The Level 5 fire at Tai Po Wang Fuk Court caused severe casualties. All Hong Kong citizens want to know the truth — why the fire burned so fiercely and why so many people died. On the 25th day of the Independent Commission’s public hearings, Chairman The Honourable Mr Justice David Lok personally announced that the Commission has decided not to recommend to the Chief Executive that it be converted into a Statutory Inquiry Committee. Instead, it will continue with the existing approach to “wrap up” and submit the report. He emphasized that this decision has nothing to do with political or public relations considerations. It is purely to deliver results as quickly as possible, promote reforms, and avoid “justice delayed.”
The 5 main reasons given by Mr Justice David Lok (why not to upgrade):
- The report should not be delayed: The fire was massive with many casualties. Citizens and affected families urgently want to know the truth. Past experience shows that criminal proceedings, civil liabilities, insurance claims, and disciplinary investigations all need to wait for the final report before they can proceed. Dragging on too long will affect building repair works and may even create new hidden dangers such as spalling concrete on external walls. He said he absolutely does not want to repeat the mistake of the “justice delayed” situation seen in the London Grenfell Tower fire.
- There is already sufficient information; coercion is not necessary: The Commission has received over a million documents, and various parties have cooperated well. Even if some involved parties have not testified in person, the Commission can still make “adverse inferences” and reach conclusions. Forcing attendance does not necessarily guarantee their full cooperation.
- The term “upgrade” is misleading: Mr Justice Lok disagrees with the media using the word “upgrade” (升格), as it gives the impression that the current process is inferior and affects public perception. The existing approach is already effective, fair, and open.
- Conversion to a statutory committee would cause immediate major delays: Once converted, the hearings would have to be suspended for several months. The procedures are complex, and the investigation time could double. The earliest the report could be ready would be pushed to the second quarter of next year. This would seriously slow down accountability and reform progress.
- It is time to “wrap up” at this stage: The Commission has already fully grasped the sequence of events and the causes. It is now time to focus on writing the report and release the findings to the public as soon as possible.
Mr Justice David Lok stated that personal or institutional accountability should be left to criminal and civil proceedings. The Commission’s main role is to investigate the causes and make reform recommendations.
Disadvantages and concerns of not having a Statutory Inquiry Committee:
Although Chairman Lok’s reasoning sounds logical, many citizens and commentators are worried that the lack of statutory powers (such as compulsory summoning of witnesses, demanding documents, imposing fines, etc.) will lead to the following issues:
- Witness cooperation may not be thorough enough: Some involved parties (including those possibly linked to major repair works and bid-rigging) may continue to avoid or refuse to provide detailed accounts. Without statutory enforcement power, the depth and completeness of the investigation will be compromised, and it is inevitable that some “fish will slip through the net.”
- Public credibility and transparency will be questioned: A statutory inquiry committee has the backing of law and carries greater authority. Although the current Independent Commission holds open hearings, it lacks statutory status and can easily be seen as “not tough enough.” This is especially true when it involves government regulation, interests in the major repair industry, and possible systemic problems — citizens may feel the accountability is insufficient.
- Weaker influence on reform recommendations: Without statutory backing, after the report is released, the urgency and pressure on the government or the industry to implement reforms will be lower. Substantive changes may be delayed, and similar fire hazards could persist.
- Weaker sense of accountability for specific individuals (e.g. Wong Pik-kiu and others): Residents previously named and criticized certain individuals during the hearings. If the report lacks stronger enforcement power, some members of the public may feel there is a higher chance of “escaping responsibility,” making it hard to ease public anger.
In summary, Mr Justice David Lok chose to cut through the mess quickly and prioritize wrapping up the report. This can indeed prevent the process from dragging on indefinitely. However, the price is that the depth of the investigation and its public credibility may be discounted. The Wang Fuk Court fire is a rare tragedy in Hong Kong in recent years. What citizens want most is a thorough truth and real, substantial changes. We hope the final report will not disappoint everyone and will truly help with Hong Kong’s building safety and reform of the maintenance system!