作者：關永傑
編輯：鍾然 責任編輯：胡麗莉 校对：冯仍 翻译：周敏
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（沈）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。
The 100th Day Memorial of the Wang Fuk Court Great Fire: What is Happening in Hong Kong After the Disaster
Author: Guan Yongjie Editor: Zhong Ran
Responsible Editor: Hu Lili Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Zhou Min
As of March 6, 2026, exactly one hundred days have passed since the great fire at Wang Fuk Court, Tai Po, Hong Kong.
However, some things that happened during these one hundred days after the fire have caused many people to have doubts about whether the results of the investigation can truly respond to the issues of public concern. Reviewing these 100 days, several noteworthy events occurred in Hong Kong society.
I. The Student Who Proposed Investigation Demands Was Arrested and Expelled
After the fire occurred, Hong Kong Chinese University student Kwan Ching-fung publicly proposed four demands, including the establishment of an independent investigation commission for the fire. However, not long after, he was arrested by the police; some media even described his behavior as “disrupting Hong Kong through disaster.” On February 13, 2026, the Chinese University of Hong Kong announced his expulsion. The reason given by the school was not directly because of his proposal of the relevant demands, but rather pointed to his “repeated misconduct,” which included a demerit he received in 2023 for posting slogans related to June Fourth.
II. The Issue of Accountability Has Hardly Been Mentioned
According to the provisions of China’s Regulations on the Reporting, Investigation and Handling of Production Safety Accidents, an accident with more than 30 deaths belongs to a “particularly major accident,” which should be investigated by an accident investigation team organized by the State Council or a department authorized by the State Council, and administrative sanctions should be given to the provincial governor, autonomous region chairman, municipality mayor, and the main persons in charge of relevant State Council departments who bear leadership responsibility.
The reality of Hong Kong, however, is: not only was Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee not held accountable, but on December 16, 2025, when he reported his work to Chinese President Xi Jinping, Xi Jinping clearly stated that over the past year, John Lee led the SAR government to be “brave in taking responsibility and proactive,” and emphasized that the Central Government’s work toward John Lee and the SAR government is “fully affirmed.” Xi Jinping also mentioned that John Lee’s performance in firmly maintaining national sovereignty, security, and development interests was particularly prominent. As for the Tai Po Wang Fuk Court fire, he only expressed condolences to the victims and affirmed the efforts of the SAR government in post-disaster support and reconstruction.
III. The List of Deceased Has Not Been Released to the Public
In most democratic societies and countries under the rule of law, “disclosing the list” is usually regarded as an important part of government transparency and collective social mourning when handling large-scale casualty accidents. But the Hong Kong government, after the five-alarm fire at Wang Fuk Court, refused to disclose the list of 168 victims on the grounds of “protecting privacy.”
IV. Media Person Jimmy Lai Severely Sentenced
On February 9, 2026, under a judicial environment widely questioned by the outside world as being subject to political influence, the Hong Kong court, under the framework of the “National Security Law,” sentenced Jimmy Lai to twenty years on charges of “inciting subversion of state power” and “collusion with foreign forces.” Several senior executives of Apple Daily were sentenced to seven to ten years. Under such a blow, it may be very difficult for truly independent news media to appear in Hong Kong again; what remains is mostly just a part of the official propaganda system.
V. “Skynet” Densely Spread, Hong Kong May Enter the “1984” Era
In mid-February 2026, the Hong Kong government applied to the Legislative Council for an appropriation of 4.06 billion HKD to expand a surveillance program named “SmartView.” The plan prepares to carry out technical upgrades for more than 60,000 sets of surveillance cameras across Hong Kong within the next few years, including the introduction of more powerful AI facial recognition and big data analysis functions.
The specific cause of the Wang Fuk Court fire is still under investigation. According to early reports, the intensity of the fire may be related to the flame-retardant coefficients of materials such as bamboo scaffolding and nylon netting used in the building’s exterior wall maintenance project not meeting standards. The flames spread rapidly along the exterior walls, leading to multiple buildings being affected. If the final investigation results prove that the problem was merely that engineering materials did not meet standards, that would of course be a serious engineering accident. But Hong Kong has used bamboo scaffolding for over a hundred years; the focus of public attention is currently concentrated on the issue of the nylon netting’s flame-retardant coefficient not meeting standards. This issue is very likely to involve engineering corruption and regulatory loopholes. Therefore, for many Hong Kong citizens, the problem they worry about is perhaps a layer deeper—has the system established and effectively operated for over a hundred years during the British colonial era undergone a qualitative change after the return to China?
In the past few decades, the reason Hong Kong was able to maintain a high level of public governance was related to several elements in its system: independent media, professional regulatory agencies, and open and transparent investigation mechanisms. But in 2019, Beijing’s promotion of the revision of the Extradition Bill triggered large-scale social protests and eventually led to the introduction of the even more stringent Hong Kong National Security Law in 2020. In the few short years since then, Hong Kong’s political and social environment has undergone profound changes. Hong Kong has rapidly transformed from an open, civilized, rule-of-law, and wealthy international metropolis into a society under high-pressure control. A large number of high-end talents have been lost, property prices have fallen sharply, economic growth has slowed significantly, and a fiscal deficit has rarely appeared.
After the implementation of the National Security Law, the public and media have generally tended toward silence under the high-pressure environment. A series of “oath of allegiance” systems implemented since 2020 have also made many officials only need to be responsible to Beijing, and no longer need to face supervision from the opposition and social public opinion. When the government invests a large amount of energy and resources into purging dissent and maintaining so-called national security, the public governance capacity truly related to the safety of public lives may be weakened unknowingly.
Historical experience reminds people that in some major disaster events in China in recent decades, similar controversies have also appeared. For example, after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, some parents questioned the quality of school buildings, suspecting they were “tofu-dreg projects,” and Tan Zuoren, who promoted the investigation, was subsequently arrested; the 2011 Wenzhou high-speed rail accident, where officials initially attributed the cause to a lightning strike; as well as the 2021 Zhengzhou “7.20” flood and the 2024 Guangdong Meida Expressway collapse, etc., which also triggered social controversy due to the issue of responsibility attribution. In these events, the government often tends to attribute responsibility to natural disasters, while many people believe that human error is the main factor, thereby triggering discussions about accountability and information disclosure. The final result is often the deletion of posts, closing of accounts, the gradual silencing of public opinion, and the event being subsequently forgotten.
One hundred days have passed since the Wang Fuk Court fire. With the passing of 168 lives, what people hope to see is not only the mourning of the victims but also a serious examination of systemic loopholes. But judging from the events that occurred in these 100 days after the disaster, how much expectation can we still hold for the investigation report to be released in September? Will it be the truth coming to light? Or an explanation that avoids the important and dwells on the trivial? If the truth is not revealed and the responsible persons are not held accountable, then what this fire leaves for Hong Kong is likely not just a painful memory, but a long-existing unease—that such a disaster could descend again at any time.
