Claim that fire alarms would not have saved lives in Tai Po blaze draws rebuke

A claim that fire alarms would not have saved lives in the deadly Tai Po blaze has drawn sharp criticism from officials investigating the incident. The assertion came from legal representatives of a contractor involved in the renovation of the affected housing complex, sparking questions about their intent to deflect blame for the disaster that claimed 168 lives and displaced thousands. During a public inquiry into the November 26 fire at Wang Fuk Court, lawyer Aaron Chan Chi-lung, representing a director of fire service contractor China Status Development and Engineering, argued that even with functional fire alarms, residents would not have had enough time to escape. He stated that occupants of the first building to catch fire would have had less than 10 minutes to flee, regardless of early warnings. This statement was made as interested parties presented their final remarks to an independent committee examining the causes and circumstances surrounding the tragedy. The inquiry, which continues to unfold, has brought attention to broader issues within the construction sector. The Urban Renewal Authority and the Competition Commission have proposed measures aimed at curbing anti-competitive practices, such as criminalizing bid-rigging and enhancing oversight of tender processes. These recommendations come amid growing scrutiny over the conditions under which the renovation work was carried out at Wang Fuk Court. The fire, which raged for approximately 43 hours, was the most severe in Hong Kong since 1948. It engulfed all eight buildings at the Tai Po subsidized housing complex, which were undergoing a HK$336 million renovation. The structures were covered in bamboo scaffolding and mesh, materials that experts later identified as highly flammable. Additionally, fire safety systems were reportedly disabled during the renovation period, significantly increasing the risk of rapid fire spread. Prior investigations highlighted several critical failures that contributed to the severity of the fire. Among these were the use of combustible materials and the deactivation of essential fire prevention mechanisms. These factors allowed the flames to quickly move through seven of the eight residential blocks, trapping many residents inside with limited means of escape. As the inquiry progresses, focus remains on the roles played by various stakeholders, including contractors, regulatory bodies, and local authorities. Questions persist regarding the adequacy of safety protocols and the enforcement of regulations during the renovation process. The committee has been tasked with determining whether systemic lapses in oversight or negligence led to the preventable loss of life. The fire has prompted calls for sweeping reforms in the construction and fire safety sectors. Advocates argue that stricter regulations and more rigorous inspections could help prevent similar tragedies in the future. Meanwhile, families of victims continue to seek justice, demanding accountability from those responsible for the conditions that led to the disaster. The inquiry is expected to conclude with detailed findings and potential policy changes aimed at improving building safety standards. Until then, the community waits for clarity on what went wrong and who bears responsibility for the largest peacetime fire fatality in Hong Kong's history.