159 Dead in Hong Kong Fire; All Alarm Bells Failed, Suspected Human Cause

A major fire broke out at Hong Kong's Hong Fu Garden, resulting in at least 159 fatalities, and the cause of the incident has garnered significant attention. (Internet image)

[People News] The five-alarm blaze at Hong Fook Court in Tai Po, Hong Kong, by Dec. 3, had resulted in a cumulative death toll of 159, according to the Hong Kong Police. Among the dead, the youngest was only 1 year old. From the released photos of the scene, the devastation is overwhelming. Many residents reported that when the fire broke out, the fire alarm bells did not ring. On Dec. 4, the Hong Kong Fire Services Department (FSD) responded that a report received in March this year indicated only minor damage on some floors. As for why the alarms did not ring during the fire, a fire safety consultant suspects human interference, though the motive remains unclear.

Police said that the Disaster Victim Identification Unit (DVIU) has completed the search inside the seven buildings affected. On Dec. 3, three more bodies were found. As of 2 p.m. on Dec. 3, the fire had caused a cumulative total of 159 deaths, of which 140 bodies had been initially identified by family members. The youngest victim was only 1 year old. Nineteen bodies or remains are still pending identification. The building with the highest number of deaths was Hong Tai House, with 82 people; next was Hong Cheung House, where the fire first started, with 70 fatalities. Hong Yan House and Hong Kin House, where fires also occurred, as well as Hong Chi House, which was not affected, all reported no fatalities.

According to HK01, after the fire broke out at Hong Fook Court, eight buildings had alarms that were not turned off, yet none of them rang. On Dec. 3, Hong Kong Police arrested six men on suspicion of “fraud”—including the responsible persons and employees of contractors for fire service installations. They are suspected of falsely claiming to the FSD that the alarm bells would not be turned off during engineering work.

On the second day after the fire, Nov. 27, Hong Kong Fire Services Department Director Andy Yeung Yan-kin confirmed that preliminary investigation showed the fire alarms in all eight buildings failed to operate properly, and enforcement action would be taken.

Regarding inquiries about the estate’s fire equipment—including inspections and enforcement—the FSD provided its latest key responses on Dec. 4:

1. The estate commissioned a registered fire service contractor to complete its annual inspection in March this year and holds a valid “Fire Service Installations and Equipment Certificate.” The annual inspection indicated “minor damage” on certain floors of each building, but the fire alarm system complied with FSD regulations. In October and November, the FSD issued letters to the estate, requesting timely repairs of the “minor damage.”

2. In April 2025, regarding the estate’s submission of a “Fire Service Installation Shutdown Notice” for the hose reel system, the FSD conducted follow-up inspections and required the responsible parties to implement extra safety measures during the engineering period, including ensuring that other fire service installations were not affected.

3. Over the past year, the FSD had not received any complaints or repair notifications regarding damage to the estate’s fire alarm system, nor had it received any “Fire Service Installation Shutdown Notice” related to the fire alarm system.

Regarding the fact that the FSD found the Hong Fook Court fire alarm system compliant according to the inspection report, but in reality seven buildings (except Hong San House) had alarms that did not ring, fire safety consultant Leung Kam-tak told HK01: “It’s impossible that they all just happened to fail. It’s obviously human-caused.” He said, “To make the alarm not ring, simply pulling out a wire will do.” However, he also said he did not understand the motive.

He added that some fire systems have automatic monitoring functions; if equipment is incomplete or muted, the system will display a signal—unless even this warning function was “made to disappear,” it would not go unnoticed.

Taking Hong Fook Court as an example, the March inspection report indicated minor damage, and the FSD issued two letters in October and November urging repairs. Leung remarked: “It shouldn’t have dragged on for so long.”

Mr. Wong, a former security chief of Hong Fook Court, told HK01 in an earlier interview that on his first day at work he discovered the estate’s fire alarm system had been shut off. He repeatedly reported to the company that this was a regulatory violation, but received no follow-up. He also frequently saw maintenance workers entering and leaving through the rear fire escape passageway and believed that the property management company shut off the system to make things more convenient for them.

Choi Yip-kin, chairman of the Fire and Security Engineering Trades Association, added that under principles of openness, fairness, and justice, a building undertaking fire equipment repairs inevitably needs time for tendering. But Hong Fook Court held a valid “Fire Service Installations and Equipment Certificate” in March, and yet 7–8 months later the “minor damage” still had not been dealt with—requiring the FSD to send two reminder letters. Choi questioned: “Did the owners or the property management company follow up at all? The key issue is that there was a major problem in management.”

△