US “Sing Tao Chinese Radio” “Current Affairs Observation” by Yu Fei Video: Who is to Blame for the Hong Fu Court Century Fire Tragedy? Starting the Investigation from the Fire’s “Prequel”. Wednesday 12/03/2025 美國《星島中文電台》「時事觀察」余非視頻: 宏福苑世紀大火慘劇誰之過？由火災「前傳」開始查找. 星期三 12/03/2025
https://youtu.be/XikPbXSup6M?si=q9wNV6irIBfFydXY 👈
Dong Zhang Xi Wang | Tai Po Hong Fu Court Five-Alarm Fire | Past “Dong Zhang” Report on “330 Million” Sky-High Maintenance Costs Becomes Focus Again | Hong Fu Court, Five-Alarm Fire, Major Maintenance 東張西望｜大埔宏福苑五級火 《東張》過往報導「3.3億」天價大維修再成焦點｜宏福苑, 五級火, 大維修
https://youtu.be/ARoG3tVkxcc?si=hfotIgBFWJPgeXvl 👈
本集節目要談已經成為國際新聞的香港宏福苑世紀大火。慘劇令多國領袖，甚至教宗也公開向遇難者致哀。節目播出前，相信大家已聽過、讀過不少火災訊息，但是仍然想分享我的角度。我所用的盡量是可靠媒體的報道，不是網上的傳聞。重要連結都會附上。一切以日後更新的資料為準。總之，整個社會極需要一個公開、透明的調查過程，讓大家了解真實的細節，從而不用錯判禍因、搞錯焦點、做錯批評。大眾關心此事，只是想知道真相。
自11月26日2時多起火開始，我便全天候跟蹤情況，本集節目的重點不是談救火現場當時的情況，主要由事件的「前傳」開始談起，再由前傳連上今日這個結局。
對宏福苑的認識，回溯至一年前。經過2023年的激烈爭議，於2024年1月，當時的業主立案法團通過了總值高達3億3千萬港元的維修工程方案。費用由8座1984戶攤分，每戶需要承擔16至18萬。而方案通過的過程中，有居民向傳媒表示存在很多奇奇怪怪的操作。稍後再多談幾句，當中涉及當時的黃姓區議員。事實上大部份居民都不認同天價維修方案。只是他們輸了給有強大操作力量的另一方。值得注意的是，居民由始至終都沒有停止過發聲和爭取。他們如何爭取，用文字或口頭交代未必有力，就在五級火發生的第二日、2025年11月27日，TVB《東張西望》於2024年6月份拍了一集宏福苑事件。此片現在重新上架，在Youtube可重溫。這條視頻十分有價值，會附上連結。2024年中，就是天價維修工程方案被通過半年之後，工程 6月開工，6月就要繳款。而何時收款，如何個收法？當時的業主立案法團鄧主席沒有諮詢居民。2024年6月3日居民突然收到繳款通知書，六期費用要在7個半月內繳清。工程預計需時約24個月，即是居民要在工程未完成的中期已交出足數。付款通知書更寫明，如居民遲交，會「承擔遲交或欠交大廈維修工程分攤費用而引致法團損失之一切責任或費用」。
這個付款速度令不少屋苑業主感到很困難。他們知道六月中法團有會議，於是就打算出席，在會上表達訴求；他們同時報了《東張西望》。就是因為當天有《東張西望》跟拍情況，並重新上架，我們才有機會親眼看看當時的情況。居民有太多的不明白。最直接的不明白是為何未完工前便要全數繳清費用， 承建商爛尾或「走路」怎辦？此外，居民付款到賬的獨立戶口，其利息怎用、怎計算、怎管？他們通通不知細節。而更奇怪是開工前才接獲承建商通知，原先報價用的紙皮石已不再生產，要改用「瓦仔石」。根據公契，外牆飾面不得更改，否則需業主大會投票決定。然而，在沒有召開業主大會之下，已被拍板改用「瓦仔石」，並於6月 16 日拜神開工，開始搭棚。業主擔心，物料差異將影響市建局批出的資助金額。總之他們有很多疑問，《東張西望》跟拍了當晚業主立案法團不理會業主們要求開會的要求。法團竟然可以漠視業主與會旁聽，自行關上門來開會，確也令人十分驚訝。在東張鏡頭下，居民打着傘拍門拍窗要求內進的畫面，連上今天的結果，令人心內鬱悶。
