A month after a terrible fire consumed seven large apartment buildings of Wang Fuk Court in the Tai Po district of Hong Kong, a fire that occurred after the government more or less ignored residents’ repeated warnings about safety problems, Hongkongers are still being stopped from expressing their criticisms or even sympathy for the deceased (NHK World Japan, December 26, 2025).
People in Hong Kong on Friday remembered the victims of a massive high-rise fire one month ago that left 161 people dead [likely a huge undercount]. But authorities are tightening control amid growing calls for accountability over the disaster.
People offered flowers at a park near the disaster site.
A local who lost four friends in the blaze said the incident was heartbreaking. She expressed anger, saying the fire could have been prevented….
All the messages for the victims that covered benches and pillars in the park have been removed.
Authorities have been tightening control to contain criticism of the government. A university student was arrested after calling for signatures to a petition to uncover the truth behind the disaster. A memorial event that was being organized by university student societies has been canceled.
I’m not sure we can say that the Hong Kong authorities are “tightening” controls that went into effect immediately after the disaster.
Could the fire have been prevented? The New York Times adds its investigation to the others saying yes. The Hong Kong government required renovations that turned out to be hazardous and virtually ignored warnings (December 26, 2025).
Before the fire ripped through their homes and raged for two days, before it killed many of their neighbors and friends, residents of the Wang Fuk Court estate spent years warning Hong Kong officials about a renovation project they feared was becoming dangerous.
The government had ordered repairs on the eight aging towers in the complex. But residents complained they were paying extortionate sums for shoddy work that used flammable materials, and they suspected it was because a corrupt syndicate had taken over the project.
They told the authorities that the leaders of the owners’ board and the construction firms were acting at times against residents’ interests and safety. They told local news media that a politician was most likely working with the board’s leaders. At least one resident burned a piece of the polystyrene foam used in the renovation to show how easily it caught fire.
Their complaints led various government agencies to conduct inspections and to issue warnings, notices and citations to the contractor. But there were also mixed messages, and no one stepped in to address the dangers on the whole. In an email to residents, one official described the fire risk from netting on the scaffolding as “relatively low.”…
The Hong Kong authorities have long acknowledged corruption in the construction industry. Activists have warned that some companies inflate costs while using cheap materials. Those same practices went unchecked at Wang Fuk.
Residents’ emails and official statements suggest that multiple government agencies played down concerns, performed perfunctory inspections or relied on reassurances from contractors. Officials also missed other lapses, including fire alarms that failed in seven buildings.
Repairs that the government ordered in 2016 were “part of a citywide program requiring buildings more than 30 years old to undergo inspections and repairs.” The policy was a “boon for the construction industry” and “a breading ground for corruption” as residents ended up being charged for expensive materials but given cheap ones.
I say that the Hong Kong government “effectively ignored” repeated warnings about the problems at Wang Fuk Court because whatever it did in the way of inspections in response fell so far short of what was necessary that the inspections were the same as doing nothing.
Also see:
StoptheCCP.org: “Can Beijing Build Faster Than Its Projects Collapse?”
StoptheCCP.org: “Hong Kong Gov Claim of Fewer Than 200 Dead in Wang Fuk Court Fire Is Massive Underestimate”
