Resilience over rumors: Hong Kong's path to healing

Editor's note: Fu Haizheng, a special commentator for CGTN, is the Executive Dean of the Institute for Barrier-Free Communication, Communication University of China. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The devastating fire that struck a residential block in Hong Kong recently was, at its core, a human tragedy. Lives were lost, families shattered, and a community forced into mourning. In any society, such a moment calls for unity, compassion, and serious reflection – not sensationalism.

Yet even before recovery efforts had fully begun, some external commentaries chose to seize this painful event as an opportunity to advance pre-set political narratives. This is not responsible reporting. It is narrative manipulation that ignores complexity, disrespects the suffering of survivors, and undermines sincere efforts to respond.

The line between scrutiny and smearing

Public scrutiny is a vital part of governance. It is both natural and necessary to ask hard questions in the wake of a disaster: Were safety standards enforced? Were warning signs missed? How can future risks be reduced?

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government has not evaded these questions. Institutions have initiated reviews and committed to follow-up action. Citizens, media and civil society have all demanded transparency and accountability – and rightly so.

But when critique turns into blanket condemnation, when commentary begins not with facts but with fixed conclusions, it stops being scrutiny. It becomes a form of rhetorical opportunism. In this case, what should have been a moment of collective grief and solidarity was, in some narratives, reduced to yet another vehicle for reinforcing long-held biases about Hong Kong's governance and the framework of "one country, two systems."

The harm of unverified claims

In parallel with such commentary, unverified claims and speculation have gained traction in online spaces. These narratives, often untethered from facts, risk deepening pain rather than alleviating it. For survivors and front-line responders – firefighters, medical workers, social services staff, volunteers – being cast as pawns in a cynical system compounds the trauma of the event itself.

Calls for accountability should not come at the cost of accuracy. It is one thing to demand clarity on policies. It is another to amplify half-truths that misrepresent ongoing efforts and mislead global audiences. In moments of crisis, words can help communities heal – or they can harm. They must be chosen carefully.

A broader picture of solidarity

Beyond the noise, another story has unfolded inside Hong Kong – a quieter story of resilience. Emergency teams responded swiftly. Community organizations and citizens mobilized to support displaced families. Temporary shelters were opened, counselling provided, and daily necessities delivered. Many Hong Kong citizens, regardless of background, stepped forward to offer assistance.

These actions reflect a social fabric that remains intact. They are a reminder that amidst grief, solidarity endures – not just among officials or institutions, but among ordinary people. Hong Kong's ability to unite in adversity is not a slogan. It is visible, tangible, and real.

The value of institutional response

Institutional response matters. The HKSAR government, under pressure and scrutiny, has moved to address urgent needs while laying the groundwork for longer-term solutions. Mechanisms for review and accountability have been triggered. Relief measures have been deployed across agencies.

Crucially, all of this takes place within the constitutional framework of "one country, two systems." The model is not merely a political arrangement; it enables Hong Kong to manage its affairs with a high degree of autonomy while drawing support from the wider national framework when necessary. In times of crisis, this framework supports both rapid response and sustained recovery.

A call for responsible commentary

To observe, analyze, and even critique Hong Kong's governance is fair. But to weaponize human suffering for rhetorical gain is not. Commentary that begins with assumptions and ends with reaffirming those same assumptions, regardless of reality, is intellectually dishonest and ethically questionable.

Responsible international commentary should begin with facts, reflect the full picture, and remain grounded in empathy. That means recognizing both what went wrong, and what has been done right. It means acknowledging the pain, but also the progress.

Let Hong Kong breathe

At stake is more than just Hong Kong's image. What is needed now is space – for survivors to recover, for institutions to correct shortcomings, and for society to reflect and rebuild.

Let Hong Kong grieve. Let it rebuild. Let it do so in truth – not in the shadow of rumors, but in the strength of resilience.

Let us not forget that Hong Kong is not just a symbol in international discourse – it is a living, breathing city, home to over seven million people who face challenges, adapt, and persevere. In moments like this, what the city needs is not condescension cloaked as concern, nor narratives imposed from afar, but solidarity grounded in truth and respect.

Let those who observe do so honestly. Let those who speak do so responsibly. And above all, let Hong Kong be seen for what it is: not a passive subject of endless commentary, but a resilient society determined to heal, learn and move forward – on its own terms, and with quiet strength that deserves recognition, not distortion.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)