‘Not our responsibility’: Govt agencies deny accountability in HK’s deadly fire

HONG KONG – Government agencies lacked communication and fell short of their duties, contributing to Hong Kong’s deadliest disaster in decades, a public inquiry into the Nov 26 Wang Fuk Court fire has heard.

At the third round of evidential hearings that closed on April 30, the independent committee investigating the tragedy in Tai Po district saw officers from different government enforcement agencies pointing fingers at one another. They were debating their organisations’ roles in preventing bid-rigging and regulating the materials used in the city’s building renovations.

A fourth round will be held from May 6 to 8. Proceedings beyond that have yet to be announced.

The fire at seven of the eight blocks of flats at Wang Fuk Court that were undergoing extensive renovation killed 168 people and left nearly 5,000 homeless.

On April 30 – the 21st session of the hearings since the probe opened on March 19 – three witnesses from the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) argued that it was “not (their) responsibility” to prevent bid-rigging.

Complaints to URA by a Wang Fuk Court resident before the fire about the housing complex’s renovation contractor Prestige Construction’s previous safety convictions fell on deaf ears, with the URA replying simply that the matter “should be referred to the relevant authorities”, the inquiry heard.

Asked by the committee’s lead counsel Victor Dawes why the URA did not direct the matter to the correct authority – the Buildings Department – or even name the department in its response, the witness said there was no formal referral mechanism between the agencies.

“I don’t think it’s difficult (for the residents) to realise they should go to the Buildings Department,” Mr Matthew Chan, a URA case manager handling Wang Fuk Court’s renovation tenders, said. He added that with the URA receiving more than 10,000 tenders annually, it did not have the resources to scrutinise every bid in detail.

Both the URA and Buildings Department come under the Development Bureau’s purview.

When the fire struck Wang Fuk Court on Nov 26, 2025, fire alarms in all eight towers failed to go off, preventing residents from evacuating. Substandard green mesh encasing the buildings’ exterior and flammable styrofoam boards affixed to the windows outside the flats caused the fire’s rapid spread, the authorities found.

The project’s contractor, Prestige, was later revealed to have a long record of safety offences, having been convicted 140 times since it started operations in 2004.

Law enforcers are investigating if fraud was committed in the tender process. Prestige was the priciest of 57 bids for the job, and its criminal record was omitted in an evaluation report.

On April 27, a Buildings Department official, Ms Karen Cheung, testified that using styrofoam to cover unit windows and wooden boards to replace fireproof panels at escape staircases during renovations was “inappropriate” and against the law.

But she argued that Wang Fuk Court was not her department’s responsibility as government-built structures fall under the Housing Bureau’s remit instead.

In earlier hearings, a surveyor with the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit had also denied it was their role to regulate the use of styrofoam on the buildings’ external walls.

The Fire Services Department told residents at least twice before the fire that the styrofoam problem fell “beyond its ambit” as well.

In her April 27 testimony, Ms Cheung revealed that the Buildings Department relied solely on certificates submitted by contractors to assess the standard of the scaffolding mesh used.

The department did not conduct on-site inspections or mesh flammability tests, and lacked a system to verify the authenticity of the fire certificates, she disclosed.

Residents were also called on to testify at the hearings.

“There were so many warning signs, and the enforcement agencies failed in their duties,” Wang Fuk Court resident Jason Kong told the inquiry on April 20.

Mr Kong said reports he made to the authorities about the renovations’ fire risks were all shrugged off, including about the possibility that the scaffolding mesh was substandard. “I urged the agencies to follow up,” he said. “If they had done so earlier, the blaze could have been averted… I did what I could possibly have done.”

Prior to the April hearings, the inquiry had in March heard about the disregard for fire safety issues displayed by the private contractors engaged for maintenance and renovation works at Wang Fuk Court.

Senior Counsel Dawes said on the first day of the hearings that human factors rendered ineffective almost all of the housing estate’s fire safety measures.

As the latest hearings now expose the extent of the communication breakdown and regulatory gaps among government agencies, the fire department said it would launch a new system to handle fire safety cases in buildings.

Cases that fall beyond its purview will be referred to the most appropriate agencies for follow-up or escalated to senior management for cross-departmental coordination, it said after a hearing on April 22.

The Security Bureau has also proposed legal amendments to improve oversight of fire safety issues, introducing updated regulations and harsher penalties for those who violate them.

Meanwhile, the authorities are extending their Wang Fuk Court buyout plan to include the estate’s sole block unaffected in the fire, if 75 per cent of their owners agree to sell their flats.

The plan would allow the home owners to relocate without worrying about their property value dropping due to the disaster. The government can also redevelop the area surrounding the entire estate.

The independent committee, led by Judge David Lok, is expected to complete its investigations into the deadly fire around September.

Law enforcement agencies have already rounded up dozens of people in separate criminal and corruption investigations into the incident.