image copyrightChina News Service
On the eve of the first anniversary of the tragedy of the Wang Fook Court fire in Tai Po, Hong Kong, the Hong Kong government released the investigation report of an independent commission and named four government departments with deficiencies. The Chief Executive of the Special Administrative Region, Lee Ka-chiu, led the officials to collectively bow and apologize for the incident for the first time. The Director of the Housing Bureau, Peter Ho, accepted political responsibility and resigned, while the other three involved directors remained in office.
The fire that occurred in November 2025 resulted in 168 deaths and 1,984 households losing their homes.
The accountability system for major officials has been launched for more than 20 years, and the outside world is paying attention to the rationale for this wave of political accountability arrangements. The Chief Executive has repeatedly emphasized that it is his "personal political decision" and has taken multiple factors into consideration.
BBC Chinese interviewed a number of political analysts to break down how the director's resignation established political ethics for accountability, how civil expression and parliamentary oversight were reshaped under the new political situation, the stability-maintaining governance logic behind this aftermath operation, and how it is deeply connected to the upcoming Election Committee and Chief Executive elections.
This article contains content provided by Instagram. Because this content uses technology such as cookies or cookies, we will seek your consent before loading any content. You may wish to read the Instagram Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy before giving your permission. If you wish to read the above, please click "Accept and Continue".
Ending Instagram Post
End of content
Sources of Accountability and Political Ethics
On October 29, the Hong Kong SAR government released the report of the independent committee investigating the cause of the fire. For the first time, Chief Executive Li Jiachao led seven officials to bow and apologize for the fire.
The report named four government departments with deficiencies, including: Housing Bureau Independent Review Unit (ICU), Buildings Department, Fire Services Department and Labor Department, which are under the jurisdiction of four policy bureaux respectively.
Regarding the political accountability that is of concern to the outside world, Lee Ka-chao said that "the political appointment team will bear political responsibility." Although there is no personal fault involved, Housing Secretary Ho Wing-hsien should bear political responsibility. He has recently resigned and been accepted. Ho Wing-yin did not appear at the press conference to apologize that day. He only issued a statement saying that he was "willing to take political responsibility for the fire in Wang Fook Court." There was no apology in it.
The main official accountability system was proposed by then Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa in 2002. It covers politically appointed officials who are not appointed on civil service terms. Officials may need to step down due to major policy mistakes, serious mistakes in implementation or serious personal integrity issues.
End of Hot Reading
Professor Zhang Bingliang, a public administration scholar who once served as Secretary for Transport and Housing, wrote in Ming Pao that political accountability generally refers to a system in which officials take the blame and resign to show their responsibility due to policy mistakes, major social disasters, serious negligence of subordinates or personal scandals, even if they do not break the law.
Zhang Bingliang explained to BBC Chinese that accountability is "ruthless". Sometimes officials do not need to make mistakes, but they must also bear political responsibility just because "on your watch" (problems occurred under their watch).
He said there are no absolutes or quantifiable standards for political accountability. "Sometimes someone may have to take responsibility to calm the incident in society, or as some people put it, 'to calm down', to maintain the government's image and regain credibility. Because the public feels that you have taken responsibility, will many people be responsible? It is difficult to say."
Among the successive governments since the handover of Hong Kong's sovereignty, 17 serving officials have resigned, 5 have resigned, 3 have resigned due to health reasons, and 9 have been removed from office.
In 2003, the then Secretary for Security, Sandra Ip, pushed for Article 23 legislation to no avail. Financial Secretary Leung Kam-chung was involved in the "stealing car purchase" scandal. The two resigned. The former cited "personal reasons" and the latter only said, "Now is a good time for me to leave."
Cheung Bing-liang pointed out that with the development of the accountability system, the SAR has not established a clear ethics of political accountability, because most officials resigned without explaining the relevant political reasons. In other cases where the director was replaced, "if the (China) central government or the chief executive felt that he did not handle certain things well, that is another matter, and the official reason is not accountability." Therefore, he believes that this time the Secretary of the Housing Bureau resigned after frankly accepting political responsibility for the fire, which is a precedent to a certain extent.
With the outside world paying attention to Beijing's role in Hong Kong's accountability system, Lee Ka-chiu was asked at a press conference whether he consulted Beijing for opinions or whether the authorities had "hard instructions". He said that as the chief executive, he is the "first responsible person" and "the head of Hong Kong" and it is up to him to make decisions based on comprehensive considerations.
Zhang Bingliang said that he did not know what role the central government played in the Wang Fook Court incident or the resignation of officials, but according to the "Hong Kong Basic Law", generally speaking, major officials are nominated by the chief executive and appointed by the central government. “All department-level officials in Hong Kong are appointed by the imperial court, and the imperial court is all about ‘Beijing’, so the chief executive cannot unilaterally say ‘I want you to leave’ without asking the central government who appointed the officials, right?”
image copyrightGetty Images
A director resigns: limited accountability?