其他詳情不細數了。只想強調——打從2023要揀選維修方案時開始，居民如發現問題便出來爭取。只是剛才提過稍後再談的那位當時是法團顧問，同時是該區區議員的黃姓議員，在他們的成功操作下，令方案順利獲得通過。據受訪市民反映，黃議員借洗樓訪問街坊之便，手握了不少長者的授權票，導致2024年1月的天價維修工程方案被通過 。而之後那大半年，居民也在發現問題時便站出來，這才會有《東張西望》的跟拍。 上過東張後，業主立案法團在付款安排上有所改動，由6月即開始繳付，延至7月31日才繳納第一期；時限上也由六個月付清，延長至十個半月內繳清。而再之後，有居民根據《建築物管理條例》發起聯署；根據條例規定，只要有超過 5% 業主聯署，業主立案法團主席便必須在收到要求後 14 日內宣佈召開特別業主大會，並在收到要求後 45 天內舉行該大會。聯署信於去年、2024年7 月 5 日交到業主立案法團手上，但是之後一直音信杳無。7月23日，部份業主商討或需入稟土地審裁處。而業主立案法團便嚇他們，入稟者需要承擔訟費，個人資料也會被公開。總之，一輪鬥爭與角力，可以想像要上班的工薪階層業主有多辛苦。終於在兩個月後的2024年9月份，鄧主席被逼召開特別業主大會。在會上以大比數罷免了在任逾10年的鄧主席，並選出新一屆的法團代表。當天還有很多曲折，在此不細數了。只可惜，因為合約已於2024年1月簽妥，而且已動工兩個月，新法團接手也只能重新檢視現有條款，以及監管進度和工程質量。反圍標大聯盟發起人曾介入事件、為居民提供意見。他說，新業主立案法團有把關，還因為嚴肅處理居民投訴而把表現不佳的一個判頭辭退了。我回溯至一年前，補充上述訊息，旨在點出在有問題的業主立案法團條例下，在不容易防止業主立案法團搞操縱或圍標之下，這群居民已盡了最大的努力。關於香港業主立案法團條例的問題，現在不岔開了，直播有時間再談。
以下談第二點觀察。換了新業主立案法團後，居民的命數就交在新業主立案法團及更加重要的——負責專業巡查的政府部門手上。新的業主立案法團有做事 ，但很明顯專業性要靠政府監管。而遇到施工問題時，原來居民曾向有關部門投訴，連警方也報備了。由今天的結果回頭看，過程中他們求助無門，沒有人、沒有部門伸出有力的援手。
火災發生後，勞工及福利局局長孫玉菡說，對宏福苑維修工程的巡查，最後一次是11月20日，火警前一星期。當時針對防火問題已作出書面提醒，要求加強防火，主要因為收到投訴說有工人吸煙。而孫玉菡表示，自2024年7月開工起，勞工處曾作出16次巡查，重點是職安健檢查；也曾發出6張敦促改善通知書，並作出3宗檢控，主要跟高空工作有關。又指去年10月開工初時已查閱房屋局提供的棚網測試報告，顯示有用阻燃網。又表示去年、2024年11月巡查時，負責註冊檢驗的人員和承建商有在現場抽樣用火燃點棚網物料，當時並未發現助燃情況。然而，在漂亮的程序數字面前，有人重提 2024年9至10月間的一件事。原來當時有居民向多個部門發電郵查問圍網防火事宜，他在2024年10月5日將勞工處的書面回覆放了上ＦＢ「宏福苑居民交流群組」。
發帖的居民署名「Chung Man Lau」，他附上了勞工處的回信。回信稱「一直有跟進該地盤的工作安全」，並稱棚網作用為限制物件墮下的範圍，保護人們免受墮下的物料、工具和廢料擊中；又稱處方表示「根據現時勞工處所執行適用於建築地盤的安全條例中，並沒有涵蓋關於棚網或任何物料的阻燃標準」，「該維修工程並不需要在竹棚架上進行熱工序、使用明火或易燃物品等等，而地盤內亦有提供合適的滅火設施。因此，棚網發生火災的風險相對為低」。但是今天出了大事之後，勞工處對傳媒又另有一套說法。表示現行《竹棚架安全工作守則》訂明棚架上的保護網需具備阻燃特性，並需符合認可標準的要求。雖然《竹棚守則》並非法例，但具有特殊的法律地位；如不遵從守則，在刑事訴訟中 會被列為入罪元素之一。不過， 一切俱往爾，沒有回頭路。2024年9至10月，政府相關部門錯過了承擔阻止悲劇發生的責任。
數一次上面的情況，是再一次讓大家知道，宏福苑居民發現不妥當之後有投訴，有發聲，有向政府不同部門舉報；甚至一如開始時所說，警也報了。只可惜，仍然走不出今天的結局。至於鄧炳強局長早前在未有獨立調查報告之下，在記者會肯定圍網是合格的，有待追問數據何來。因為當晚有看直播的我以及眾多市民，橫看豎看，也看不出那些化為烏有的棚網是阻燃網。現時有不少照片反映，竹棚架大部份都很完整，但圍網除沒有起火的那一棟，其餘七座的圍網也被燒得八九成也灰飛煙滅。究竟圍網只是文件上合格，抑或是合格之中又混入了大量不合格的，一切有待進一步調查，且耐心等待。回頭說巡查，圍網要燒過才知真假，可是對專業消防局及勞工部門，以及相關負責巡查的專業人員而言，整棟大廈的窗戶都貼上發泡膠，是肉眼可見的，何以相關專業巡查人沒有發現危機，並提出警告會易燃？
節目時間有限，本集旨在點出，將世紀火災回帶，會發現是在層層有法不依，又或者有人失職，乃至有條例不合理之下，令事情走到今天這一步。這場大災難，曝露出體制上的眾多弊病。宏福苑是火災，其實香港的水災水患也害慘了很多人。我所指的水災水患不是洪水，是指「樓上漏水」。原來即使報了滲水辦，報了警，甚麼都報了，仍然有很大機會幫不上忙。令解決樓上漏水這家庭災難成為《東張西望》一個吸引收視的新節目。
究竟，在香港，有多少負責監管的部門其實無人認真做監管工作，有多少部門是設立了，卻可能尸位素餐。經常上《東張西望》的各種滲水個案是零散、個人化的個案，就算數量大、為害深也不起眼。於是政府各部門就漏水問題的無能為力，不會有人注意。而宏福苑慘劇除了死傷者數目太多之外，那個畫面也太震撼了——七棟高樓同時燃燒是極不尋常的畫面。也因此，事件衝出香港，引來國際注目。事情發展到這地步，會在引人注意之下造成輿論壓力，從而令大眾深挖災難背後的深層成因。而政府在多方面的管治缺憾，因火災慘劇被推到台前、被檢視。
