Eric Chan says that guided by conscience, reason, and respect for law, the city will not only overcome the effects of the calamitous Tai Po fire but also thrive

The tragedy at Wang Fuk Court has struck Hong Kong with unimaginable grief and reflection. The loss of life, the suffering of survivors, and the destruction of homes compel society to come together in compassion and composure. Yet amid the sorrow, it is essential to guard against the subversive forces that exploit emotion for political ends. The recent campaign advancing “four demands” concerning the disaster purports to seek justice for the victims. Yet, its style, language, and timing reveal a political mobilization pattern that recalls the period of “black-clad” riots in 2019-20. Its resemblance to movements that once destabilized the city’s unity and social order is evident. The actual danger does not lie in residents’ sympathy, which is natural and noble, but in the campaign’s underlying objective of transforming mourning and grievance into animosity toward the government.

The immediate duty of every responsible member of society is to focus on humanitarian relief, supporting affected families, and recovering missing people. At this juncture, any maneuver under the guise of “seeking justice” to provoke animosity toward the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government is malicious, and could only be driven by political motivations.

Justice is built upon evidence and proper procedure, not upon slogans or sentiment. When political pressure takes precedence over procedure, the pursuit of truth is replaced by a search for affirmation, and genuine accountability is replaced by political theater. In moments of sorrow, the strength of a community lies in its capacity to remain rational and to distinguish compassion from political agitation.

READ MORE: HK blaze probe finds substandard netting, death toll rises to 151

The character of this campaign deserves rigorous assessment. Its rhetoric is designed to provoke antagonism toward government institutions. Familiar patterns reappear in inflammatory slogans, unverified assertions, and attempts to frame authorities as inherently untrustworthy. These tactics mirror the early rhetoric of past social unrest in Hong Kong, when emotional mobilization overshadowed public order and social stability. Such repetition is not a coincidence but a consistent political mobilization strategy. By fostering distrust when the public is emotionally vulnerable, the organizers try to weaken the civic cohesion most needed in times of crisis. Hong Kong cannot allow the trauma of the Tai Po fire tragedy to be weaponized to reopen old divisions and create chaos.

The government’s actions in the aftermath of the disaster demonstrate that accountability and compassion are already functioning together. Different departments have been actively coordinating relief, providing temporary housing, replacing lost documents, and offering financial and housing assistance. Technical assessments of building safety standards have begun, and reviews of construction management are underway. And Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu has ordered the establishment of an independent committee, to be chaired by a judge, to investigate the cause of the fire. These measures reflect an administration that is acting responsibly within its existing statutory authority.

Accountability depends on the credibility of the process, not on the volume of petitions. True transparency comes from clear communication, diligent investigation, and public access to verified information. Where other societies have allowed populist sentiment to dictate institutional process, stability has eroded, and faith in law has diminished. Hong Kong’s foundation rests on a balance between freedom and order, compassion and discipline, and individual expression and collective responsibility. Maintaining this balance is vital if justice is to retain meaning beyond emotion.

More troubling is the campaign’s apparent insistence on identifying and condemning officials before any investigation has been concluded. Such conduct abandons the central principle of the presumption of innocence, which protects citizens and officials alike. Justice cannot be achieved through accusation before evidence. When rash judgment becomes normalized, the entire legal culture degenerates into political vendetta. A civilized society must uphold the discipline of restraint even under emotional pressure. The call for instant blame, however emotionally seductive, is a betrayal of fairness itself.

In contrast to the noise of political agitation, countless Hong Kong residents have responded with quiet generosity and solidarity. Volunteers have assisted, organizations have offered aid, and communities have extended moral comfort to those who have suffered. These spontaneous expressions of care showcase the resilience and unity that define the city’s moral fabric. They reflect the genuine compassion that binds a civic community together. What distinguishes these efforts from opportunistic political campaigns is intention: They seek relief, not confrontation; restoration, not resentment. Such acts of humanity must guide the city forward.

The government’s commitment to accountability operates within a well-established governance framework that works effectively.  Societies that allow populism to eclipse process often find themselves trapped in cycles of disorder from which recovery becomes slow.

ALSO READ: Be wary of those trying to exploit HK fire

The government’s move to set up an independent commission to find out the causes behind the blaze and facilitate a systematic change reflects institutional consistency. Genuine reform arises from facts, deliberation, and institutional continuity, not from political campaigns. The lesson of the 2019-20 “black-clad” riots remains instructive: When chaos is mistaken for conscience and agitation for participation, the moral core of a community begins to erode. The long-term strength of Hong Kong will depend upon its refusal to repeat that error.

This tragedy will be remembered not only for its losses but also for the choices Hong Kong society makes in response. To remain composed amid grief, to trust in lawful procedure, to act with unity, and to reject political campaigns that exploit emotion, Hong Kong affirms its character as a community guided by conscience, reason, and respect for law. Through these principles, the city will not only overcome the effects of this calamity but also thrive.

The author is secretary-general of the Association of Greater Bay Area Professionals.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.