“Using Disaster to Destabilize Hong Kong”: CCP Shows Its Malice — Stability Maintenance Comes Before Disaster Relief

On November 29, 2025, citizens gathered near the fire scene to mourn. (Yu Gang / The Dajiyuan)

[People News] The situation of the Hong Fuk Court disaster is still developing, with the death toll having increased to six, yet the Chinese Communist Party cannot contain itself and has begun to lash out. On the 29th, the Office for Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong issued a statement titled: “Firmly Supporting the Hong Kong SAR in Lawfully Punishing Anti-China, Hong Kong-Destabilizing Forces for ‘Using Disaster to Destabilize Hong Kong’” — “using disaster to destabilize Hong Kong” is yet another major invention of the CCP’s stability-maintenance apparatus.

Is Hong Kong actually in chaos right now? Look at the facts: citizens voluntarily went to the fire site to help with rescue work, and the scene was orderly; the supplies distributed were all donated by citizens, carefully sorted and stacked in open spaces; men’s and women’s clothing were arranged by size—large, medium, small—and children’s clothing even labeled by height; volunteers actively maintained order at the site, kept an eye out for wrongdoers taking advantage of the situation, and reminded victims to safeguard personal privacy.

At the memorial site, citizens queued a mile and a half long to express condolences, holding flowers, walking slowly, bowing, then leaving quietly; some citizens proactively built websites to report the rescue progress in real time for victims to check; others established sites to follow up on victims’ personal information—those who narrowly escaped, those who tragically perished, and those whose status remains unknown—updating it promptly.

Has anyone seen any chaos at the rescue site or in society these past few days? If not, then what kind of madness is the National Security Office speaking?

Netizens report that CUHK student Miles Kwan, who put forward four major demands, has already been arrested. What are Kwan’s four demands?

  1. Provide resettlement for victims,

  2. Establish an independent investigation commission,

  3. Re-examine/reform construction regulatory systems,

  4. Hold the government and responsible regulatory officials accountable.

Which of these demands is unreasonable? Which one misses the core issues? Which one does not reflect the voices of the people? When disaster strikes, shouldn’t victims be resettled? The disaster was complex, with unknown causes, potentially involving illegal activities and dereliction by officials—without an independent investigation commission, how could the truth be sought fairly, justly, and openly? The fire revealed many loopholes in government regulatory procedures, imperfect laws, and weak enforcement. Is re-examining the system to prevent future disasters unreasonable? As for official accountability—this is what any responsible government should be doing proactively. Do citizens not even have the right to make such requests?

In the face of disaster, what is needed is cooperation between government and citizens, doing the best possible in rescue and relief, filling the gaps left by the government. This is the responsibility of citizens and an expression of civic morality. How did this end up being labeled “creating chaos”?

Clearly, the National Security Office’s statement aims to suppress public demands for accountability, to prevent blame from reaching the government. Government officials are supported by taxpayers; at critical moments, citizens are not allowed to seek accountability—worse, even asking questions is forbidden. What kind of authoritarian regime is this?

Before rescue efforts have even fully begun, the CCP has already moved to arrest people on baseless charges with an extremely overbearing attitude. Why? Very simple: if the investigation continues, a significant part of the responsibility will ultimately fall on the government. When the Labour Department responded to citizens’ inquiries, it claimed that fire risk was minimal and that it had conducted sixteen inspections of the site—yet failed to identify hidden dangers. These are clear instances of negligence. If the public keeps pursuing the truth, officials will certainly have to step down.

A responsible government should take the initiative to explain mistakes and punish negligence, yet since the disaster, no official involved has stepped forward to explain or take responsibility. Instead, when citizens raise questions, they are treated as the ones at fault. What kind of government is this? What kind of world?

Why is the CCP so panicked, rushing to fabricate accusations and invent this phrase “using disaster to destabilize Hong Kong” at the very beginning of the tragedy—when society is perfectly orderly—striking at citizens’ morale as they try to help with rescue efforts? Very simple: accountability for the incident will damage the credibility of John Lee’s government, debunk the CCP’s fantasy narrative of “from governance to prosperity,” and ultimately harm the CCP’s own foundations of rule.

Compared to helping victims and seeking accountability, maintaining the government’s face is more important, and safeguarding CCP regime stability is even more so. The fire was a man-made disaster; now the CCP intervenes to maintain stability, adding more harm atop the pain of Hong Kongers. This is the true nature of the CCP: it creates the problems and then covers them up; it never deals with the issues, only with the people who raise them. The CCP’s so-called “care for Hong Kong people” is a lie—it only cares about regime stability, about the interests of its one-party rule, and about the entrenched privileges of the red aristocracy.

Almost simultaneously with the National Security Office’s statement, former Financial Secretary John Tsang published a post expressing condolences but also saying conclusions should not be drawn too quickly, nor should bamboo scaffolding be prematurely condemned. This is certainly a questioning of the government’s narrative and reflects a rational attitude toward disaster. Tsang’s prioritizing of public interest is admirable, and speaking this way requires some political courage.

I believe that in the face of the National Security Office’s intimidation, Hong Kongers should not fall silent. As John Tsang did, what should be said must still be said—calmly, rationally, focused on the facts, not intentionally challenging the government. As long as public discussion flourishes, the government cannot silence the people; as long as citizens dare ask questions, the government does not have a prison large enough to lock up thousands and tens of thousands of people. If only a few speak out, those few take the risk—but if many speak out, the many protect the few.

This fire has already attracted international attention. Arresting people during a moment of mourning will certainly invite condemnation from the international community. A government that chooses to oppose its own people will only reap the consequences.

It now appears that a government-led independent commission of inquiry will never happen, but—as with the Tiananmen events twenty-six years ago—history is strict and just. In the end, all rights and wrongs will be accounted for. Every detail of this man-made disaster must be recorded; when the time comes, everything will be revealed. (From the author’s Facebook)