When Hong Kong Chief Government John Lee introduced the resignation of Housing Secretary Winnie Ho over the Wang Fuk Courtroom hearth, a bereaved member of the family questioned why just one minister had been made to bear political accountability. Yip Ka-kui, who misplaced his spouse within the catastrophe, described the federal government’s method as accountability calculated with nanometer precision. “All of the secretaries for the departments named ought to step down,” he mentioned.
When there may be credit score to say, Yip noticed, ministers take their share. When issues go unsuitable, the accountability falls on these working beneath them.
His criticism uncovered a elementary downside with Hong Kong’s response to the fireplace that killed 168 folks in November 2025. Eleven months after the tragedy, the federal government has supplied apologies, a ministerial resignation, investigations into dozens of civil servants, and intensive proposals for bureaucratic reform. But the authority to find out who needs to be held politically accountable, and what penalties they need to face, stays firmly within the palms of the federal government itself.
The impartial committee’s findings have been unequivocal. Residents had raised “quite a few complaints and enquiries about hearth security considerations at Wang Fuk Courtroom,” whereas authorities departments uncared for warnings, didn’t train “actual supervision,” and allowed harmful development practices – like “the intensive use of froth boards to cowl all home windows” – to proceed. The report recognized critical regulatory failures involving the Housing Bureau’s Unbiased Checking Unit (ICU), the Buildings Division, the Fireplace Companies Division, and the Labor Division.
In explaining Ho’s resignation, Lee pointed to the Housing Bureau’s oversight of the ICU, whereas stressing that she had dedicated no private wrongdoing. He described Ho’s departure as his political resolution, made after contemplating departmental duties and different elements. But he supplied no clear commonplace explaining why failures throughout the Housing Bureau warranted its minister’s resignation, whereas these involving different departments didn’t produce equal penalties.
Growth Secretary Bernadette Linn, whose bureau oversees the Buildings Division, acknowledged having thought of resigning. She nonetheless in contrast the chief govt to the captain of a ship, explaining that, as a member of his “crew,” she was obliged to observe his directions. Labor and Welfare Secretary Chris Solar equally burdened that politically appointed officers should reply to the chief govt, preserve crew spirit, and show an consciousness of the broader pursuits of the administration. He would stay in workplace as instructed.
In different phrases, Ho left as a result of Lee decided that she ought to assume political accountability. Different ministers remained as a result of Lee instructed them to proceed their work. In each instances, the chief govt decided the result, whereas the general public was left to just accept or criticize his judgment. With out constant and public requirements, a ministerial resignation turns into a political concession granted on the discretion of the chief govt.
The impartial committee itself was appointed by Lee and reported its findings to him. Regardless of intensive public hearings and detailed findings, it remained a non-statutory physique with out obligatory evidence-gathering powers. Its suggestions have been returned to the identical govt authority accountable for figuring out their implementation and the political penalties for officers.
This focus of discretion is especially consequential in Hong Kong, the place the chief govt is chosen by a 1,500-member Election Committee relatively than by means of common suffrage. Solely 20 of the Legislative Council’s 90 seats are straight elected, with candidates topic to political eligibility screening. Residents consequently have restricted electoral means to impose political penalties in the event that they disapprove of the way in which an administration has dealt with a catastrophe.
Public strain is restricted in different methods as properly. Shortly after the fireplace, pupil Miles Kwan was detained by police after distributing materials demanding an impartial investigation and authorities accountability. His detention illustrated the dangers surrounding collective mobilization over the catastrophe. With out significant electoral leverage and with constraints on public organizing, residents have few efficient means to problem the political settlement introduced by the administration.
Towards this background, the response from Beijing’s Liaison Workplace is revealing. Following the publication of the committee’s report, the workplace praised Lee’s management and described the federal government’s apologies, investigations, and reforms as proof of a “a accountable authorities that’s keen to take possession and decide to reform.” It recommended the administration’s “agency resolve to rectify long-standing, deep-rooted issues” earlier than urging Hong Kong society to “unite and look to the long run” below Lee’s management. The assertion even explicitly linked the response to Hong Kong’s first five-year plan and the broader objective of advancing the town’s “high-quality improvement.”
Within the Liaison Workplace’s framing, a report exposing pervasive failures in authorities supervision grew to become an event to have fun the administration’s capability for self-correction. The introduced measures have been introduced as proof of accountable management, whereas the general public was inspired to acknowledge the federal government’s efforts and switch its consideration towards future improvement.
The emphasis on shifting ahead was already obvious within the authorities’s dealing with of displaced householders. Months earlier than the impartial committee accomplished its investigation, the administration launched a scheme to amass property titles at Wang Fuk Courtroom. House owners got till August 31 to just accept the provide, with most required to execute sale agreements by October 15. Each deadlines preceded the publication of the committee’s findings on October 29.
The scheme supplied urgently wanted monetary and housing preparations to households who had misplaced their houses. But residents confronted consequential selections about surrendering their property rights whereas the complete circumstances of the catastrophe remained below investigation. Some expressed considerations concerning the deadlines and their restricted room to barter, significantly given the uncertainty surrounding options to the federal government provide.
By early September, greater than 99 p.c of house owners had indicated their willingness to promote. The federal government may level to this overwhelming response as progress in resolving the housing disaster created by the fireplace. However acceptance of a property acquisition provide says little about whether or not residents are glad with the federal government’s dealing with of the catastrophe. Households dealing with displacement and monetary uncertainty have instant wants that can’t be postponed till each query of accountability has been answered.
The property acquisition course of and the political accountability train share an essential function: the federal government largely determines the obtainable choices, the timetable, and the situations below which selections are made. Residents should navigate these preparations whereas possessing restricted affect over the broader political selections that form their futures.
The federal government’s 11-month investigation, legal proceedings, and proposed reforms show its administrative capability to answer a serious catastrophe. Whether or not these measures will stop one other tragedy stays to be seen. What the official response already reveals, nevertheless, is a political system through which accountability is essentially outlined and administered by the chief relatively than enforced by means of public participation and democratic management.
For the bereaved households, the central questions stay unanswered. Why have been residents’ repeated warnings ignored? Why was political accountability assigned to at least one minister whereas others remained in workplace? What can residents do after they think about the federal government’s solutions insufficient?
Political accountability requires greater than the willingness of these in energy to acknowledge errors and impose penalties of their selecting. It relies on the power of the general public to demand explanations, problem official selections, and train affect over those that govern them.
In Hong Kong, the chief govt can resolve which officers ought to resign, which ought to stay, and when the administration ought to transfer ahead. The individuals who suffered the results of its failures have few choices to demand a unique consequence. That imbalance lies on the coronary heart of Hong Kong’s accountability downside, and no quantity of official contrition or administrative reform can resolve it by itself.