Buy Crypto Markets Spot FuturesGOLD Earn Event Center

TRAGEDY. People look on near the Wang Fuk Court housing complex following the deadly fire on Wednesday, in Tai Po, Hong Kong, China December 1, 2025.TRAGEDY. People look on near the Wang Fuk Court housing complex following the deadly fire on Wednesday, in Tai Po, Hong Kong, China December 1, 2025.

Hong Kong fire came after contractor safety breaches and a residents’ revolt

Author: Rappler

Source: Rappler

2025/12/06 15:09

8 min read

PEOPLE$0.006486-6.50%

NEAR$1.2234-4.07%

TAI$0.01666-5.66%

For feedback or concerns regarding this content, please contact us at crypto.news@mexc.com

Homeowners at the complex destroyed in one of Hong Kong’s deadliest fires were incorrectly told the contractor that authorities blame for the blaze had a clean safety record, documents viewed by Reuters show.

Residents were given the assurances by Will Power Architects, which was retained by their homeowners’ corporation to evaluate bids for a renovation contract, according to a PowerPoint presentation created by the consultant.

In fact, the contractor, Prestige Construction & Engineering Co., had been penalized by the city’s safety regulator more than a dozen times in the seven years before it was hired by the corporation to renovate the complex, according to the agency’s records, including for improperly installing scaffolding and faulty electrical connections.

The fines were issued for violations of an industrial-safety ordinance between 2016 and 2019, according to Labor Department records. Offenses under the code are typically prosecuted in a magistrate’s court.

This account of how Prestige won a HK$330 million ($42.4 million) renovation contract on Will Power’s recommendation, as well as the cascade of concerns about spiraling costs and fire hazards that followed, is based on interviews with two dozen people and a review of construction and regulatory records.

Residents, including some with experience in construction, repeatedly complained about workers smoking on-site and Prestige’s use of flammable material in places like the scaffolding. They also made an aborted effort to revoke the firm’s contract.

Reuters could not determine why Will Power wrote in the undated presentation created for the homeowners’ corporation that Prestige had “no record of being prosecuted by the Labour Department.” The news agency also could not establish whether the contractor disclosed the violations to Will Power or if it contested the penalties, though the records are only published online after any appeal has been exhausted.

Will Power and Prestige did not respond to calls and letters left at their shuttered offices seeking comment. Reuters could not establish if the firms had retained lawyers or ascertain their response to the investigations as no legal filings have been made.

Consultants are responsible for reviewing contractors’ bids, while contractors are required to not misrepresent or omit their safety record if asked, two construction industry experts told Reuters.

The work of the two firms is now subject to manslaughter and corruption investigations after the Nov. 26 blaze at Wang Fuk Court, which has claimed at least 159 lives and is the city’s deadliest since 1948. Authorities say parts of the mesh used by Prestige on the building scaffolding to catch debris did not meet fire-safety standards and foam boards used to protect windows during renovation were highly flammable.

The Labor Department acknowledges that it told residents who had raised concerns before the blaze that the mesh was certified as safe. Hong Kong’s deputy leader told reporters on Monday that contractors attempted to “fool” inspectors by mixing substandard material with high-quality mesh.

At least three people in charge of Prestige and four people from Will Power have been arrested in the investigations. Authorities have made more arrests as part of the probes, though the total number of people in custody is unclear and no charges have been announced. Law enforcement has not named the arrested people, as is customary in Hong Kong.

Wang Fuk Court consisted of eight government-subsidized housing towers built near a pier and industrial estate in northern Hong Kong. Its roughly 2,000 units – none larger than 500 square feet (46.45 square meters) – were owned by many blue-collar workers and senior citizens.

Hong Kong Police and the Labor Department, which enforces safety standards at industrial sites, did not respond to questions about their investigations and Prestige’s safety record. The labor agency told Reuters last week that it had informed homeowners last year that they faced “relatively low fire risks” after receiving repeated complaints about fire hazards, including the renovation mesh. However, it said that this did not mean the agency had ignored the risks, stressing that it had reminded Prestige to implement fire-prevention measures.