在經濟下行的大環境下，打政府工薪高糧準；而立法會議員也已經由60人擴容至90人！很希望在如此優厚的條件下，香港的內部治理能力能交出一份亮麗的成績。
最後一個觀察是做節目的這一刻，有傳媒表示立法會換屆選舉很大機會如期進行。而宏福苑慘劇，據現時資料反映，黃姓議員同時是業主立案法團顧問這雙重身份，被懷疑是有可能促成天價維修工程合約的助力之一。街坊的說法有待黃議員作更詳細的交待以正視聽。跳開黃議員這個人、這件事，不談她了。然而由她的傳聞，難免令人聯想起政治和商業利益的關係。在沒有了反對派之下的香港，未來的政治，以及多了這麼多議員的新生態，會在香港發展為一個怎麼樣的局面，值得關注！宏福苑這場悲劇，勾出了好多值得跟進的，關乎整體管治的線頭。
節目結束前做總結：談宏福苑慘劇，我兼及世紀火災的「前傳」。知道前傳的大概，才更有能力判斷如何看待整件事。最大的感受是，這群居民有為自己的危險不斷向外求救！他們不是「懵盛盛」（愚蒙）的一群人。總之，是制度上，政府管治上……，諸如此類的缺失，令這群可憐的、曾經反抗的羔羊照樣被宰殺。此次死得很無辜的，最新消息還包括起碼10名印傭和菲傭，以及5名做維修的工人。據報其中一位是工頭，是返回火場叫其他工友撤離時被燒死。整場火災是非一般地沉重的悲劇，不應該不清不楚地含糊帶過。也因此，令我決定在哀悼之中同時查找災難真相，會繼續密切跟進。期待有一個高層階的獨立調查委員會，令更多資訊可以向大眾公開公佈。
香港有不少大廈都有類似的結構和情況，而且都是住了幾十年，需要逐一維修。要把這次悲劇的根源、不足查找清楚，是為將來發生同類事故的機會清零。
US “Sing Tao Chinese Radio” “Current Affairs Observation” by Yu Fei Video: Who is to Blame for the Hong Fu Court Century Fire Tragedy? Starting the Investigation from the Fire’s “Prequel”. Wednesday 12/01/2025
https://youtu.be/XikPbXSup6M?si=q9wNV6irIBfFydXY 👈
Dong Zhang Xi Wang | Tai Po Hong Fu Court Five-Alarm Fire | Past “Dong Zhang” Report on “330 Million” Sky-High Maintenance Costs Becomes Focus Again | Hong Fu Court, Five-Alarm Fire, Major Maintenance
https://youtu.be/ARoG3tVkxcc?si=hfotIgBFWJPgeXvl 👈
This episode discusses the Hong Kong Hong Fu Court century fire, which has now become international news. The tragedy led to public condolences from leaders of multiple countries and even the Pope. Before this program airs, I believe everyone has already heard or read a lot of information about the fire, but I still want to share my perspective. I will use reports from reliable media as much as possible, not online rumors. Important links will be attached. Everything is subject to updates based on later information. In short, the entire society urgently needs an open and transparent investigation process to understand the true details, so as not to misjudge the cause of the disaster, focus on the wrong issues, or make incorrect criticisms. The public cares about this matter simply to know the truth.
