Fire in Hong Kong :
Governance Failures Amid Democratic Erosion

On 26 November, a five-alarm fire at the Wang Fuk Court apartment complex in Tai Po District in Hong Kong has claimed more than a hundred lives. The exact death toll has yet to be confirmed. We thank the international community for your kind words and the press for your extensive coverage. This fire was a tragedy, but not an accident. It was a man-made disaster. It was a consequence of gross negligence, political interference, and scientific misinformation. 

This article aims to discuss its possible causes:

• Fire alarm and hose

• Foam board

• Green mesh

• Corruption and systemic failure

• Dismantling of civil society

It concludes with subsequent political events, including a government crackdown on concerned citizens.

Possible causes

Fire alarm and hose

Several residents and security guards complained that the fire alarm and fire hose were turned off to facilitate access by workers. 

Foam board

According to the construction contractor’s documents published on the Owners’ Corporation website, to prevent scratches during the works, the workers were instructed to board up all of the windows with foam boards. 

As seen in the following photo, some of the windows are still covered in partially burnt foam boards, but most of the windows were broken (due to the high burning temperature of the plastic foam board?).

Tests by the Housing Bureau confirmed that these foam boards (samples of which were taken from the unaffected building) were inflammable.

Green mesh

According to the Buildings Department, the green mesh passed an inflammability test in November 2024. However, the fire retardant on the green mesh can wear out, and thus must be tested monthly, according to the Chairman of the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union. It has yet to be known if the mesh had been tested regularly or changed throughout the past year. 

Secretary for Security Chris Tang initially told the media that preliminary testing showed the protective mesh had passed fire resistance assessments. After more samples had been collected from multiple locations, including those not easily accessible, it was found that many did not pass fire safety tests. Tang had to reverse his earlier statement and said those early results “were not consistent with the observations of firefighters on the scene, experts and even citizens”. He added that samples that were easier to reach had a higher chance of passing the fire resistance tests.

Scapegoating the bamboo scaffolding

After the fire, the HK Government has reiterated its commitment made in March 2025 to phase out bamboo scaffolding, claiming it is a fire hazard. This claim has been spread by various Chinese and International media. However, we doubt if it is the main cause of the rapid escalation of the fire.

In the photo below showing the aftermath, the bamboo scaffoldings are somehow still standing around the buildings. Whilst the third building from the left is apparently the most darkened amongst all, the silhouette of the bamboo scaffolding can still be seen. This photo is just an example. There are many more aftermath photos of the buildings. We urge the press to verify claims based on visual evidence as well as scientific evidence, i.e. the burning temperature of bamboo and how this temperature was achieved to ignite the bamboo in the first place. 

A legacy of Hong Kong, an object of fascination to the modern world, bamboo scaffolding looks exotic. It is very tempting for the international media to put the blame on bamboo scaffolding and move on, rather than tackling the systemic cause of the tragedy. Having appreciated that bamboo does not burn off like matchsticks, the focus of media discussion should be on the things that actually burned out and why they were used, i.e., green mesh, and foam boards.

In fact, back in March 2025, the main concern stated by the government for the bamboo phase-out was the safety of the workers during its assembly and disassembly, as it obviously requires more skills compared with metal scaffolding. The discussion revolved around the assembly safety and costs of the bamboo and metal scaffoldings, rather than their fire safety.

Corruption and systemic failure

On 28 November, Tai Kung Pao, a Chinese mouthpiece newspaper in Hong Kong, did a (rare) scoop on the alleged corruption scandal — the winner of the tender allegedly coerced the other bidders to withdraw. Ironically, the article itself was withdrawn from Tai Kung Pao’s website the next day, probably for being too critical.

Back in 2024, Many owners declared a proxy war on the president of the Owners’ Corporation of the Estate. They were first surprised by the astronomical price tag for the exterior renovation of the ageing buildings. It amounted to 330 million HKD (37 million euros). Some concerned owners suspected corruption, as the most expensive bid was chosen as the tender winner. The affair was reported in July 2024 by TVB. Some owners demanded to be observers of an Owners’ Corporation meeting. They were not allowed in.

In August 2024, District Councillor Peggy Wong, who was then a consultant for the Owners’ Corporation, posted a note on Facebook accusing an opposition party member of spreading « evil disinformation » about the tendering process and reaffirmed her support to the president of the Owners’ Corporation. 

In September 2024, the president was voted out of the Owners’ Corporation during an extraordinary general assembly. Councillor Wong immediately resigned as a consultant. The extent of her involvement in the matter is yet to be revealed.

As seen, all 8 buildings of the housing were wrapped in scaffoldings. However, works were not carried out simultaneously on all 8 buildings, but only one at a time. Such arrangement is unusual as more materials are required to erect and maintain 8 sets of scaffoldings over a longer period of time than one by one. 

Since July 2024, the Labour Department has conducted 16 inspections at this construction site. The last time was on 20 November in response to a complaint about workers smoking on the scaffolding. The inspectors issued a written warning regarding smoking and fire safety. The other instances were related to labour safety, resulting in 3 fines, and 6 written "reminders".

Dismantling of civil society

This tragedy could have probably been avoided if the civil society had not been dismantled by the authorities. In 2024, the only high-profile whistleblower investigating this case (amongst other similar cases) was Jason Poon. Over the past year, he visited the housing estate (amongst others) to obtain and test samples of the green mesh, which were found to be inflammable. Pro-establishment politicians refuted his claim and supported the Owners’ Corporations to proceed with the original bid selection. In response, Poon accused the construction industry and the pro-establishment political camp of collusion. In the end, he was sued for libel. Poon also criticised the Fire Department’s regulatory failure.

The only major media coverage of the suspected corruption of the Owners’ Corporation was a 15-minute segment of an infotainment programme, without any follow-up.

In the past, public scandals were discovered and pushed to the front page by local associations, unions and political parties. The 2015 heavy metal water contamination scandal was discovered by the major opposition parties, including the now-disbanded Democratic Party. They organised a series of press conferences and raised the issue in the Legislative Council. The government had no choice but to acknowledge and handle the scandal.

Subsequent development

The government’s corruption watchdog (Independent Commission Against Corruption, ICAC) has opened an investigation and arrested several people.

On 29 November, a concerned citizen was arrested for handing out flyers and starting an online petition for a public inquiry, amongst other demands. The HK National Security Bureau condemned all “subversions under the pretext of this fire”. He was charged with incitation. 

On 2 December, Hong Kong's Chief Executive John Lee announced the creation of an "independent committee" to carry out a "review to reform the building works system and prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future". This however appears to differ from establishing independent inquiries through the "Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance (Cap. 86)" which grants such commissions the legal status of judicial proceedings, with powers to summon witnesses, collect evidence, and issue reports.

It remains unclear whether the proposed "independent committee" will operate under Cap. 86 with full statutory enforcement powers, or merely as a non-statutory review body lacking such authority—potentially allowing systemic issues to be downplayed over time.

This affair could be a litmus test of Hong Kong’s rule of law and judiciary independence, measured by various indicators:

• Whether the "independent committee" proposed by the Hong Kong government will have statutory powers granted by law, or whether it will simply be a non-statutory body without enforcement powers.

• The profiles of the people arrested and charges (how high up they probe)

• The government’s view and action on the volunteering effort at the Estate

• Commemoration events

• Government response to whistleblowers

May this tragedy never be forgotten and teach us a valuable lesson.