The focus of the political accountability arrangement remains on why only one director of the four departments was named and took responsibility, while the other three involved directors did not resign.
Li Jiachao has repeatedly emphasized that multiple factors have been comprehensively considered, including the role of officials in the incident, the relationship between their policy scope and the incident, whether the problem is a policy or an implementation issue, the performance of subordinates, and the large amount of work that the political team will need to handle in the future. As for the difference in political responsibilities between the three directors and Ho Wing-hsien, Lee said, "I make political decisions, and they must follow my political decisions."
Director of the Development Bureau Ning Hanhao later said that he had considered resigning, but emphasized that it was not a matter of personal will. The chief executive asked team members to go all out in their posts. Secretary for Labor and Welfare, Sun Yuk-han, and Secretary for Security, Tang Bing-keung, also emphasized the need to follow instructions from the Chief Executive.
Lu Siu-hing, honorary professor of the Department of Politics and Public Administration of the University of Hong Kong, pointed out that the original intention of the accountability system is for officials to share political responsibilities for the chief executive, and it requires officials to consciously implement it. If in a democratic system, officials make mistakes or have major accidents, they will consciously resign.
Lo Siu-hsing told BBC Chinese that the awareness of Hong Kong is still not strong at present, "so everyone is counting on him (Li Jiachao). The boss tells me to continue doing it, so I will continue to do it."
Lo Siu-hsing questioned that the ICU under the Housing Bureau was named, "Based on what criteria should Director He resign?" He pointed out that the connection between political responsibility and administrative responsibility is still unclear.
The government has launched the second-level investigation mechanism for administrative responsibility under the department head responsibility system. The Civil Service Commission will lead the investigation. It will meet with 100 civil servants, of which 40 to 50 will be investigated, and a report will be submitted within three months. "It deals with civil servants and cannot answer this question." Lu Siu-hing suggested that a politically appointed group be established within the SAR government to review the relationship between senior officials and the civil service system.
Under stability maintenance governance: civil expression is restricted
image copyrightBBC News Chinese
Some analysts questioned that the government's move was not necessarily to pursue accountability, but to have other considerations.
Li Enhao, a senior researcher at the Georgetown Center for Asian Law in the United States, pointed out to BBC Chinese that the current director-general's voluntary resignation is not removal by the authorities and is not a punishment. He believes that the government's approach is more to maintain stability than to pursue accountability.
He pointed out that from the logic of maintaining stability and governance, the authorities may be anxious. If they respond to public opinion, it will stimulate the people to have more demands or feel that "it turns out that public opinion can influence government decision-making."
Li Enhao further pointed out that after the fire, the government has been using information control and stability maintenance methods to deal with those who raise opinions.
On the third day after the fire broke out, some citizens launched a petition calling for accountability of government officials. Subsequently, the Office of National Security of the Central Government of China in Hong Kong issued a statement stating that it firmly supports the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in combating "disasters in Hong Kong" without mercy. The co-signer, college student Guan Jingfeng, was arrested by the National Security Department of the Hong Kong Police on the same day.
Some professionals originally planned to hold a private press conference to discuss issues such as support for disaster victims and government supervision, but it was ultimately canceled "due to department notification." The Hong Kong government will hold the Legislative Council election in December 2025 as scheduled. Before the election, the Office of National Security met with some foreign media leaders and reporters in Hong Kong to target "false information" and "hype and smear" about the fire and the Legislative Council election.
Observing public opinion's response to accountability, Li Enhao said that some people believe that "it is not enough for just one official to resign", or that there are still many unresolved issues, but in his view, the key is "if the people want to express their dissatisfaction with this matter, what consequences will he have?"
Officials apologized and the director stepped down. A commentary published by the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council of China (Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office) on the same day once again mentioned that some people with ulterior motives in the aftermath of the fire were trying to "disrupt Hong Kong with disaster" and warned to be vigilant against anti-China words and deeds that disrupt Hong Kong.
"The entire public opinion atmosphere does not allow people to feel that they can safely and truly express their dissatisfaction." Li Yanhao said that Hong Kong society cannot exert pressure through public mobilization or peaceful demonstrations as in the past. There is no effective mechanism to pursue the case, and the government has no incentive or need to provide the public with more information to explain the decision-making process.
He asked: "Even if the public doesn't accept the goods, what can they do?"
"Silent" Legislative Council
When the public fell silent, the focus turned to the Legislative Council, which usually oversees the government.
Senior media person Chen Jingxiang wrote an article in Ming Pao and described the current situation as "limited accountability." He added to BBC Chinese that the chief executive did not explain the reasons for the decision, but he did not quite understand the logic.
"Hong Kong 01" quoted political figures as saying that a lot of follow-up work needs to be done. "How can anyone do it in a temporary emergency?" It also pointed out that non-re-election of other directors should be held accountable.