Since the fire started around 2 AM on November 26th, I have been following the situation around the clock. The focus of this episode is not on the situation at the fire scene during the rescue, but rather starts from the “prequel” of the incident, connecting it to today’s outcome.
My understanding of Hong Fu Court dates back a year. After intense controversy in 2023, in January 2024, the then Owners’ Incorporation passed a maintenance project plan with a total cost as high as HK$330 million. The cost was to be shared by 1,984 households across 8 blocks, each needing to bear HK$160,000 to 180,000. During the process of passing the plan, some residents told the media that there were many strange operations involved. I will talk more about this later, as it involves a then-sitting District Councilor surnamed Wong. In fact, most residents did not agree with the sky-high maintenance plan. They simply lost to another party with strong operational power. It is worth noting that the residents never stopped speaking out and fighting for their rights. How they fought might not be effectively conveyed in writing or verbally. However, on the second day after the five-alarm fire, November 27, 2025, TVB’s “Dong Zhang Xi Wang” re-uploaded an episode filmed in June 2024 about the Hong Fu Court incident, which is now available for review on YouTube. This video is very valuable, and a link will be provided. In mid-2024, six months after the sky-high maintenance plan was passed, the project started in June, and payment was due in June. But when were payments collected, and how? The then Chairman of the Owners’ Incorporation, Mr. Tang, did not consult the residents. On June 3, 2024, residents suddenly received payment notices, requiring them to pay six installments in full within seven and a half months. The project was expected to take about 24 months, meaning residents had to pay the full amount before the project was even halfway completed. The payment notice also stated that residents who paid late would “bear all responsibilities or costs incurred by the Incorporation due to late payment or non-payment of the maintenance cost share.”
