Virginia Lee says measures to be taken form a coherent framework for institutional renewal

At a news conference on Oct 29, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu led a collective public apology alongside seven principal officials following the release of the Independent Committee’s report into the Wang Fuk Court fire in Tai Po in November 2025; sweeping regulatory and administrative reform measures were announced. Highlighting the immediate stakes of political accountability, then-housing secretary Winnie Ho Wing-yin resigned that very same day. These developments matter beyond the handling of a single incident. They represent a broader attempt to address questions of accountability, governance, and institutional reform.

Imposing political accountability was not simply to sanction an individual. It was to reaffirm that responsibility within the special administrative region government is established through institutional mechanisms and is readily enforceable. Assigning responsibility, however, is only the beginning. The more important question is whether accountability can be translated into concrete action.

Against this backdrop, the government’s commitment to complete investigations into 40 to 50 civil servants from the four departments named in the inquiry report within three months is significant. A panel led by the head of the Public Service Commission has been tasked with determining any responsibility under the existing accountability framework. Possible outcomes range from reprimand and demotion to dismissal — while retired personnel may also face consequences — if misconduct is established. Equally important is setting a clear timetable. Promises could lose credibility if they are not linked to clear deadlines. By requiring conclusions within a fixed period, the government creates a measurable standard against which its commitment can be assessed.

READ MORE: HKSAR unveils reforms after Tai Po fire inquiry

Accountability, however, addresses the past. Reform determines the future. The inquiry concluded that the problems revealed by the Wang Fuk Court fire did not result from a single individual’s negligence. Rather, they reflected structural weaknesses that had accumulated over many years. Inspections had been conducted, reports had been submitted, and documentation existed. Yet regulatory deficiencies remained. The issue was not a lack of action but the failure to integrate multiple layers of oversight into a coherent, effective governance system.

Replacing the Independent Checking Unit with a Public Housing Building Control Section reflects an effort to rebuild these fragmented lines of regulatory responsibility. Under the new framework, dedicated teams will oversee specific projects, departmental information systems will be integrated, and complaint handling mechanisms will be strengthened through centralized management and data analysis. Together, these measures aim to create a continuous process linking inspection, detection, reporting, follow-up action, and enforcement.

The reform agenda extends beyond administrative restructuring. Many risks were found to originate at the procurement stage, where tendering processes can become vulnerable to collusion and organized group interests. Proposed amendments to existing legislation would criminalize bid-rigging in building maintenance projects and provide enforcement agencies with stronger investigative powers. A coordinated framework involving the Hong Kong Police Force, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, and the Competition Commission would further strengthen oversight. The objective is not merely to punish wrongdoings after they occur but to eliminate conditions that allow wrongdoings to emerge in the first place.

A similar principle informs the proposal to establish a Building Maintenance Support and Service Council. The institution is intended to provide independent technical advice to property owners and reduce information asymmetries within the maintenance market. Safeguards such as separating inspection services from repair work are designed to minimize conflicts of interest and preserve the integrity of professional oversight. Its effectiveness will depend less on its formal creation than on the quality of its governance arrangements.

Hong Kong’s response becomes clearer when viewed from an international perspective. The Grenfell Tower fire in the United Kingdom in June 2017 claimed 72 lives and led to an extensive public inquiry, which led to the release of its first phase report more than two years after the disaster, while the final report was published only in September 2024, or over seven years later. Criminal investigations have continued, with potential prosecutions anticipated in 2029.

Hong Kong followed a markedly different path. Within roughly a year, an independent inquiry was completed, political accountability was implemented, sweeping reforms were announced, legislative amendments were proposed, and criminal investigations were launched. Administrative restructuring, law enforcement action, and regulatory reform proceeded simultaneously, rather than waiting for every legal process to conclude.

The contrast is not simply a matter of speed. It reflects different approaches to institutional response. In the British case, inquiry, reform, investigation, and accountability largely unfolded over an extended timeline. In Hong Kong, political accountability, administrative reform, criminal enforcement, and legislative action advanced concurrently within a short time.  What can be observed of Hong Kong’s approach is a heightened emphasis on swift accountability, early institutional correction, and a prompt restoration of public confidence. These swift timelines matter profoundly; after all, justice delayed is justice denied.

The significance of this distinction lies not merely in administrative efficiency. It reflects a governance system’s capacity to turn the lessons of a major disaster into accountability, institutional learning, and policy action within a compressed timeframe. From this perspective, the Hong Kong response represents an attempt to shorten the interval between identifying failure and implementing reform.

ALSO READ: Tai Po fire: Reforms signal shift from reactive administration to anticipatory governance

Major disasters are never purely technical events. They also test political governance. Public scrutiny plays an essential role in improving administration, but effective governance requires more than criticism. It requires institutions that can acknowledge failure, assign responsibility, correct weaknesses, and restore confidence.

The response to the Wang Fuk Court fire therefore represents more than managing a single incident. Political accountability established responsibility. Administrative investigations pursued consequences. Structural reforms addressed regulatory weaknesses. Legislative amendments targeted systemic risks. Together, these measures form a coherent framework for institutional renewal. The most important lesson is not that Hong Kong will never make any mistake again. It is that a mature governance system should be able to recognize failure, learn from it, and turn crisis into an opportunity for lasting institutional improvement.

The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.