The administrator of the fire-ravaged Wang Fuk Court has said it will seek to extend the statutory deadline for holding a homeowners’ meeting, citing the need for more time to verify owners’ signatures and find a suitable venue.

In a letter to Wang Fuk Court flat owners on Wednesday afternoon, Hop On Management confirmed that on April 29, the company had received a requisition for a general meeting from Wang Fuk Court homeowners.

The company is currently seeking legal advice and will also apply to the Lands Tribunal to extend the statutory deadline for holding the meeting, it added.

The Chinese-language letter was issued exactly one week after a group of homeowners published a statement, saying that they had delivered a petition to Hop On on April 29, requesting a general meeting with the property management firm.

The petition collected 247 handwritten signatures – more than 12 per cent of households at Wang Fuk Court.

Hong Kong’s Building Management Ordinance requires 5 per cent of all homeowners to call a general meeting. Upon receiving such a requisition, the management committee should issue notice of the meeting within 14 days and hold the general meeting with owners within 45 days, according to the ordinance.

Wednesday was the deadline to issue a notice for the homeowners’ meeting. It is unclear whether Hop On has made an application for an extension.

In the letter, the management company also said it would need extra time to verify the signatures of each homeowner, citing previous owners’ meetings that were embroiled in controversies about proxy votes and statutory quorums.

Hop On will conduct searches at the Land Registry to verify the owner of each unit, compare their signatures against the samples kept in the owners’ existing property records, and request signatories to present their Hong Kong identity cards in person to verify their identities.

If the requisition is signed in the capacity of an Administrator of Estate or an Executor, Hop On will review copies of the relevant Letters of Administration or Grant of Probate to verify the legal authorisation to act on behalf of the deceased owner.

The company said it would also need time to find “a suitable venue capable of accommodating at least 1,000 people and of hosting a continuous six-hour meeting.”

Speaking to HKFP on the condition of anonymity, a Wang Fuk Court homeowner who signed the petition accused Hop On of working too slowly and unprofessionally.

He also questioned why Hop On did not announce the decision to delay the meeting and the procedures to verify the signatures during the Zoom briefing session on Tuesday.

“Today is the deadline [for issuing notice of a meeting]. Why didn’t they talk with us about this yesterday?” he said. “I think Hop On should understand more about its role – it is a management company to serve homeowners.”

‘Sincere communication’

Hop On Management was appointed by the government in early January to act as administrator of Wang Fuk Court after the Lands Tribunal dissolved the owners’ board of the Tai Po residential estate in the wake of the deadly fire.

The company, a subsidiary of real estate giant Chinachem Group, said its work as administrator is pro bono.

Hop On also said on Wednesday that it would maintain “sincere communication” with homeowners.

“As the administrator, Hop On’s responsibility is to represent and serve all owners of Wang Fuk Court, rather than communicating only with a portion of owners or specific individuals,” the company said.

Displaced homeowners, who are scattered across Hong Kong following the deadly fire, have urged Hop On to call a general meeting, but to no avail.

Earlier this year, the company rejected the demand to hold a meeting after more than 430 homeowners signed an online petition.

After being criticised for lacking direct communication with the residents, Hop On set up a website to facilitate communication in early February.

On a sprawling promenade in West Kowloon, a gay choir lit up the stage with a chorus of harmonies. Children listened attentively at a storytelling session led by a drag queen dressed in pink from top to bottom.

Around them, dozens of tents representing LGBTQ-friendly NGOs promoted their services and ran mini games. 

These were scenes from Hong Kong’s largest LGBTQ event, Pink Dot, when it was last held in September 2024. The event attracted thousands of people, including families with young kids.

Since then, the annual outdoor carnival, which aims to celebrate diversity, has been axed for two consecutive years, including the one scheduled for this month.

The organisers announced the cancellation on May 18, around five weeks after they said Pink Dot would take place at Stanley Plaza and Murray House in mid-June, coinciding with Pride Month.

