- After the Blaze: Identity, Corruption, and Civic Strain in Hong Kong - 6 February, 2026
- (Analysis) China’s 2025 Military Parade: Progress, Ambition, and Strategic Implications - 1 December, 2025
- Suspension No More? Hong Kong Extradition Shift Under Fire - 26 September, 2025
On 26 November, a devastating blaze swept through Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po, a multi-storey residential estate in Hong Kong. The fire spread rapidly through the complex, turning an ordinary day into Hong Kong’s deadliest apartment fire in 17 years, with more than 160 people lost their lives. This devastating loss has shook the city and garnered significant international attention.
Hong Kong was left not only grieving but also searching for the answer: What caused the fire? What made it spread with such deadly speed? The building was undergoing renovation, featuring bamboo scaffolding, mesh netting, and styrofoam materials wrapped around the structure that were intended to prevent fire, but unfortunately, they failed to do so.
The tragedy quickly grew into something larger than a single incident. Questions about regulatory oversight, material safety, and even the city’s long- standing political tension are raised. As coverage of the blaze circulated locally and internationally, some early reports used wording that implied bamboo scaffolding was a cause of the fire. These claims immediately triggered local pushback, as Hong Kongers move to defend this long-standing practice.
At this stage, while the investigation is still ongoing. Officials have already ruled out bamboo as the sole and primary cause of the fire. Instead, investigations found out that the protective netting on the scaffolding and styrofoam materials did not meet required safety standards.
The Bamboo Debate
Despite this, debate over whether Hong Kong should replace bamboo scaffolding with metal alternatives intensified in the immediate aftermath. Just a day after the fire, Chief Secretary Eric Chan publicly stated that metal scaffolding is more fire-resistant and that the government would explore a roadmap for switching to metal scaffolding where appropriate. His remarks reinforced the sense that a shift away from bamboo was already being considered, raising public concerns about the possible erosion of a unique feature of Hong Kong.
While this article does not aim to delve into technical discussion regarding material safety. Past incidents have shown there is no completely safe construction material. Metal is generally less combustible than bamboo. Yet, it can still fail under extreme heat, leading to melting or even collapsing. In a fire of such scale and intensity, the difference between bamboo and metal scaffolding offers no guaranteed protection, according to experts and practitioners. Fire resistant netting would likely have been far more critical in limiting the spread of the blaze than the type of scaffolding used.
Regardless of it being bamboo or metal scaffolding, if there’s good management and rules being followed, it is relatively safe to use either one stated by Chau Sze Kit, chairman of the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union.
A City Built by Bamboo
The intensity of the discussion reflects more than a technical dispute over materials that touched on deeper sensitivities. From cultural identity to deeper frustrations shaped by long standing political tensions and public distrust. Hong Kong is one of the few places where the craft has been preserved, in part because bamboo’s flexibility makes it well-suited to the city’s dense, irregular architecture. While the use of bamboo has declined over time, it remains practical and effective.
This explains the strong local reaction when some comments and reports carried an implied comparison that bamboo was “backward” or the primary cause of the tragedy. To many Hong Kongers, some framing felt dismissive of a long-standing local practice. The framing ignored the local reasons for the continued use of bamboo. More importantly, these reports shifted the conversation away from the most urgent questions about oversight, safety standards, and the materials actually involved.
Defending bamboo became less about the scaffolding itself and more about correcting misconceptions and pushing back against narratives that misrepresented the cause of the fire.
Behind the Blaze: Oversight Failures and Suspected Corruption?
As attention shifted from bamboo to the official explanation that substandard mesh netting and foam materials had accelerated the blaze. Another troubling issue emerged: Why had these risks gone unchecked?
Residents had been raising concerns months earlier, with photos of cigarette butts scattered across the construction site and warnings that the netting’s fire resistance was inadequate. The contractor and the housing authority reportedly downplayed these warnings. Although authorities later disclosed the site had been inspected 16 times since July 2024, with the mesh net complying with standards. The disaster further raised a stark question: How could such dangers persist under repeated supervision?
