidents, and especially serious accidents. The most severe level of “especially serious accidents” refers to an incident resulting in more than 30 deaths, or over 100 serious injuries (including acute industrial poisoning), or direct economic losses exceeding 100 million RMB (US$14.13 million).

Xinhua reported on 29 November that the State Council Work Safety Committee has issued a circular requesting inspections into the country’s high-rise buildings, with a focus on high-rise civilian buildings where people live and gather.

Key inspection and rectification targets include: flammable and combustible materials used for exterior wall insulation systems, prohibited materials, techniques or equipment such as bamboo (wood) scaffolding and non-flame-retardant safety nets, and high-rise buildings undergoing interior decoration and renovation, with a focus on rectifying small-scale projects involving hot-work operations that have not been filed for approval as required.

The circular stated that failure to take timely measures to eliminate major accident hazards will be held accountable and face serious consequences.

The National Financial Regulatory Administration said in a notice published the same day to make every effort to provide financial support services in response to the Tai Po fire in Hong Kong, including efficient claims handling, robust insurance coverage, strengthened financial and credit support, and active assistance in post-disaster reconstruction.

The notice also called on Taiping Insurance Group to strengthen overall coordination and guide relevant subsidiaries to play the leading role in insurance and reinsurance services, enhancing insurance protection services.

It was reported that Taiping Insurance (Hong Kong) is underwriting the comprehensive construction insurance and contractor’s employee liability insurance for the maintenance project at Wang Fuk Court.

This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as “大火烧出香港治理“大陆化”现象？学者：不理性”.

Related: As APEC 2026 lands in Shenzhen, Hong Kong fights for relevance | Hong Kong isn’t falling — it’s rewiring itself for a fragmented world