In the second half of April, the public inquiry into the deadly Tai Po blaze heard from multiple government departments about authorities’ oversight during a major renovation at Wang Fuk Court before the tragedy unfolded.

In the first 10 days of the hearings, residents gave damning testimony of how their complaints about potential fire hazards during the renovation had fallen on deaf ears. Departments passed around their complaints, and when officers did inspect the housing estate in Tai Po, they said they failed to find evidence of irregularities.

During the 11 days of hearings from April 13 to Friday, a number of high-ranking officials and frontline officers acknowledged that the ways departments handled residents’ complaints were “not good enough” and that things could have been “done better.”

Victor Dawes, the lead lawyer for the independent committee investigating the inferno, summed it up well last week.

“During this inquiry, it appears that all government departments agree that things were not ideal. I have lost count of how many times we have heard, ‘Not good enough,” he said in Cantonese.

Judge David Lok, the committee chair, also noted that the blaze had exposed a “grey area” in which government departments lacked clear communication and a demarcation of responsibility for specific fire hazards.

So far, witnesses from the Fire Services Department, the Labour Department, the Buildings Department, the Home Affairs Department, and the Urban Renewal Authority have testified before the committee. Here is the summary.

Fire department as ‘ultimate gatekeeper’

The Fire Services Department (FSD) has the highest number of witnesses among government departments so far, with a total of 14 officers – ranging from frontline commanders to the director of fire services, Andy Yeung.

In his testimony on April 24, Yeung – the first departmental chief to testify – touched on several issues relating to the FSD’s oversight of fire hazards arising from building renovation projects.

Yeung also corrected the accounts given by some of his senior subordinates who had earlier given testimony.

For example, Michael Yung, assistant director of fire safety at the FSD, told the committee on April 22 that fire hazards like non-fire-retardant scaffold netting, flammable foam boards and workers smoking on construction sites fell outside the department’s purview.

The FSD is only responsible for “active” fire safety measures, such as alarm systems, and lacks the expertise on construction work, Yung said, while risks concerning construction materials fall under the purview of the Buildings Department.

Yeung, the fire services chief, said otherwise. He agreed with Dawes when the lawyer suggested that the FSD should be the “ultimate gatekeeper” to eradicate fire risks.

Yeung said the FSD and the Buildings Department should complement each other when it comes to mitigating fire risks, citing the experience following the fatal mini-storage unit fire in 2016, which killed two firefighters.

At that time, there was no law regulating the size of and the distance between storage units, Yeung recalled.

After the 2016 blaze, the FSD and the Buildings Department worked together to develop the regulations, ensuring they aligned with fire safety, as well as other structural elements, such as lighting and ventilation.

Yeung said that, following the Tai Po fire, the two departments had conducted a review of several issues, such as wooden boards in emergency staircases – which served as temporary openings for workers to access bamboo scaffolding – and foam boards used to protect windows from falling debris.

He also said both departments could make prosecutions and that inter-departmental communication would be improved regarding enforcement.

Labour Department admits shortcomings

On April 21, three occupational safety officers from the Labour Department, including the chief officer of operations, Murphy Yuen, testified before the committee.

Lam Sau-ching, an occupational safety officer who had handled Wang Fuk Court residents’ complaints, said the department conducted a total of 17 inspections, none of which found evidence of workers smoking.

“When officers say the complaint could not be justified, they meant that during the inspection, they could not see evidence for the complaint,” Lam said in Cantonese.

Lee Shu-wun, a lawyer for the independent committee, said workers may have smoked even though the department did not find any evidence, to which Lam agreed.

Lam admitted that an e-mail response she wrote to a resident to address a complaint regarding the fire-retardant quality of scaffold netting “could be improved.” In the e-mail, Lam mistakenly said the Labour Department had no regulations on the fire-resistance quality of the nets.

She also admitted that the department did not check the issue dates on fire-retardancy certificates submitted by Prestige Construction & Engineering, the main contractor for Wang Fuk Court’s renovation.

Yuen, the chief officer of operations, said the Labour Department could have referred to a list of approved laboratories provided by the Housing Department to check the authenticity of certificates, but his department still relied on the contractor’s integrity.

