作者：關永傑
編輯：鍾然 責任編輯：胡麗莉 校对：冯仍 翻译：吕峰
截至2026年3月6日，香港大埔宏福苑大火已經過去整整一百天。
這場發生在2025年11月26日的火災，波及七幢高層住宅大廈，大火持續燃燒超過四十小時，最終造成168人死亡、79人受傷，成為香港開埠以來傷亡最慘重的火災事故之一。港府隨後宣佈成立獨立調查委員會，並計劃在 2026年3月19日開始舉行聽證會，2026年9月左右公佈最終調查報告。
然而，火災後這一百天里發生的一些事情，卻讓不少人對調查結果是否能夠真正回應公眾關心的問題產生了疑問。
回顧這100天，香港社會發生了幾件值得注意的事件。
一、提出調查訴求的學生被捕並遭開除
火災發生後，香港中文大學學生關靖豐公開提出包括成立火災獨立調查委員會在內的四項訴求。然而不久之後他被警方拘捕，一些媒體甚至將其行為形容為“以災亂港”。
2026年2月13日，香港中文大學宣佈開除其學籍。校方給出的理由並非直接因為其提出相關訴求，而是指其“多次行為不當”，其中包括他在 2023年曾因張貼六四相關標語而被記過。
二、問責問題幾乎沒有被提起
按照中國《生產安全事故報告和調查處理條例》的規定，死亡超過30人的事故屬於“特別重大事故”，應由國務院或者國務院授權有關部門組織事故調查組進行調查，並對負有領導責任的省長、自治區主席、直轄市市長以及國務院有關部門主要負責人給予行政處分。
而香港的現實則是：香港特首李家超不但沒有被問責，2025年12月16日，他向中國國家主席習近平述職時，習近平還明確表示，一年來李家超帶領特區政府“勇於擔當、積極進取”，並強調中央對李家超及特區政府的工作是“充分肯定”的。習近平還提到李家超在堅定維護國家主權、安全及發展利益方面的表現尤為突出。至於大埔宏福苑火災，則只是向災民表示慰問，並肯定了特區政府在災後支援及重建方面的努力。
三、罹難者名單未向公眾公佈
在大多數民主社會及法治國家，處理大規模傷亡事故時，“公開名單”通常被視為政府透明度與社會共同哀悼的重要部分。
但香港政府在大埔宏福苑五級火警後，以“保護隱私”為由拒絕公開 168名罹難者名單。
四、媒體人黎智英被重判
2026年2月9日，在一個被外界廣泛質疑為受到政治影響的司法環境下，香港法庭以《國安法》框架下的“煽動顛覆國家政權”與“勾結外國勢力”罪名，重判黎智英二十年，《蘋果日報》多名高層被判七至十年。
在這樣的打擊之下，香港可能很難再出現真正具有獨立性的新聞媒體，剩下的更多只是官方宣傳體系的一部分。
五、“天眼”密布，香港或進入《1984》時代
2026年2月中旬，港府向立法會申請 40.6億港元的撥款，用於擴展名為「智眼」（SmartView）的監控程序。該計劃準備在未來數年內，為全港 6萬多組監控攝像頭進行技術升級，包括引入更強大的 AI人臉識別與大數據分析功能。
宏福苑火災的具體原因仍在調查之中。根據早期報道，火勢可能與樓宇外牆維修工程中使用的竹棚、尼龍網等材料的阻燃系數不達標有關。火焰沿著外牆迅速蔓延，導致多個樓宇被波及。如果最終調查結果證明問題僅僅是工程材料不符合標準，那當然是一場嚴重的工程事故。但香港使用竹棚已經超過百年，公眾目前關注的焦點集中在尼龍網阻燃系數不達標的問題上。而這一問題很可能涉及工程腐敗與監管漏洞。因此，對很多香港市民來說，他們擔心的問題或許更深一層——英國殖民時代建立並有效運作上百年的制度，回歸中國後是不是已經發生了質變？
過去幾十年，香港之所以能夠維持較高的公共治理水平，與其制度中的多個要素有關：獨立媒體、專業監管機構以及公開透明的調查機制。
但2019年，北京推動修訂《逃犯條例》引發大規模社會抗議，並最終在2020年出台更為嚴厲的《香港國安法》。此後短短幾年，香港的政治與社會環境發生了深刻變化。香港從一個開放、文明、法治、富裕的國際大都市，迅速轉變為一個被高壓管控的社會。大量中高端人才流失，樓價大幅下跌，經濟增長明顯放緩，並罕見地出現財政赤字。
《國安法》實施後，在高壓環境下民眾與媒體普遍趨於沉默。自2020年以來推行的一系列“宣誓效忠”制度，也使得不少官員更多只需對北京負責，而無需再面對來自反對派與社會輿論的監督。當政府將大量精力與資源投入在肅清異見、維護所謂國家安全時，真正關乎公眾生命安全的公共治理能力，就可能在不知不覺中被削弱。
歷史經驗提醒人們，在中國近幾十年的一些重大災難事件中，也曾出現類似的爭議。
例如2008年汶川地震後，一些家長質疑校舍質量問題，疑似是豆腐渣工程，推動調查的譚作人隨後被拘捕；2011年溫州動車事故，官方最初將原因歸結為雷擊；還有2021年鄭州“7·20”水災、2024年廣東梅大高速塌方等事件，也都曾因責任歸屬問題引發社會爭議。在這些事件中，政府往往傾向於將責任歸咎於天災，而不少民眾則認為其中人禍是主要因素，由此引發了關於責任追究與信息公開的討論。最終的結果往往是刪帖、封號，輿論逐漸沈寂，事件也隨之被遺忘。
宏福苑大火已經過去一百天。168條生命的逝去，人們希望看到的不僅是對遇難者的悼念，更是對制度漏洞的認真檢視。
但從災後這100天發生的事件來看，我們對於9月將要發佈的調查報告，還能抱有多大的期待？是水落石出的真相？還是避重就輕的解釋？
如果真相沒有被揭示，責任人沒有被追究，那麼這場大火留給香港的，恐怕不僅是一段悲痛的記憶，更是一種長期存在的不安——這樣的災難，隨時可能再次降臨。
Hundred Days After the Hung Fuk Estate Fire: What Is Happening in Hong Kong?
Author: Kwan Wing-kit Editor: Chung Yin Responsible Editor: Hu Lili Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Lyu Feng
Abstract: One hundred days after the Hung Fuk Estate fire in Tai Po, Hong Kong, the cause of the disaster is still under investigation. However, a series of developments—including the arrest of a student, pressure on the media, the absence of accountability, and the expansion of surveillance—have raised widespread public concern about the fairness of the investigation and the broader institutional changes taking place in Hong Kong.