The tragedy raised suspicions of corruption and regulatory failure. Local reporting revealed irregularities in the tendering process used to select the renovation contractor. The Labour Department records revealed multiple past violations related to occupational safety, despite the winning company’s official clean safety and litigation record.
Independent consultants nevertheless awarded the firm unusually high scores. In its tender assessment, the contractor received full marks for “no litigation record” over the past eight years. Such a score is supposed to be granted only if there are no lawsuits or past records of violations.
At the same time, the Urban Renewal Authority had previously shown the company receiving a perfect project-management rating. The failure to identify misrepresentations between these official evaluations and publicly available records immediately raised doubts about the integrity of the selection process.
Authorities initiated investigations into corruption and apprehended those involved. For many residents, these developments confirmed what they had already feared: serious oversight failures and possible corruption had played a role in creating the conditions for the disaster.
A Toothless Review? Accountability Under Question
Concerns over corruption soon evolved into a wider debate about accountability. Instead of establishing a statutory Commission of Inquiry (COI) which would carry legal powers to compel testimony and demand documents. The government forms an Independent Review Committee, which holds no statutory authority, unlike the COI. Many described the government’s review committee as a potential “toothless paper tiger,” fearing it would serve more as a gesture than a genuine investigation.
At the same time, frustration grew over the absence of official accountability. The fact that no Hong Kong official has apologised or faced formal inquiry intensified perceptions that accountability standards were eroding.
Solidarity Under Scrutiny: A Further Tightening of Civic Space?
Alongside grief and anger, the fire also revealed another side of Hong Kong. The fire was characterised by a strong sense of solidarity, compassion, and civic initiative. Civil society mobilises quickly and organically. The public rushed to offer help, bringing supplies, providing medical checks, organising donations, and sharing real-time updates. Demonstrating a deeply treasured sense of community and solidarity, a core part of Hong Kongers’ identity.
However, it was precisely as society was asking questions of responsibility that the political atmosphere sharply shifted. Some advocates who have called for accountability and transparency were arrested, linked to sedition and national security offences, immediately reigniting public outrage.
The authority also warn foreign media, against the spread of false information and smear narratives about the government’s handling of the fire. This signalled to many that the government was now treating even the narrowest space for civic expression as politically sensitive.
The dispute is not merely a struggle over accountabilities or facts, but a deeper struggle over identity and political expressions in Hong Kong. Acts that many Hongkongers consider normal civic behaviour in the wake of a serious incident are increasingly interpreted by the authorities as potential threats to political stability.
What the Blaze Revealed
The Tai Po fire revealed more than the immediate tragedy. It underscores how culture, governance, and civic identity intersect in Hong Kong. The bamboo scaffolding debate showed how overlooking local context in reporting amplified public frustration. At the same time, the swift mobilisation of civil society demonstrated a treasured sense of collective solidarity. However, authorities increasingly view these expressions of Hongkonger identity as politically sensitive. The blaze, and the reactions it sparks, reveal the many faces of Hong Kong: community solidarity, cultural pride, and the limit of civic space in the city today.
To Learn More About……
- “Place of heartbreak: One month since fatal fire, Wang Fuk Court residents reel from trauma, pondering their furture”. Hong Kong Free Press. December 2025.
- (Timeline) “Tai Po Fire Timeline: Wang Fuk Court’s HK$300 million rennovation, ignored warnings and aftermath”. Hans Tse, Hong Kong Free Press. December, 2025.
- (Opinion) “Explainer: How deadly Tai Po fire brings to light bid- rigging epidemic in Hong Kong rennovation industry”. James Lee, Hong Kong Free Press. January 2026.
- (Opinion) “No, Hong Kong’s Governance Is Not Becoming Like China’s. It’s Actually Worse”. Owen Au, The Diplomat. December 2025.
- (Press Release) “Hong Kong: UN rights chief voices concern over ‘draconian law’, in wake of deadly apartment fire”. UN News. December 2025.
