Letters | Why can’t Hong Kong construction sites be accident-free?
The death of a worker when scaffolding collapsed during a recent typhoon is one in a series of largely unnoticed fatalities this year
Stiffening the penalties for those who fail to ensure worker safety, extending stakeholder liability and adopting construction innovation could be solutions
The death of a female construction worker when scaffolding collapsed during Typhoon Lionrock reminds us of construction safety issues in Hong Kong. The Labour Department’s Work Safety Alert shows there have been industrial accidents – many fatal – every month this year. In 2020, over 35 per cent of industrial accidents and 85 per cent of fatalities were related to construction work.
Advertisement
The number of fatalities has been increasing since 2015. The trend seems to be fewer cases, but more fatalities. The figures for large projects are particularly tragic: over 400 injuries and three fatalities for the Sha Tin to Central Link project, more than 600 injuries and 10 fatalities for the Hong Kong section of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, over 600 injuries and four fatalities for the high-speed rail project, and three deaths in about one week at the Kai Tak development site this year.
Statutory bodies have promoted construction safety for decades, through safety courses, a certificate system, subsidies such as sponsoring a portable waist fan to prevent heatstroke, numerous safety guides by government departments, safety reward schemes and site safety inspections. For a project, the client, consultant and contractor all have their own safety teams with professionals like engineers and safety officers, as required by the Code of Practice for Site Supervision and legislation like the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance. So what prevents us from becoming accident-free?
The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge under construction in 2017. Photo: Xinhua
Is stakeholder liability too limited? In the case of the mega bridge, a working platform that collapsed was not designed and certified properly, and workers were not given enough training, but the contractors only had to bear fines. The consultant bore no liability since the judge thought it had no substantive control over the works. In another fatal case involving the bridge, only the contractors were fined. At the same time, contractors reportedly cover up accidents.
While the legislation has an imprisonment clause, it seems seldom used. Although consultants and engineers have a contractual obligation to supervise contractors, they have no legal obligation. Engineering industry personnel should bear more legal liability, just like in the medical industry.
The penalties for offenders should be revised, liability should be extended to the consultant’s and client’s personnel, and measures like longer suspensions of tendering and a safety credit system could be considered.
Advertisement
Britain has similar legislation that places legal responsibility on every stakeholder. There are many “zero accident” sites in Hong Kong, especially with the adoption of innovative methods like Modular Integrated Construction and commitment to safety by all parties. Legislation would fuel this “zero-accident” culture, making it clear that safety is an obligation, not just a guideline.