This payment schedule made many homeowners in the estate feel it was very difficult. Knowing there was an Incorporation meeting in mid-June, they planned to attend to express their demands; they also reported the issue to “Dong Zhang Xi Wang.” It is because “Dong Zhang Xi Wang” filmed the situation that day and re-uploaded it that we have the chance to see what happened firsthand. The residents had too many questions. The most direct one was why they had to pay in full before the work was completed—what if the contractor abandoned the project or disappeared? Furthermore, how would the interest on the funds in the independent account for payments be used, calculated, and managed? They knew none of the details. Even stranger, they were only notified by the contractor before construction started that the mosaic tiles used in the original quote were no longer produced and had to be replaced with “wa zai shi” (a type of tile). According to the Deed of Mutual Covenant, the exterior wall finish could not be changed without a vote at an owners’ meeting. However, without convening an owners’ meeting, the switch to “wa zai shi” was approved, and work began with a ceremony on June 16th, starting to erect scaffolding. Homeowners were worried that material differences would affect the subsidy amount approved by the Urban Renewal Authority. In short, they had many questions. “Dong Zhang Xi Wang” filmed the scene that night when the Owners’ Incorporation ignored the owners’ request to hold a meeting. It was also shocking that the Incorporation could disregard the owners’ wish to attend as observers and simply close the door to hold their meeting. Under “Dong Zhang’s” lens, the scene of residents knocking on doors and windows with umbrellas, demanding entry, connected to today’s outcome, is deeply depressing.
Other details won’t be enumerated. I just want to emphasize—starting from the selection of the maintenance plan in 2023, residents came forward to fight whenever they found problems. However, with the successful maneuvering by the then-District Councilor surnamed Wong, who was also an advisor to the Incorporation (mentioned earlier and to be discussed more later), the plan was smoothly passed. According to interviewed residents, Councilor Wong, taking advantage of visiting households to canvass opinions, held proxy votes from many elderly residents, leading to the passage of the sky-high maintenance plan in January 2024. In the following half year, residents also stood up whenever they found problems, which is why “Dong Zhang Xi Wang” followed up. After appearing on “Dong Zhang,” the Owners’ Incorporation made changes to the payment arrangement, delaying the first payment from June to July 31st; the deadline was also extended from six months to ten and a half months. Later, some residents initiated a petition according to the “Building Management Ordinance.” The ordinance stipulates that as long as more than 5% of owners sign the petition, the Chairman of the Owners’ Incorporation must announce the convening of a special owners’ meeting within 14 days of receiving the request and hold the meeting within 45 days. The petition letter was delivered to the Owners’ Incorporation on July 5, 2024, but there was no response afterwards. On July 23rd, some owners discussed possibly filing a case with the Lands Tribunal. The Incorporation then threatened them, saying those who file cases would have to bear legal costs and their personal information would be made public. In short, after a round of struggle and contention, one can imagine how hard it was for salaried homeowners who have to work. Finally, in September 2024, two months later, Chairman Tang was forced to convene a special owners’ meeting. At the meeting, Chairman Tang, who had been in office for over 10 years, was removed by a large majority, and a new set of Incorporation representatives was elected. There were many twists and turns that day, which won’t be detailed here. Unfortunately, because the contract was already signed in January 2024 and work had already begun for two months, the new Incorporation could only re-examine the existing terms and supervise the progress and quality. A founder of the Anti-Bid-Rigging Alliance intervened in the incident to provide advice to residents. He said the new Owners’ Incorporation did guard the gate and even dismissed an underperforming subcontractor due to seriously handling residents’ complaints. I traced back to a year ago to supplement the above information, aiming to point out that under the problematic Owners’ Incorporation Ordinance, where it’s not easy to prevent the Incorporation from manipulation or bid-rigging, these residents had already done their utmost. The problems with Hong Kong’s Owners’ Incorporation Ordinance won’t be diverged into now; maybe discussed later if there’s time during the live stream.