The Buildings Department, which sets guidelines on construction materials but is separate from the labor agency, referred Reuters to two documents it had sent to construction firms in October and November. The notices urged them to “take prompt action” in ensuring that construction materials like the mesh netting met fire-safety standards, but did not specifically reference foam boards.

Messages sent by Reuters to an adviser of the former leadership of the corporation seeking comment went unanswered.

Residents’ revolt

Hong Kong regulations require buildings that are more than 30 years old to undergo inspections and renovations at least once.

The work at Wang Fuk Court, which was built in the 1980s, entailed refurbishment of the exterior cladding, fixing fire safety features and replacing water pipes.

Prestige was hired after Will Power awarded its bid one of the highest grades among the 57 bids and said it had a spotless safety record.

Labor Department records reviewed by Reuters, however, show that Prestige had been fined a cumulative HK$309,000 ($39,700) for 15 workplace safety violations committed between September 2016 and June 2019. The agency did not respond when asked about Prestige’s record.

Separately, the Buildings Department ordered Prestige and an affiliated person to pay a total of HK$139,000 ($17,850) for “negligence or misconduct” and processing costs related to two projects from 2012 and 2014, records published in the government gazette in 2023 show. The agency also barred Prestige from performing certain projects for four months.

Problems with the renovation started becoming apparent in early 2024, when the approved total cost of the project more than doubled from the roughly HK$150 million ($19.3 million) presented during the bid as the scope of works expanded, according to minutes from a January 28 homeowners’ corporation meeting.

In Hong Kong, such corporations represent the owners of apartment units in overseeing the management and maintenance of an estate.

The next month, a resident submitted to the corporation’s management signatures of a number of homeowners, hoping to trigger a special meeting to replace the long-serving leadership and revoke Prestige’s contract.

Homeowners wanted to replace the leadership primarily due to concerns over how quickly Prestige wanted to be paid, the current head of the supervisory body of residents told Reuters. Meeting minutes also show residents repeatedly complained about “sky-high” costs and not being thoroughly consulted on the scope of works.

But the prior homeowners’ board questioned the validity of the signatures and warned that a “special meeting wastes time and money and damages relationships,” according to announcements published on the complex’s website.

The meeting was finally convened during a typhoon on September 6, 2024, seven months after the first request. More than 1,200 people braved the weather to attend the gathering that stretched until 11 p.m.

By the end of the evening, new leadership of the homeowners’ board had been installed.

Fire hazards

The new board ultimately did not revoke Prestige’s contract after being told by a lawyer the move would leave all owners legally liable, the minutes show, without specifying the risks.

The lawyer, Walter Tsui of WT Law Offices, confirmed he informed the owners of their potential liability but said he did not remember specifics. He told Reuters he was invited to the meeting by the new board and wasn’t representing any party: “I only gave my opinion when residents asked me about it.”

The new board immediately launched a review of the renovation project that included looking into fire-safety risks. It also mobilised volunteer teams of residents with experience in construction to help oversee the site, while collecting photographic evidence of possible breaches, videos posted to the corporation’s website show.

“Will there be any corner-cutting? Any violations of safety guidelines? Any lack of follow-up? Don’t worry – our supervisory taskforce will keep a close watch,” the homeowners’ corporation said in a video on the complex’s website.

Despite the new team’s efforts, which included a September 2024 meeting with Prestige at which it was asked to explain the safety of some of its materials, some residents still felt they had to take matters into their own hands.

Retired electrician and plumber Wong, the subject of a widely circulated Reuters photograph that showed him in despair as Wang Fuk Court burned behind him with his wife trapped inside, ripped out foam boards covering his windows and replaced them with fire-retardant plastic film, his son told Reuters.

Wong also regularly sprayed water onto the mesh outside his flat to keep it moist, said his son, J Wong, who like his father declined to give his full name.

“Despite knowing the risks, no matter what he did, he couldn’t change what happened,” J Wong said. – Rappler.com

Market Opportunity

ConstitutionDAO Price(PEOPLE)

$0.006486

$0.006486$0.006486

-0.47%

USD

ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE) Live Price Chart

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact crypto.news@mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.