Chen Jingxiang believes that clarifying responsibilities and dealing with the aftermath should not be confused. He reminded the government that it needs to weigh "if you have not explained clearly, the public will not be able to let it go." Even if the people have emotions, parliament needs to act as a check and balance force to demand an explanation from the government.
However, he pointed out in his commentary that many lawmakers chose to remain silent, conveying the message of "no more questions." If the Legislative Council "receives the goods" and does not investigate further, the public will be powerless and the public's voice of doubt will be insignificant. He believes that the political accountability controversy triggered by the fire will soon come to an end.
Lu Zhaoxing also pointed out that the opposition has lost its voice and described the current establishment parties as "very quiet".
He analyzed that political parties are bound by the current constitutional operation. "The word 'executive leadership' is repeated again and again by senior officials of the central government and the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office. It means that the legislative body should be a constructive institution, rather than opposing for the sake of opposition."
The transformation of the parliamentary ecology is evident.
In 2021, China's National People's Congress revised Hong Kong's electoral system and emphasized the principle of "patriots governing Hong Kong." In 2025, the Hong Kong Economic Journal commented that MPs should avoid speaking out on four social and livelihood issues, referred to as the "Four Don'ts". In July, the Legislative Council passed the "Code for Legislative Council Members" that regulates the behavior of members; after the Legislative Council changed its term, some members who were considered to be more outspoken announced that they would no longer run for election.
In January this year, Xia Baolong, director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, emphasized that the executive, legislative and judicial agencies must play the same role and not undermine each other. He also said that the Legislative Council must cooperate with the administration and "supervise the government not to overstep its bounds." In June, Legislative Council member Alex Ho posted a post suggesting that the Legislative Council set up a special committee to investigate the fire in accordance with the Powers and Privileges Ordinance and impose serious accountability. He later withdrew the post saying he "did not want to cause controversy or lose focus."
Lo Siu-hing said that the boundaries for patriots to govern Hong Kong are vague and there are gray areas. Members are worried about "how to constructively criticize the government", which has led to the weakening of the role of the Legislative Council.
"Pressure groups and political parties cannot now suppress the government, and they are all regulated by the National Security Law."
Will it have any impact on future governance?
The government took a series of actions on the eve of the first anniversary of the fire, announcing reports, accountability matters and reform measures. The political accountability seems to have been settled with the resignation of the director. Will the government's governance continue in the subsequent handling?
Analysts have different priorities.
The Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office published a commentary on the day the report was released, describing various measures as reflecting the SAR government's responsibility as the "head of the family" and the first responsible person.
Chen Jingxiang believes that the government "still has to do its homework" in terms of maintenance reform, but based on the current political situation, it is not expected to affect governance. "The central government has accepted the goods, and the parliament below has not particularly strongly criticized it."
Zhang Bingliang said that the central government plays the biggest role in the arrangements for the next government and is expected to be concerned about the management of the fire crisis. However, it does not read a single incident, but also considers the economy and "governance and prosperity". It is still unknown whether the incident has been "closed". He is concerned about how the government handles arrangements for residents who are unwilling to sell their ownership rights.
Li Enhao believes that Hong Kong's governance has been in a state of undercurrent for a long time. The government is not elected by democratic universal suffrage. The "Hong Kong National Security Law" has been implemented and the electoral system has been significantly restructured. The opposition cannot check and balance, and the people cannot express their dissatisfaction. It is difficult to say whether it will explode with the gap, so the authorities will continue to maintain stability.
"For Beijing, maintaining stability reflects whether it has the ability to govern and whether it can manage this group of Hong Kong citizens. 'Governance' is not the kind of good governance we talk about. It means whether it can stabilize Hong Kong and prevent further chaos."
He pointed out that when Li Ka-chiu responded to the accountability arrangements, he repeatedly emphasized that it was his "personal political decision" and hoped to send two messages. One was to "maintain the governance and personnel arrangements within the 'One Country, Two Systems'" Hong Kong SAR, and the other was to show that he was a "responsible person." His rhetoric and the two important elections to come should be included in the overall context analysis.
On November 22, Hong Kong will hold an election committee election; the chief executive election will be held in March next year. The Election Committee is responsible for nominating and electing the Chief Executive and some members of the Legislative Council.
Li Enhao said: "If it were Hong Kong before the Hong Kong National Security Law, most of the media would regard this matter as a political election operation."
According to Lu Siu-hing, there are currently no public opinion polls in Hong Kong, but voices on social media reflect that there are voices that do not accept the accountability arrangements for officials, and Hong Kong's governance will still be a challenge in the long run.
He analyzed that the government is dealing with public opinion in the short, medium and long term. When officials resign, they launch a large number of reform measures in an "overwhelming" manner. The Civil Service Commission will complete the investigation within three months. By then, the chief executive election will be approaching. A new team will take office in a few months, and the focus of public attention will change accordingly.
Explore more
More short films
More short films end