The event was also cancelled last year after the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (WKCDA) declined to rent its Art Park venue to the organisers, although it had done so for five years.

Pink Dot started in Singapore in 2009, and five years later, Hong Kong held its inaugural event. For the first two years – in 2014 and 2015 – the carnival was held at Tamar Park in Admiralty.

In later years, Pink Dot took place at Art Park – except during the 2019 protests and the pandemic restrictions between 2020 and 2022, when the organisers cancelled or moved the event indoors.

To hold a public event like Pink Dot, organisers must apply for a Temporary Places of Public Entertainment Licence from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD).

Brian Leung, co-director of Hong Kong’s Pink Dot, told HKFP in late May that Link REIT, the venue operator, had informed the organisers that it could not rent the site in June because it had heard of “problems” with the event’s licence application to the FEHD.

Leung said it was unclear how Link REIT heard there were “problems” with the event’s licence application. He was never aware that there was ever any problem.

“So far, I have received no official explanation,” Leung said in Cantonese. “As an organiser, I cannot guess [what happened].”

In response to HKFP’s enquiry, the FEHD said on May 21 that it received Pink Dot’s application in late April, but the event organisers told the department on May 18 that they had cancelled the event.

The applicant “said it would formally withdraw the application later, so the department does not have any follow-up,” the FEHD wrote in an email.

‘No political aims’

Pink Dot is not the only LGBTQ event that has encountered problems over the past year. The WKCDA axed a queer-themed play, We Are Gay, in October, nearly six weeks before it was set to open at the Xiqu Centre in the cultural district.

The following month, the Hong Kong Pride Committee – which used to hold the city’s Pride marches – called off an outdoor festival at Kwun Tong Promenade after the venue operator said the site was unavailable due to construction work. The last Pride march was held in 2018.

The cancellations have raised questions among LGBTQ activists about the future of holding events in Hong Kong.

“We do have concerns,” Leung said. “Does it mean that going forward, it will be very hard or impossible to find venues for events that are LGBTQ-related?”

In late July last year, Pink Dot’s organisers were forced to cancel – four weeks after the government released its proposed framework for a bill allowing same-sex partners to register their relationships. The bill was to comply with a Court of Final Appeal ruling in a lawsuit filed by LGBTQ activist Jimmy Sham.

Sham, a former district councillor, told HKFP that when Pink Dot was cancelled last year, he thought it might be because the timing was sensitive, citing the government’s attempt to pass the framework.

The bill was eventually voted down in the “patriots only” Legislative Council in September, with many lawmakers citing a need to “uphold” traditional Chinese family values.

See also: ‘It is scary to be LGBTQ+ in Hong Kong’: Over 10,700 submissions received for same-sex partnership bill consultation

“But now that it’s been cancelled for a second year, people don’t have any idea why,” Sham said in Cantonese.

Leung said he brought Pink Dot from Singapore – where the event is still held every year – to Hong Kong in 2014, seeing it as a family-friendly celebration of diversity.

At the time, Hong Kong had annual Pride parades, with different themes each year, such as “Call for the law, equality for all” and “Stand up for diversity.” It was an opportunity for LGBT groups and their allies, including pro-democracy lawmakers, to rally on the city’s streets, waving rainbow flags and chanting slogans.

Since the Covid-19 pandemic, the organisers of the Pride march have only held indoor events.

“I thought it would be good to have an event like Pink Dot, which is different in nature. The Pride marches had clear political aims, while Pink Dot is softer, with no political aims,” Leung said.

Shrinking LGBTQ space in mainland China

Restrictions on the LGBTQ community in mainland China, where advocacy groups have been forced to disband and queer content has been censored, are not lost on Hong Kong activists and academics.

Jamie Zhao, an assistant professor and scholar on queer media at the City University of Hong Kong, said the shrinking space for LGBT activism could not be separated from mainland authorities’ lack of tolerance for publicly disruptive and “rights-demanding” activities.