“If some contractors are bent on tricking us, there is nothing we can do other than refer the case to law enforcement agencies,” he said in Cantonese.

Li Man-pong, a senior occupational safety officer, said the installation of wooden boards in emergency staircases did not breach labour safety regulations as it was to facilitate workers accessing bamboo scaffolding safely.

Judge Lok said Li’s account appeared to suggest a conflict of interest between workers and residents.

The committee had previously heard that the temporary openings allowed smoke to enter the emergency staircases, accelerating the spread inside the buildings and trapping residents.

Buildings Department contradicts ICU

On Monday, two Buildings Department members testified before the committee.

Karen Cheung, assistant director of mandatory building inspection, said both access openings for workers and foam boards used to seal windows violate the city’s building construction regulations.

Not only did Cheung’s testimony differ from that of the Labour Department officers, her account also appeared to contradict a written submission by Andy Ku, a senior surveyor of the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit (ICU).

The ICU oversees construction works at government-subsidised housing estates like Wang Fuk Court.

According to Ku’s submission, Hong Kong’s laws do not regulate the use of foam boards because they are “temporary materials.” It is unclear if Ku will testify before the committee in person.

However, Cheung said using foam boards to cover windows extensively violated regulations as the laws stipulate that every unit of a residential building should have natural light and ventilation.

When asked by Dawes about her discrepancy with Ku regarding the regulations, Cheung said: “I think Mr Ku should be the one explaining this point.”

Cheung also said the Buildings Department would never inform contractors ahead of an inspection following a complaint. Officers would only seek the contractor’s assistance when they need to collect samples of construction materials for testing, she said.

The committee previously heard that the ICU had notified the consultant firm of Wang Fuk Court’s renovation project, Will Power Architects, about details of scaffold netting checks in advance.

Jenkin Suen, representing the government in the hearings, defended the ICU’s practice last month. He said at the time that inspections carried out by Buildings Department officers would also inform the inspected parties in advance.

Cheung declined to comment on the ICU’s practice. However, when pressed by Dawes, Cheung said: “This is not how we do things generally.”

In his written statement, Ku said that he consulted with Tse Kam-ming, a former senior building surveyor at the Buildings Department who was seconded to the ICU between 2023 and 2025, regarding foam boards used at Wang Fuk Court.

However, Tse told the committee that he had no recollection of giving any advice to Ku regarding the matter.

Tse called it “unacceptable” to dismiss foam board hazards, citing the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in the United Kingdom as a warning of the dangers posed by combustible cladding and foam.

Home Affairs Department on district councillors

Also testifying on Monday was Chan Hau-man, former Tai Po district officer at the Home Affairs Department, who spoke about district councillors.

Multiple residents had testified that Tai Po South District Councillor Peggy Wong, a member of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), had amassed proxy votes from residents and interfered with meetings about renovation matters.

Wong denied the allegations in a written submission to the committee, saying she had only voted on behalf of residents twice during a residents’ meeting that sought to oust a controversial owners’ committee. On both occasions, Wong voted against the motion.

Chan said her department “respects” district councillors when it comes to estate affairs, as long as they do not violate any law.

A district councillor has their own “community network,” and authorities respect that they may have an opinion and provide advice to residents regarding renovation, Chan added.

While current regulations do not specify an upper limit on the number of proxy votes a person can acquire, the department is reviewing whether a cap is needed, she said.

Urban Renewal Authority on bid-rigging risks

On Thursday, the committee heard testimony from Matthew Chan, a case manager for the Urban Renewal Authority (URA), which oversaw tender applications for the renovation work at Wang Fuk Court, a government-subsidised housing estate.

He said that the semi-government department had not considered the risks of bid-rigging in the tendering process for the large-scale renovation at the estate.

After securing the contract at a low price, Will Power Architects was able to “rig” the tendering process in favour of Prestige Construction & Engineering, an affiliated contractor, and carried out “rubber-stamp” inspections.

When Dawes presented a 2016 Competition Commission report on the prevalence of bid-rigging in Hong Kong’s building maintenance industry, Chan said that the URA did not take such risks into account despite being aware of rampant collusive tendering.

The case manager also said that the URA “would not comment on [Will Powers’] professionalism,” as the authority trusted the consultant’s experience and would want to avoid appearing biased or intervening in the owners’ board’s affairs.