As of March 6, 2026, exactly one hundred days have passed since the Hung Fuk Estate fire in Tai Po, Hong Kong.
The fire, which broke out on November 26, 2025, affected seven high-rise residential buildings. It burned for more than forty hours and ultimately caused 168 deaths and 79 injuries, making it one of the deadliest fire disasters in Hong Kong’s history since the city was founded.
The Hong Kong government subsequently announced the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry, with hearings scheduled to begin on March 19, 2026, and a final investigation report expected around September 2026.
However, several events that have occurred during the hundred days since the fire have caused many people to question whether the investigation will truly address the public’s concerns.
Looking back at these 100 days, several developments in Hong Kong society are worth noting.
1. Student Who Called for an Investigation Arrested and Expelled
After the fire, Kwan Ching-fung, a student at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, publicly raised four demands, including the establishment of an independent investigation committee into the disaster.
Shortly afterward, however, he was arrested by police. Some media outlets even characterized his actions as “using the disaster to disrupt Hong Kong.”
On February 13, 2026, the Chinese University of Hong Kong announced that he had been expelled. The university did not state that the expulsion was directly due to his demands. Instead, it cited “repeated misconduct,” including an incident in 2023 when he was disciplined for posting slogans related to the June Fourth movement.
2. Almost No Discussion of Official Accountability
According to China’s Regulations on the Reporting, Investigation, and Handling of Production Safety Accidents, an accident causing more than 30 deaths is classified as an “extraordinarily serious accident.” Such cases should be investigated by a team organized by the State Council or an authorized department, and administrative penalties may be imposed on responsible officials, including provincial governors, autonomous region chairpersons, mayors of municipalities, and relevant central government officials.
The situation in Hong Kong has been quite different.
Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee has not faced any accountability. On December 16, 2025, when Lee reported his work to Chinese President Xi Jinping, Xi stated that Lee had led the Hong Kong government over the past year with “responsibility and initiative,” emphasizing that the central government “fully recognizes” the work of Lee and the Hong Kong administration.
Xi particularly praised Lee’s performance in safeguarding national sovereignty, security, and development interests. Regarding the Tai Po Hung Fuk Estate fire, Xi merely expressed condolences to the victims and affirmed the Hong Kong government’s efforts in post-disaster relief and reconstruction.
