Without Thorough Investigation, There Is No Risk Management

The Tai Po blaze demands a year-long independent inquiry—just as the Lamma Island disaster did.

(Up to the time of this writing, the death toll mounts to 159 with another 30 persons still missing)

Tragic Blaze

The recent catastrophic fire in Tai Po has not only left behind destroyed property and lost lives but has also ignited serious questions about accountability across Hong Kong’s public and private sectors. While the immediate response focused on rescue and relief, public attention has rapidly shifted toward how such a disaster was even possible in the first place.

More Time Needed for Investigation

Given the scale of destruction, the wide scope of impact, and the number of potentially responsible entities, any meaningful and trustworthy investigation must be independent and allowed sufficient time—at least one year—to be conducted thoroughly. This is not speculation, but grounded in historical precedent and the particular complexity and scope of the case.

Learning from the Lamma Island Ferry Disaster

To understand the time frame required, we can look back at the Lamma Island ferry disaster of 2012, where 39 people died following a collision between two vessels. That event, though tragic, was far more contained in scope—it involved two operators, limited physical evidence, and a clearly defined sequence of events.

Independent Commission of Inquiry

Despite the narrower scope of the Lamma Island Ferry Disaster, an independent Commission of Inquiry was established and required over a year to complete its investigation, gather testimony, analyze evidence, and deliver a detailed public report with recommendations. If a maritime incident of that scale required such a timeline, the Tai Po blaze—which touches on construction practices, regulatory oversight, utility systems, and residential safety—warrants at least the same level of thoroughness, if not more.

The Web of Related Parties: A Multi-Stakeholder Crisis

The Tai Po fire cannot be attributed to a single failure or individual. Instead, it reflects interwoven responsibilities across multiple sectors. Any attempt to investigate the incident will need to consider input, actions, or omissions from a wide range of stakeholders. Below is an enriched and organized list of related parties (not yet prioritized), though estimated —either potentially responsible for the incident, involved in mitigation, or affected by the outcomes:

1.Government Agencies / Public Bodies

• Fire Services Department – Response time, system readiness, inspections

• Buildings Department – Code compliance, unauthorized structures

• Housing Department – Building safety and maintenance oversight

• Health Department – Victim care and community health impact

• Police – Investigative support, security, evidence gathering

• Urban Planning & Licensing Authorities – Zoning, usage compliance, escape route planning

• Workplace Safety & Labor Department – Unsafe modifications, illegal partitions, hazardous work practices

• Engineering Department – Review of structural and system compliance

• Legal System – Civil and criminal accountability, claims processing

• Emergency Medical Services – First response efficiency, injury management

• Forensic / Investigative Bodies – Technical analysis of fire origin and spread

2.Private Sector / Commercial Entities

• Developer and Engineering Division – Design, construction, system installations

• Contractors / Subcontractors – Execution of works, material usage, safety adherence

• Material Certification Bodies – Validation of fire-resistant materials, wiring

• Property Management / Estate Management – Fire system maintenance, tenant regulation

• Architects / Engineers / Safety Consultants – Design responsibility and code compliance

• Manufacturers / Suppliers of Materials – Supply of compliant or substandard materials

• Electrical & Utility Companies – Electrical safety, potential equipment failure

• Banks / Insurance Companies / Financial Institutions – Risk underwriting, claims processes

• Commercial Banks – Financing of the development and possible due diligence gaps

3.Civic / Social Stakeholders

• NGOs – Advocacy, victim support, relief coordination

• Volunteers / Youth Groups – On-site assistance, first-response support

• Media / YouTubers / News Outlets – Information dissemination, watchdog role

• General Civilians / Community Members – Public safety concerns, impact witnesses

• Tenants / Subtenants (especially if unauthorized users) – Possible role in illegal alterations or operations

• Victims / Residents – The most directly affected; their experiences are central to the narrative

4.Legal / Financial Impacts

• Loss of Income – Particularly for residents or businesses affected

• Home & Health-Related Expenses – Long-term financial and psychological burden

• Psychological Trauma – Mental health impact, often under-addressed

• Civil Claims & Liability Disputes – Compensation and justice mechanisms

• Settlement Processes – Mediation, negotiation, or litigation outcomes

5.Potential Corruption / Mismanagement Risks

• Corruption / Rebates – Bribery, kickbacks in contract awards

• Collusion – Between regulators and contractors or developers

• Infiltration – Potential organized crime or grey-zone operations

6.Internal Management Committees

• Building Management Committees (BMCs) – Oversight of safety systems, resident communication

Why This Web Demands Time

Each of these parties has:

• Different documentation and records

• Varying degrees of access to decision-making

• Possible legal exposure or conflict of interest

• Testimony or evidence relevant to the chain of events

Compiling and cross-verifying dozens of interrelated accounts—including site inspections, paper trails, verbal testimonies, and digital records—takes time. Ensuring non-interference, whistleblower protection, and the integrity of the process will also require robust mechanisms and procedural fairness.

If the investigation is rushed, the result risks being superficial, omitting root causes or failing to assign proper accountability.

The Case for Independence

Given that some government departments may be among the implicated parties, an internal review would be met with public skepticism. To maintain credibility, an independent investigation committee—comprised of neutral experts, technical professionals, legal advisors, and public representatives—must be empowered to lead the process.

If the independent committee has the authority, the following actions are reasonable expectation:

• Subpoena documents and records

• Call witnesses under oath

• Conduct or commission technical inspections

• Make policy recommendations and refer cases for prosecution where needed

Conclusion: Justice Takes Time

·       The Tai Po blaze is not just a case of fire—it’s a mirror reflecting the interconnected risks in Hong Kong’s development, safety, and governance ecosystem. With so many lives affected and so many systems under scrutiny, the investigation must be done right, not fast.

·       The precedent set by the Lamma Island ferry disaster makes it clear: when public safety and institutional accountability are at stake, a one-year timeline is the minimum needed for a comprehensive, trustworthy, and just investigation.

·       Let us not rush through another tragedy. Let us investigate with the seriousness and thoroughness that the people of Hong Kong deserve.