A student who petitioned for answers about 160 deaths was arrested under Article 23. That is what Hong Kong has become.
Editorial: 160 Dead, and the Government Arrested the Petitioner
On November 26, 2025, a fire broke out in the Wang Fuk Court housing estate in Tai Po, a government-subsidised residential complex undergoing renovation. The blaze engulfed seven of the eight residential towers. Firefighters took more than 43 hours to largely extinguish it. At least 160 people were killed — the most lethal fire in Hong Kong since 1948. Six more remained unaccounted for. It was a catastrophe on a scale that would, in any functional democracy, trigger immediate demands for accountability: an independent inquiry, scrutiny of the renovation contractor, examination of building safety standards, and questions about whether government negligence or corruption had contributed to the death toll.
In Hong Kong in November 2025, it triggered something different. Two days after the fire, university student Miles Kwan and his friends created a petition with four demands: government accountability, an independent probe into possible corruption, proper settlement for displaced residents, and a review of construction safety standards. On November 29, one day after launching the petition, Kwan was arrested on suspicion of sedition under Article 23.
Beijing’s Warning: No Anti-China Disruptors Allowed
Beijing’s national security office made its response to the tragedy explicit almost immediately. It warned against what it called anti-China disruptors who would try to co-opt the tragedy to incite resentment against the Hong Kong government. The framing is revealing. In Beijing’s construction of reality, citizens who demand accountability for mass death are not exercising legitimate democratic rights. They are disruptors acting against the state. The state, in this view, owes no accounting to the people who live in its housing estates and die in its fires.
Article 23 defines sedition broadly enough to encompass speech that incites hatred against the government — a standard that, applied consistently, would make virtually any criticism of official conduct following a mass-casualty disaster into a criminal act. Asking why 160 people died in a government housing estate. Suggesting that an independent inquiry might produce different findings than an internal government review. Demanding that displaced residents receive proper compensation. These are not subversive acts. They are the most basic functions of civic life in a democratic society. In Hong Kong in 2025, they were enough to warrant arrest.
A Pattern of Suppressed Accountability
Kwan was not the only person arrested in the aftermath of the Tai Po fire. Hong Kong Free Press reported that those arrested in November over fire-related posts included a university student, a former district councillor, and an elderly man. A YouTube commentator named Wong Kwok-ngon was separately arrested in December 2025 for discussing the fire in videos — charged with sedition for making clips allegedly intended to incite hatred against the central government and Hong Kong authorities. He became the first person charged under Article 23 for divulging details of a national security investigation — after he apparently disclosed that police had questioned him about his videos on the fire.
The democratic mechanisms that would normally respond to a disaster of this scale have been systematically eliminated. The journalist who might investigate the renovation contractor has been driven out of the profession or the country. The district councillor who might organise residents exists only in pro-Beijing form. The opposition legislator who might demand a parliamentary inquiry was eliminated by the 2021 electoral overhaul. Power in Hong Kong now answers only to Beijing — not to the people in the towers that burned.
What the World Owes Miles Kwan
Miles Kwan is a university student who watched 160 people die in a housing fire and decided to ask four reasonable questions. He was arrested for that. His case is not primarily a story about press freedom or political opposition — it is a story about something more fundamental: the right of citizens to demand that their government answer for its failures. Without that right, government is not administration. It is domination. The Amnesty International assessment of Article 23 provides the legal context. The Human Rights Watch 2026 World Report on Hong Kong documents the systemic pattern. The democratic world should know Miles Kwan’s name. And it should demand that asking four questions about 160 deaths is not — and never can be — sedition.
The Arrests That Keep Happening
In December 2025, YouTube commentator Wong Kwok-ngon became the first person charged under Article 23 for divulging details of a national security investigation — after he discussed police questioning in videos about the Tai Po fire. He was simultaneously charged with sedition for making clips allegedly intended to incite hatred against the central and Hong Kong authorities. His case illustrates the self-reinforcing nature of Article 23 enforcement: discussing the fact that you were questioned by national security police about a national security matter is itself a national security offense. The legal architecture creates situations in which the only safe response to police questioning is silence — because speaking about the questioning constitutes a separate crime. This is the practical reality of living under a legal system designed not to pursue justice but to enforce compliance. Every prosecution under Article 23 sends the same message to every Hong Konger who witnesses it: the boundaries of permissible expression are undefined, unknowable, and enforced selectively by a government that requires not lawbreaking but submission. That is not the rule of law. It is the rule of fear.
Jessica Lam
Politics & Diaspora Affairs Journalist, Apple Daily UK
Contact: jessica.lam@appledaily.uk
Jessica Lam is a politics and diaspora affairs journalist with specialized expertise in Hong Kong governance, overseas Chinese communities, and democratic movements. Educated at a leading UK journalism institution, she received advanced training in political reporting, international law basics, and source protection, equipping her for complex cross-border coverage.
Jessica has worked with Apple Daily and other liberal Chinese publications, reporting on electoral systems, civic participation, protest movements, and policy developments affecting the Chinese diaspora. Her work demonstrates strong command of political context and an ability to translate complex issues into accessible, fact-driven journalism.
She brings real-world newsroom experience in covering time-sensitive political developments while maintaining strict verification standards. Jessica regularly works with primary documents, expert interviews, and multiple independent sources to ensure balanced and accurate reporting.
Her authority is reinforced by consistent publication within established news organizations and by adherence to editorial review processes. She is known for transparent attribution and for distinguishing clearly between reporting and analysis.
Jessica Lam’s journalism reflects professional experience, subject-matter expertise, and a strong ethical foundation. At Apple Daily UK, she contributes trusted political coverage that serves readers seeking independent and credible information.