3. Victims’ Names Not Made Public
In most democratic societies and rule-of-law states, the public release of victims’ names after mass-casualty disasters is generally regarded as an important expression of government transparency and collective mourning.
However, after the Hung Fuk Estate five-alarm fire, the Hong Kong government refused to release the names of the 168 victims, citing the need to “protect privacy.”
4. Media Figure Jimmy Lai Given a Heavy Sentence
On February 9, 2026, under a judicial environment widely questioned by observers as being politically influenced, a Hong Kong court sentenced media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai to twenty years in prison under charges of “inciting subversion of state power” and “colluding with foreign forces” under the framework of the National Security Law.
Several senior executives of the now-defunct Apple Daily newspaper were also sentenced to prison terms ranging from seven to ten years.
Under such pressure, Hong Kong may find it increasingly difficult to sustain genuinely independent media. What remains could increasingly resemble extensions of the official communication system.
5. Expanding Surveillance: Toward an “1984” Era?
In mid-February 2026, the Hong Kong government applied to the Legislative Council for HK$4.06 billion in funding to expand a surveillance program known as “SmartView.”
The project aims to upgrade more than 60,000 surveillance camera systems across Hong Kong in the coming years, incorporating advanced AI facial recognition and big-data analytics technologies.
Ongoing Investigation and Public Concerns
The precise cause of the Hung Fuk Estate fire is still under investigation. According to early reports, the rapid spread of the fire may have been linked to bamboo scaffolding and nylon mesh used during exterior wall maintenance work that failed to meet fire-resistance standards.
Flames reportedly spread rapidly along the building façades, affecting multiple residential blocks.
If the final investigation concludes that the problem was merely the use of non-compliant construction materials, then it would represent a serious engineering accident. However, bamboo scaffolding has been used in Hong Kong construction for over a century. Public attention has therefore focused on the possibility that the nylon mesh used in the project lacked adequate flame-retardant properties.
Such a problem could potentially involve construction corruption or regulatory loopholes. For many Hong Kong citizens, the deeper concern is whether the institutional system established during the British colonial period—one that operated effectively for over a century—has undergone fundamental changes since Hong Kong’s return to China.
Institutional Changes Since 2019
For decades, Hong Kong maintained a relatively high standard of public governance due to several institutional features: independent media, professional regulatory agencies, and transparent investigation mechanisms.
However, in 2019, Beijing’s push to amend the Extradition Bill triggered large-scale protests. In 2020, the more stringent Hong Kong National Security Law was enacted.
Within just a few years, Hong Kong’s political and social environment changed dramatically. The city shifted from an open, prosperous international metropolis governed by rule of law into a society characterized by increasingly strict political control.
Large numbers of high-skilled professionals have emigrated, housing prices have fallen significantly, economic growth has slowed noticeably, and Hong Kong has even experienced rare fiscal deficits.
Under the high-pressure environment following the National Security Law, both citizens and media outlets have largely become more cautious or silent. Since 2020, a series of loyalty oath requirements has also meant that many officials now primarily answer to Beijing rather than being subject to oversight from opposition parties or public opinion.
When governments devote substantial energy and resources to suppressing dissent and maintaining what is defined as national security, the capacity for governance in areas directly related to public safety and welfare may gradually weaken.
Historical Parallels
Historical experience suggests that similar controversies have emerged in several major disasters in China over recent decades.
For example:
After the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, some parents questioned the quality of school buildings suspected to be “tofu-dreg construction.” Activist Tan Zuoren, who attempted to investigate, was later detained.
Following the 2011 Wenzhou high-speed rail crash, authorities initially attributed the cause to a lightning strike.
The 2021 Zhengzhou “7·20” floods and the 2024 Guangdong Meida Expressway collapse also sparked debates over responsibility.
In many such cases, governments have tended to attribute disasters to natural causes, while segments of the public believed that human factors and governance failures played a significant role. The resulting debates about accountability and transparency often faded over time as online discussions were censored and public attention gradually dissipated.
One Hundred Days Later
One hundred days have passed since the Hung Fuk Estate fire.
With 168 lives lost, what people hope to see is not only mourning for the victims but also a serious examination of institutional weaknesses.
Yet judging from the events that have occurred in the hundred days since the disaster, how much expectation can the public still place on the investigation report scheduled for release in September?
Will it reveal the full truth—or offer a selective explanation?
If the truth is not uncovered and those responsible are not held accountable, the legacy of this fire may not be only grief. It may also leave behind a lasting sense of unease—that such a tragedy could happen again at any time.