The URA receives more than 10,000 tenders every year and has no ability to scrutinise every application in detail, Chan said.

The construction consultant knew about government inspections one week before, a property management company employee has told a public inquiry into the deadly Wang Fuk Court fire.

Lok Sin-ying, a clerk of ISS EastPoint Properties, which managed the housing estate in Tai Po, said on Wednesday that she got the impression from meetings hosted by the estate owners’ corporation that the renovation consultant “had frequent exchange” with government staff.

Lok was asked by lawyer Jeffrey Tam, who represents a group of Wang Fuk Court residents, whether she knew how many days before the inspections the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit (ICU) would usually inform Will Power Architects, the consultant overseeing the estate’s renovation.

“In our meetings to follow up on the renovation project, I heard people from Will Power say more than once, ‘Next week, Amanda will come to our estate.’ I believe it was Amanda Lau from the government,” Lok said in Cantonese on the seventh day of a hearing held by an independent committee investigating the tragedy.

Wang Fuk Court was undergoing a large-scale renovation when a fire struck in late November, engulfing seven of its buildings and killing 168 people.

See also: ‘Gov’t should bear greatest responsibility’: Tai Po fire survivors recall futile whistle-blowing attempts

On the first day of the hearing on March 19, Senior Counsel Victor Dawes, lead lawyer for the committee, said that the ICU disclosed advanced details of safety checks to Will Power, which then allegedly alerted Prestige Construction, the main contractor.

He also noted that according to WhatsApp records dated October 27 – a month before the fire – ICU maintenance surveyor Amanda Lau texted Will Power employee Yeung Chi-man to arrange an inspection of scaffolding nets.

Dawes called the ICU’s advance notices “deeply concerning” during his opening statement.

However, Jenkin Suen, a lawyer representing the Hong Kong government, said on March 24 that there was a practical need for the ICU to arrange inspections in advance, as having a representative from the inspected party present would facilitate sampling and allow instant communication.

‘Hard to verify’ signatures

Lok also said on Wednesday that ISS always helped the owners’ corporation handle “authorised letters” from Wang Fuk Court residents, which were used for proxy votes, including when voting for the renovation consultant.

However, she was unable to verify the signatures of the homeowners, she said.

“We can’t verify the signatures. Even if there is just an ‘X,’ I’ll treat it as a signature. But if there is any information missing on the letters, we would call homeowners to ask whether they issued authorised letters,” Lok told the hearing.

Residents in an earlier hearing told the inquiry about the issue of authorised letters and proxy votes, naming Tai Po South district councillor Peggy Wong, a member of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB).

Lok told the independent committee on Wednesday that authorised letters were indeed “very common” in the voting of homeowners at Wang Fuk Court.

“Basically, there would usually be around 100 proxy ballots in every vote, which would account for about half of the ballots. It significantly affected the outcome of the voting,” she said.

Did not ‘flee the scene’

Chung Sui-ha, an ISS building attendant, also testified on Wednesday.

She said she was working at Wang Cheong House, the first building that caught fire, on November 26. At around 2.48pm, a man – who was not a resident of Wang Cheong House – came to tell her that the building had caught fire, she told the inquiry.

“I ran to the first floor and broke the fire alarm, but it did not go off. At the time, there was no smoke, but there was fire by the window – you could hear it crackling,” Chung said as she sobbed.

She said she later went to the second and third floors of Wang Cheong House to break the fire alarms, but neither alarm went off.

“The fire became intense at that time, and there was smoke inside,” Chung said, adding that she returned to the lobby of Wang Cheong House to help residents evacuate and urged people not to go inside the building.

At the end of her testimony, Chung said she wanted to clarify that she did not run away after the fire broke out.

“Some neighbours said that I was the first one to flee the scene, but I want to tell everyone that I did no such thing. I stayed behind to help evacuate the residents. In fact, I would say I was one of the last to leave,” she said.

Separately, Lok also said at the end of her testimony that the online allegations that the property management company staff “disappeared” after the fire broke out were untrue.

Instead, she said, she used a loudspeaker to call on residents to evacuate that day and did not leave them amid the fatal fire.