Now for the second observation. After the new Owners’ Incorporation took over, the residents’ fate was in the hands of the new Incorporation and, more importantly, the government departments responsible for professional inspections. The new Owners’ Incorporation did work, but clearly, professionalism relies on government supervision. And when encountering construction problems, it turned out residents had complained to relevant departments and even reported to the police. Looking back from today’s outcome, during the process, they had nowhere to turn for help; no person, no department offered strong assistance.
After the fire, Secretary for Labour and Welfare Chris Sun said the last inspection of the Hong Fu Court maintenance project was on November 20th, a week before the fire. Written reminders regarding fire prevention had been issued, requiring enhanced measures, mainly because complaints were received about workers smoking. Sun stated that since the project started in July 2024, the Labour Department had conducted 16 inspections, focusing on occupational safety and health; it had also issued 6 improvement notices and made 3 prosecutions, mainly related to work at height. He also said that in October last year, at the start of the project, they reviewed the scaffolding net test reports provided by the Housing Bureau, which showed flame-retardant nets were used. He further stated that during the inspection in November 2024, registered inspection personnel and the contractor were on-site sampling and testing the scaffolding net material with fire, and no combustion-supporting situation was found at that time. However, in the face of these impressive procedural numbers, someone brought up an incident between September and October 2024. It turned out that a resident had emailed multiple departments inquiring about the fire prevention of the surrounding nets. On October 5, 2024, he posted the Labour Department’s written reply on the Facebook group “Hong Fu Court Residents Exchange Group.”
The resident posting署名 “Chung Man Lau” attached the Labour Department’s reply. The reply stated that they “have been following up on the work safety of the site” and that the scaffolding nets serve to limit the range of falling objects, protecting people from being hit by falling materials, tools, and debris; it also said the Department indicated “under the current safety regulations enforced by the Labour Department applicable to construction sites, there are no provisions covering the flame-retardant standards of scaffolding nets or any materials,” and that “this maintenance project does not require hot work, use of open flames, or flammable materials on the bamboo scaffolding, etc., and the site also has suitable fire-fighting facilities. Therefore, the risk of fire in the scaffolding nets is relatively low.” But after today’s major incident, the Labour Department had a different story for the media. It stated that the current “Code of Practice for Safety of Bamboo Scaffolds” stipulates that protective nets on scaffolding must possess flame-retardant characteristics and meet the requirements of recognized standards. Although the “Bamboo Scaffold Code” is not legislation, it has special legal status; non-compliance with the code can be used as an element of conviction in criminal proceedings. However, all that is in the past now, with no way back. In September-October 2024, the relevant government departments missed the opportunity to take responsibility for preventing the tragedy.
Recounting the above situation is to let everyone know once again that after discovering irregularities, Hong Fu Court residents complained, spoke out, and reported to various government departments; even, as mentioned at the beginning, they reported to the police. Unfortunately, they still could not escape today’s outcome. As for Secretary for Security Tang Ping-keung previously affirming at a press conference, without an independent investigation report, that the surrounding nets were qualified, the source of that data awaits questioning. Because those of us who watched the live broadcast that night, along with many citizens, couldn’t see how those nets that turned to ashes were flame-retardant. Currently, many photos show that most of the bamboo scaffolding remains largely intact, but the surrounding nets on the other seven blocks, except the one not on fire, were 80-90% burned to ashes. Whether the nets were only qualified on paper, or qualified ones were mixed with a large amount of unqualified ones, all awaits further investigation. We must be patient. Returning to the inspections, the nets’ true nature is revealed only after burning, but for professional Fire Services and Labour Departments, as well as relevant inspection personnel, the fact that the windows of the entire building were covered with foam board was visible to the naked eye. Why didn’t the relevant professional inspectors spot the fire hazard and warn that it was flammable?
