Re-examining Safety Culture and Professional Responsibility After the Fire Tragedy

The Tai Po fire—which caused multiple casualties and left residents suddenly homeless—has deeply saddened the entire community. In the aftermath, the Chief Executive remarked that Hong Kong’s engineering regulatory regime already relies, in part, on “professional personnel fulfilling their professional responsibilities.” His words precisely captured a key pain point: anyone permitted to work on-site must have undergone proper professional training. We must draw lessons from this tragedy and reflect on how Hong Kong can move forward in enhancing both safety culture and professional accountability.

What kind of industry culture are we cultivating?

The root of the problem often lies not in a single incident, but in the type of culture formed through our daily operations.

From minor accidents to fatal incidents, companies that disregard safety and cut corners are undoubtedly reprehensible. Yet under the current system, accountability tends to concentrate only at the company or senior management level—minor incidents typically result in corporate charges or temporary suspension, while major accidents cause a few “representative individuals” to shoulder public and legal pressure. Rarely, however, do we see responsibility precisely assigned to the specific roles involved. This imbalance not only overlooks the importance of clarifying each position’s duties, but also fosters a long-standing norm where small lapses go unpunished and personal accountability is weak—ultimately cultivating a complacent and unprofessional attitude across different levels of the workforce.

Redefining roles and responsibilities within the industry

Genuine professionalism goes far beyond “paper compliance” or superficial box-ticking. It requires every participant—including workers, foremen, site managers, registered contractors, structural engineers, testing bodies, consultants, subcontractors, and even owners—to clearly understand their responsibilities within a project, and to be willing to bear the consequences for documents they sign or judgments they make.

A construction site may involve hundreds or even thousands of people, each expected to perform their duties. The issue is not whether management should be held accountable, but that we cannot hold only a handful of representatives responsible while other critical roles remain in a grey zone where responsibility exists but is difficult to pursue.

In traffic incidents involving buses, if an accident causes injuries or deaths, the law pursues not only the bus company’s systemic and managerial responsibilities, but also the driver’s personal criminal liability (such as licence suspension or imprisonment). In contrast, the construction industry lacks a similar framework for individual responsibility, making it difficult to precisely discipline those who fail in their duties.

Paradoxically, while we advocate for “cutting red tape” and simplifying procedures, our instinct after every accident is to add more regulatory layers and approval requirements—driving up operational and administrative costs. Systems certainly require continual refinement, but if individuals are willing to take shortcuts or ignore wrongdoing, even the most robust system will fail.

Institutionalising regulation and source-level responsibility

Neither the Government nor contractors can monitor the conduct of every individual around the clock. Simply increasing inspections and procedures places a heavy burden on the industry while delivering limited results. To genuinely reduce accidents, we must address the root cause: clarify the responsibilities of every “professional” individual and support their enforcement through a proper institutional framework.

In this regard, we can learn from systems overseas. Japan’s labour safety laws and “professional negligence” mechanism allow for personal criminal liability when a project manager responsible for overall site operations, or a foreman responsible for a certain area, fails to uphold safety within their scope of responsibility and causes injury or death. Liability does not fall solely on the company. As a result, despite Japan’s construction accident rate being similar to Hong Kong’s, the resources and costs required for oversight are significantly lower due to strong individual accountability at both managerial and frontline levels.

Many European countries also have clearly defined individual responsibility frameworks. When serious industrial accidents occur, liability extends beyond corporate entities to include the specific decision-makers and frontline personnel involved, who may face independent prosecution. Clear and predictable accountability mechanisms encourage all staff to maintain strong professionalism and self-discipline in their daily work.

Hong Kong’s current system, by contrast, operates through “contractor/subcontractor + consultant + government”—a triple-layer regulatory model lacking legal tools for assigning responsibility to individuals. When a contractor is dissatisfied with an individual’s misconduct, the most they can do is dismiss the employee or blacklist them, yet that person can readily find work on another site. This makes it nearly impossible to hold individuals accountable and fosters an irresponsible culture where the “real culprits” often escape scrutiny. Worse still, the overlapping three-tier regulatory system does not improve safety outcomes and instead drives up manpower and time costs across the industry.

One site case illustrates the problem. CCTV footage captured a tower crane operator performing dangerous manoeuvres. The company immediately dismissed the worker and attempted to have his licence revoked to prevent recurrence elsewhere. However, under the current system, no clear mechanism exists for handling complaints targeting individual behaviour. In the end, the contractor was accused of “insufficient supervision” and subjected to enhanced inspections—turning the complainant into the accused.

Driving systemic reform to build a sustainable safety and professional culture

We hope to see institutional reforms that incorporate “individual responsibility” into the regulatory framework, ensuring that when accidents occur, the law clearly defines the responsible parties at each decision-making and execution stage. Only when everyone in the industry understands that they can be held accountable—and is willing to take responsibility for their decisions—can a truly responsible safety culture and professional ethos be built.