Hong Kong university expels student who called for Wang Fuk Court fire accountability

Kwan’s expulsion marks a significant moment in the ongoing erosion of civil liberties and academic freedom within Hong Kong, particularly in the wake of the stringent National Security Law (NSL) imposed by Beijing in 2020. His case highlights the increasing pressure on universities to conform to official narratives and to discipline students who engage in activities deemed politically sensitive by the authorities.

The catalyst for Kwan’s initial entanglement with the law and subsequent university disciplinary action was his activism following the devastating fire at Wang Fuk Court, a high-rise public housing estate, in November of the previous year. This blaze, which tragically killed 168 people, stands as the world’s deadliest residential building fire since 1980, sending shockwaves through a city known for its dense urban environment and, historically, its robust safety standards. Public outcry immediately followed, with many questioning the structural integrity of the buildings, the efficacy of fire safety protocols, and the overall oversight by government agencies.

In the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, Kwan emerged as a vocal proponent for transparency and accountability. He, along with others, organized and distributed flyers across the city, demanding an independent investigation into the fire. The flyers specifically called for government officials to be held accountable, an independent probe into potential corruption within the construction and oversight sectors, proper resettlement and compensation for displaced residents, and a comprehensive review of construction and safety regulations. Such calls for independent scrutiny are not uncommon in democratic societies but have become increasingly perilous in Hong Kong since the implementation of the NSL.

It was these actions that led to Kwan’s detention by Hong Kong’s national security police. He was held for two nights under suspicion of "seditious intent," a broad charge frequently invoked under the NSL to target critics of the government. The concept of "seditious intent" has been widely criticized by international human rights organizations and legal experts for its vague definition, which allows for a wide interpretation that can stifle legitimate dissent and freedom of expression. Kwan’s arrest underscored the chilling effect of the NSL, demonstrating that even advocacy on public safety issues could be reinterpreted as a threat to national security.

Following his release on bail, Kwan’s academic institution, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, initiated its own disciplinary review. The case was subsequently referred to a student discipline committee, a body tasked with adjudicating alleged breaches of university regulations. According to a letter from the university obtained by AFP, the committee made the decision on Thursday, February 12, to terminate his studies.

CUHK, in a statement released on Friday, maintained its policy of not commenting on individual cases, but it did confirm its disciplinary framework. The university stated that a student who accumulates three demerits due to disciplinary actions may face termination from studies. Kwan, however, vehemently disputes the university’s rationale, asserting that his expulsion is a direct consequence of his activism and a calculated move to silence dissent.

Kwan clarified that the university’s disciplinary action was not directly linked to his arrest in November last year for "seditious intent." Instead, he recounted receiving demerits for a series of incidents that, when viewed collectively, paint a picture of escalating tensions between the student and the university administration. Among these, he stated, was a demerit incurred for referring to the disciplinary committee as a "kangaroo panel" and a "disgrace" during the review process, a comment that reflects his perception of the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings.

Another significant factor in his disciplinary record, Kwan explained, was a charge of "criminal damage" in 2023. This charge stemmed from his actions in 2022 when he placed stickers on lampposts to mark the anniversary of the Tiananmen crackdown. The annual commemoration of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre has historically been a cornerstone of Hong Kong’s unique civic identity and its commitment to freedoms distinct from mainland China. However, under the NSL, such commemorations have been increasingly suppressed, with public memorials dismantled and activists facing prosecution. Kwan’s involvement in marking this sensitive anniversary, even through seemingly minor acts like placing stickers, thus placed him in direct conflict with the authorities’ efforts to control historical narratives and public memory.

For Kwan, who had completed his studies and was poised to receive his graduation certificate in March, the expulsion feels like a betrayal and a desperate attempt to delegitimize his efforts. "It is shameful of CUHK to use graduation certificates to suppress its former students," he declared in a powerful statement. "You can take away qualifications, but you can’t take away dignity." His words resonate with many in Hong Kong who feel their voices are being systematically stifled and their rights curtailed.

The Chinese University of Hong Kong has long been regarded as a crucible of academic freedom and a hub for student activism, particularly during the 2019 pro-democracy protests. Its campuses were often sites of confrontation between student protesters and police, and the university historically fostered an environment where critical thinking and political engagement were encouraged. However, in the post-NSL era, Hong Kong’s universities, including CUHK, have faced immense pressure from Beijing and the local government to align with the new political realities. This pressure has manifested in various ways, including changes in curriculum, the removal of politically sensitive materials, and increased scrutiny of student and faculty activities.

Kwan’s case is not an isolated incident. Across Hong Kong, universities have been observed to take more stringent disciplinary actions against students and faculty involved in activism or expressing dissenting views. Critics argue that these institutions, once bastions of intellectual independence, are now succumbing to political pressure, thereby undermining their core mission of fostering critical thought and open discourse. The "three demerits" policy, while seemingly procedural, can be wielded as a powerful tool to remove students whose actions or expressions are deemed undesirable by the administration or, by extension, the authorities. The lack of transparency in individual cases, while a standard university practice, further fuels suspicions that political motivations might underpin such disciplinary decisions.

The broader context of Hong Kong’s political landscape is crucial to understanding the gravity of Kwan’s expulsion. The National Security Law, enacted without local legislative debate, targets acts of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces. Its broad scope and severe penalties have fundamentally altered Hong Kong’s legal and political environment, leading to the arrests of hundreds of pro-democracy activists, politicians, journalists, and students. The law has effectively criminalized many forms of peaceful protest and dissent that were previously protected under the "One Country, Two Systems" framework, which promised Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy and specific freedoms until at least 2047.

International observers and human rights organizations have consistently expressed alarm over the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong. They view cases like Miles Kwan’s as stark illustrations of the shrinking space for civil society and the judiciary’s increasing alignment with mainland China’s authoritarian system. The incident also sends a powerful deterrent message to other students and young people in Hong Kong, suggesting that civic engagement, even on issues of public safety, carries significant personal and academic risks.

As for the deadly fire that triggered Kwan’s activism, the Chinese city’s authorities have indeed formed a judge-led "independent committee" to investigate the fatal blaze. However, the perceived independence and effectiveness of such government-appointed bodies have often been questioned by the public, particularly when compared to the truly independent commissions of inquiry that were once a hallmark of Hong Kong’s governance. The public’s desire for genuine accountability, free from political interference, remains a contentious issue.

Miles Kwan’s expulsion from CUHK serves as a poignant microcosm of the profound changes sweeping through Hong Kong. It highlights the increasingly precarious position of student activists, the challenges to academic freedom, and the broader struggle for the city’s identity and its promised autonomy. His defiance in the face of academic termination – "You can take away qualifications, but you can’t take away dignity" – underscores the enduring spirit of resistance, even as the avenues for expression become narrower and the personal costs higher. The long-term implications for Hong Kong’s educational institutions, its civil society, and its youth will undoubtedly continue to unfold in the years to come.