Program time is limited. This episode aims to point out that rewinding the century fire reveals that it reached today’s stage through layers of laws not being followed, or someone’s dereliction of duty, or even unreasonable regulations. This major disaster exposes numerous systemic flaws. Hong Fu Court is a fire, but Hong Kong’s “water disasters and flooding” have also caused great suffering to many. I’m not referring to floods, but “upstairs water leakage.” It turns out that even after reporting to the Joint Office for Water Seepage, reporting to the police, reporting everything, there’s still a high chance it won’t help. Making solving the family disaster of upstairs water leakage a new show that attracts ratings for “Dong Zhang Xi Wang.”
How many departments in Hong Kong responsible for supervision actually have no one seriously doing the supervisory work? How many departments are established but may be filled with incompetent individuals? The various water seepage cases frequently featured on “Dong Zhang Xi Wang” are scattered, individual cases; even if the quantity is large and the harm deep, they are inconspicuous. Therefore, the government departments’ inability to deal with water leakage issues goes unnoticed. The Hong Fu Court tragedy, besides the high number of casualties, the scene was too shocking—seven high-rise buildings burning simultaneously is an extremely unusual sight. Hence, the incident broke out of Hong Kong, attracting international attention. Having reached this point, the resulting public attention creates舆论 pressure, leading the public to dig deeper into the underlying causes of the disaster. And the government’s governance shortcomings in many aspects are pushed to the forefront and examined due to the fire tragedy.
In the current economic downturn, government jobs offer high and stable salaries; and Legislative Council members have already expanded from 60 to 90! I sincerely hope that under such favorable conditions, Hong Kong’s internal governance capability can deliver an outstanding report card.
The last observation is that at the moment of producing this program, some media report that the Legislative Council换届 election is very likely to proceed as scheduled. Regarding the Hong Fu Court tragedy, according to current information, the dual identity of District Councilor Wong as both a councilor and an advisor to the Owners’ Incorporation is suspected to be one of the factors that might have facilitated the sky-high maintenance contract. The residents’ accounts await Councilor Wong’s more detailed explanation to set the record straight. Setting aside Councilor Wong the person and the matter, let’s not talk about her. However, from the rumors about her, it’s hard not to think about the relationship between politics and commercial interests. In a Hong Kong without the opposition, the future of politics, and the new ecosystem with so many more councilors, what kind of situation will develop in Hong Kong? It deserves attention! The Hong Fu Court tragedy has pulled out many threads worth following up on, relating to overall governance.
Before ending the program, a summary: Discussing the Hong Fu Court tragedy, I also covered the “prequel” of the century fire. Knowing the general prequel gives us better ability to judge how to view the entire incident. The biggest feeling is that these residents kept crying out for help regarding their danger! They are not a group of ignorant people. In short, it’s due to systemic, governmental governance… such deficiencies that these可怜, once-resisting lambs were still slaughtered. Among those who died very innocently, the latest news includes at least 10 Indonesian and Filipino domestic helpers and 5 maintenance workers. It’s reported one of them was a foreman who died after returning to the fire scene to call other workers to evacuate. The entire fire is an exceptionally沉重 tragedy and should not be vaguely glossed over. Therefore, I decided to, while mourning, also investigate the truth of the disaster and will continue to follow closely. I look forward to a high-level independent investigation commission that will allow more information to be公开 announced to the public.
Many buildings in Hong Kong have similar structures and situations, and having been inhabited for decades, they require maintenance one by one. To thoroughly investigate the root causes and shortcomings of this tragedy is to reduce the chance of similar incidents happening in the future to zero.
Business Blog 