The official attitude towards the LGBTQ community is closely aligned with the country’s renewed emphasis on family values, marriage and fertility, Zhao told HKFP. Amid an ageing population and low birth rates, the Chinese government has been encouraging citizens to marry and have children.

See also: ‘Boys’ Love’ dramas dance around China’s LGBTQ censors

“Queer life can be framed as non-reproductive, individualistic, foreign-influenced, or insufficiently aligned with the future of the nation,” Zhao said.

However, Zhao said mainland authorities’ approach to the LGBT community could not be described as a total crackdown. The growth in gay and lesbian bars, “boys’ love” and “girls’ love” drama series, LGBTQ reality dating shows and other elements that make up the “pink economy,” the academic said, shows that “commercially useful queer-coded culture” is still allowed to exist.

John Burns, an honorary professor at the University of Hong Kong’s Department of Politics and Public Administration, also said the official stance on LGBT matters in mainland China was a mixed picture.

Despite restrictions, Chinese production companies are still making new “boys’ love” dramas to meet popular demand, and they have not been shut down by authorities, Burns said.

In any case, the scholar said he did not believe the Hong Kong government was attempting to ban LGBTQ communities from gathering, or that there had been any related directive from the central government.

“I don’t think the central government is micromanaging Hong Kong on [LGBTQ] issues. I think they’re more likely to be micromanaging Hong Kong on national security issues,” Burns told HKFP.

‘Greater risk of disorder’ outdoors

Since the Beijing-imposed national security law was passed in 2020, large-scale outdoor events like marches and rallies have all but dried up. Besides political protests, the city no longer sees marches on topics like labour issues and women’s rights as it used to. 

“If the real issue is that the police are worried about national security, and people exploiting the outdoor event for something that it wasn’t designed for, then [the Hong Kong government] should say so,” Burns said.

Former lawmaker Regina Ip, who leads the government’s advisory body, the Executive Council, told HKFP that police tend to think outdoor events carry a “greater risk of disorder.”

She pointed to the Gay Games opening ceremony in 2023, which “was held at the Queen Elizabeth Stadium and went very well.”

Hong Kong co-hosted the international sporting event with Mexico in 2023, welcoming participants from around the world. However, the Gay Games in the city, which did not receive government sponsorship, saw far less participation than originally expected.

Like last year, Pink Dot organisers are looking into holding a private indoor event that will be livestreamed to the public, Leung said.

Asked whether Pink Dot would consider moving its event indoors in the future, Leung expressed concerns that they would still face problems getting an entertainment licence.

To Zhao, the visibility of the LGBT community has become “politically more vulnerable” in recent years because of its association with the non-establishment camp.

“Many openly queer or queer-associated public figures were connected directly or indirectly to pro-democracy politics, civil society, activism or critical public discourse,” she said.

Zhao referred to singer Denise Ho, who came out publicly during the Pride parade in 2012 and has spoken out about her pro-democracy stance.

Many politicians who took part in Pride parades belong to the pro-democracy camp, such as Leung Kwok-hung, also known as “Long Hair”; Raymond Chan, the first openly gay lawmaker; and Sham, one of the openly LGBTQ district councillors elected in 2019.

Leung, Kwok, Chan, and Sham were among the 47 democrats charged in a landmark national security case involving a primary election in 2020, and among the 45 who were jailed.

Zhao said: “This close association between queer culture and civil society has made queer visibility in Hong Kong more politically charged than in many mainland commercial contexts.”

‘Big loss’

Despite Pink Dot’s cancellation, some local activists are still hopeful that an LGBTQ space exists for the community to gather and celebrate diversity.

Jerome Yau, co-founder of Hong Kong Marriage Equality and chief executive of AIDS Concern, pointed to the fact that an outdoor event marking International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia (IDAHOBIT) went ahead over a weekend in mid-May.

