The traumatic memories of Hong Kong’s deadliest high-rise inferno are being revived as an
independent review of the November tragedy gets down to business. The harrowing details of the blaze presented in the first few public hearing sessions are disturbing as are the contributing human factors and systemic failures identified. The rigorous fact-finding process should continue with full support from all parties concerned so that lessons are learned and reforms are undertaken to tackle an array of deep-seated fire safety and building management issues.
The
six human factors that are said to have led to the almost total failure of fire safety measures at Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po are not news given the extensive media coverage on the disaster over the past four months. But it must be asked why little had been done to tackle them over the years. The problems ranged from the use of combustible scaffolding mesh in renovation work to the deactivation of fire alarms and the removal of fireproof staircase windows.
A government-appointed review committee heard that multiple failures virtually left residents with no protection when flames engulfed seven of eight blocks in the subsidised residential estate on November 26 and killed 168 people. Some survivors
testifying in the hearings recalled how smoke invaded their flats without any alarm and said they regretted fleeing without alerting and helping more neighbours to escape.
Equally disturbing are the regulatory gaps and alleged abuses surrounding the estate’s HK$336 million (US$43 million) renovation project at the time. The Labour Department, Fire Services Department and the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit have all insisted that checking the fireproof quality of materials was not their responsibility, revealing a grey zone in supervision that also leaves other ageing buildings under renovation vulnerable. Allegations of
bid rigging and advance notices before inspections have raised questions over monitoring and enforcement, though the government has
dismissed claims of collusion over inspections.
The public is not entirely surprised by the defensive narratives and fragmented accountability from the parties concerned. But it is imperative for them to face their responsibility squarely and come clean on inadequacies and failures. That is precisely why the independent review must be allowed to run its course, methodically and transparently. This is an important process where uncomfortable truths are exposed, systemic failures identified and the responsible held accountable. Only by confronting the problems and reforming systems can we truly do justice to the victims and survivors, and protect public safety.
