Independent journalist Gao Yu from mainland China revealed on her social media account that on December 8th, police officers visited her home for “interrogation record,” questioning her about two tweets she posted regarding the recent fire at the apartment complex in Hong Kong’s Tai Po district. In her posts, she raised questions about who is protecting Li Ka-chai. She believes that the police’s actions are aimed at shielding Li Ka-chai from accountability and acting as his protection umbrella.
Gao Yu posted about the incident around 6 pm on December 8th, stating that two police officers from Pingxi Police Station in Chaoyang District, Beijing, visited her home for “interrogation record” without legal procedures after she requested them to show their police identification. She mentioned that since it was a familiar police officer who brought them, she still accommodated their visit.
She disclosed that the questions mainly revolved around three aspects, including why she wrote two articles about the fire on the social media platform “X.” In response to their inquiries, she said, “With such a significant fire incident happening in Hong Kong causing heavy casualties, how can one not be concerned? Are we not Chinese if we don’t care?”
Regarding the source of her information, she replied that she gathered information from reports by major media outlets in Hong Kong and around the world, adding, “I haven’t watched CCTV (China Central Television) since the relevant authority cut off my broadband, landline, and mobile phone on August 26 last year. I have been unable to watch TV since then.” When asked further questions by the police, she mentioned that she posted her articles using a laptop at a hotel.
The police officers were particularly interested in a sentence in her writing that mentioned, “Bamboo scaffold stands tall amidst the fire.” Gao Yu explained, “This is a fact, supported by evidence and expert analysis. The Hong Kong government has not mentioned anything about the bamboo scaffolding catching fire.”
The police also focused on her statement about “the vested interests of the Li Ka-chai group, which are all the gains obtained by using armed police and the National Security Law to suppress the ‘anti-extradition bill’ movement.” Gao Yu elaborated that when referring to “the Li Ka-chai group,” she meant Li Ka-chai and his team. She highlighted that many democratic activists in Hong Kong currently detained in prisons are friends of Li Ka-chai. She questioned why Li Ka-chai, who became Chief Executive after suppressing the anti-extradition bill movement, shouldn’t be held accountable for the fire incident that occurred during his tenure.
Furthermore, she stated that citizens have put forward “four major demands.” She explained, “They demand the establishment of an independent investigation commission to thoroughly investigate potential interest transfers. They demand holding accountable government officials for regulatory neglect. Which of these demands is against the law? Instead of accepting them, he not only refused but also arrested a university student and a former councilor who initiated the petition, fabricating charges under the National Security Law. Isn’t this obstructing citizens from seeking accountability?”
Gao Yu expressed, “The fire was undoubtedly a man-made disaster, not a natural calamity. It was the government’s responsibility to maintain this community. Since last year, every household has been required to pay maintenance fees of tens of thousands each. Residents have repeatedly reported fire hazards since the start of the repair works last year, but no department paid attention. The root cause of the fire has been confirmed – the safety net was of poor quality and non-fire-resistant, using flammable foam boards to block glass windows. With so many institutional loopholes and extensive corruption, if this isn’t a man-made disaster, then what is?”
She mentioned that the interrogation record was three pages long, and she only signed the first page, refusing to sign the following two pages concerning questions related to the Hong Kong fire. She issued a statement to the police, stating, “Your actions are aimed at protecting Li Ka-chai from accountability. I perceive it as the continuation of Beijing’s Fu Zhenghua acting as Li Ka-chai’s protection umbrella.” She demanded the police to note this in the records.
Looking into Gao Yu’s posts on December 3 on platform “X,” she shared articles titled “Over the Next 7 Days after the Tai Po Fire: A Battle of Public Opinion,” divided into two parts. She mentioned how Liu Hong, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Xinhua News Agency, and Director of the Social Media Communication Center, “Niu Dan Qin,” were the first to suggest that the mainland had fully replaced bamboo scaffolding with metal, while Hong Kong was still using bamboo.
Additionally, her posts mentioned how on December 3, a French journalist questioned Li Ka-chai at a press conference about his qualifications to retain the position of Chief Executive. Gao Yu’s articles described Li Ka-chai’s evasion of the question and emphasized that the “four major demands” were the only correct way to address the Tai Po fire. She argued that by accepting the citizens’ demands, not only would the shady dealings between Li Ka-chai’s officials and businesspeople be exposed, but he would also be held accountable. Thus, he used the National Security Law to convict the signatories, which she described as a new form of political persecution.
In conclusion, she summarized in her article, “Li Ka-chai’s actions can only further crush the values of independence, freedom, and rights awareness held by the people of Hong Kong, eroding their confidence and making the city worse off.”