On May 16 and 17, various organisations – from NGOs to an LGBTQ-friendly church and a queer advocacy media outlet – set up street booths in the heart of the Causeway Bay shopping district. The same event was held last year.

Yau acknowledged that organisers of large-scale events in Hong Kong faced “growing challenges” nowadays, but said he saw “no evidence” that Link REIT was under pressure.

“Whatever those licensing issues may be, I hope there is more clarification,” he said.

Nick Lee, a lecturer at the Chinese University of Hong Kong’s Gender Studies Programme, however, said he felt it was possible that the venue operator did not experience direct pressure to refuse rental to Pink Dot organisers, but withdrew on its own accord out of an abundance of caution.

Still, Yau found it disappointing that Pink Dot could not be held for a second year in a row.

The event “had a good track record. It was a good sign that Hong Kong at the very least embraces diversity and inclusion,” he said.

“It’s obviously a big loss not just to the LGBTQ community, but to the whole of society.”

Two Hong Kong officials have condemned “groundless accusations” against a recent update to the city’s homegrown national security law, which empowers the chief executive to certify any criminal case as a national security offence.

Secretary for Security Chris Tang told the Legislative Council (LegCo) on Thursday afternoon that he noticed some people had misunderstood or “deliberately misinterpreted” the subsidiary legislation.

They tried to intimidate the public by claiming that the subsidiary law would widen the scope of national security offences, turning minor offences into national security crimes, he said.

The security chief called the accusations “false, misleading, deceptive, and scaremongering” and said some people were attempting to incite hatred towards the government.

“Some people delivered alarmist remarks, saying that the government can randomly certify any acts of the public as national security offences. Those people may have ulterior motives or are cruel-hearted, hoping to incite others’ hatred of the HKSAR,” Tang said in Cantonese.

Also speaking at LegCo, Secretary for Justice Paul Lam said he noticed “some media outlets with ulterior motives, foreign forces, and fugitives” had made “groundless accusations” against the national security law.

The two ministers delivered their remarks during LegCo’s first meeting to review the Safeguarding National Security (Procedural Matters) Regulation, a subsidiary legislation of the homegrown national security law, commonly known as Article 23.

Authorities enacted the subsidiary law through the “negative vetting” mechanism, which allows the law to be gazetted and to take effect before legislative scrutiny.

The law came into effect on Tuesday, one day after the government tabled the bill in LegCo.

Lam, the justice chief, said that the subsidiary legislation was necessary to further explain articles in the Beijing-imposed national security law and Article 23, which stipulate that the chief executive should have the power to determine whether a criminal case involves national security.

In its proposal, the government cited the “legislative intent” of the Beijing-imposed national security law, saying that offences endangering national security include not only the four types of offences under the national security law, but also “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR.”

Lam said the recent legislative update was intended to further define “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR,” and it did not introduce any new power or new offences.

Earlier on Tuesday, Chief Executive John Lee said the new subsidiary legislation “is purely to make the law even clearer.”

This blog is now closed

• Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast

Wong not ‘interested’ in One Nation’s fundraising

Wong says she isn’t concerned about One Nation’s fundraising efforts, but more about their policies. Pauline Hanson’s party says it has raised more than $1.5m in the last day, although those claims are unverified.

I’m less interested in what Pauline Hanson fundraises and am more concerned about One Nation’s policies. Just as I am concerned about the fact that the Liberal party and One Nation seem to be working together and that it appears to be very clearly that a vote for One Nation is actually a vote for the Liberal party, and a vote for the Liberal party is actually a vote for One Nation.

We’ve said for some time it’s obviously a fragile ceasefire, but we’ve also said that what Australia wants is a negotiated end to the war. That’s what we’re calling for, and that’s what we will continue to press for …

We’re not a central player in the Middle East, as we have said. What we can do is add our voice to others who are calling for a negotiated end to the conflict. It’s obviously one of the things we discuss today with the United Kingdom.