From Flying Chopstick on Substack, a long, academic-type piece, partly critiquing a starry-eyed guy called Perez who thinks China has invented a space-age new form of governance, but mainly examining how Hong Kong fits into China’s system of government, with reference to last year’s Tai Po fire….
…After the Wang Fuk Court fire, a student who organized a petition for an independent inquiry was detained by national security police and later expelled from university. Other people were charged over comments about the fire, the inquiry committee declined to seek statutory powers, and the national-security office reportedly summoned foreign outlets and accused their coverage of distortion.
Hong Kong still formally protects speech, publication, assembly, and demonstration under Article 27 of the Basic Law, the constitutional document that came into force at the 1997 handover. In practice, the limits are learned through examples: an arrest, an expulsion, a prosecution, a lost job, a frightened institution. A writer learns the boundary by watching someone else cross it.
That is a poor environment for the criticism a government needs after a disaster. It is also an unusually clear environment for understanding a political system’s priorities. The central question here is whether China’s governing model stays responsive to reality when reality contradicts the Party’s preferred account of itself. Wang Fuk Court offers a grim answer.
What follows is a detailed explanation of…
…what the city lost when it dismantled the institutions that made official negligence expensive.
And the dismantling could not be selective. A councillor making a fuss about fire nets was not threatening Party rule, and neither was a toothless opposition that could not choose the Chief Executive or govern the city. The problem was precisely that it kept raising a fuss. It talked back. It made ministers answer questions they did not want asked, put evasions into the public record, and declined the performance of deference Beijing expects before official authority. The councillor making a fuss about fire nets was attached to the layer Beijing feared, and both came out together. What replaced the ecosystem was not silence in an empty space. It was a positive prohibition. Under the National Security Law and the sedition provisions, public criticism of the government and the police now carries legal risk, civil servants and district councillors swear loyalty oaths, and the student who asked for [an empowered] inquiry was expelled…
…Wang Fuk Court shows the limit of a system that constrained the public mechanisms most able to expose an institutional failure, then channeled public horror toward a safer story about [bamboo] scaffolding.
(Perez’s piece is here, should you want it.)











