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.

On-site inspections did not find evidence of workers smoking despite repeated complaints from residents, Labour Department officers have told a public inquiry into the fatal Wang Fuk Court fire.

Three occupational safety officers from the Labour Department testified on Tuesday before an independent committee investigating the inferno, local media reported.

Lam Sau-ching, an occupational safety officer, said the department conducted a total of 17 inspections at the Tai Po housing estate, which had been under major renovation since mid-2024. She said the department had stepped up inspections to almost once a month due to residents’ complaints.

The inspections were unannounced to Prestige Construction & Engineering, the renovation contractor, Lam said, adding that officers would only ask contractor staff to accompany them during an inspection “if needed.”

However, inspectors did not find evidence of workers smoking, and the department concluded that the complaints were “not justified,” according to records shown during Tuesday’s hearing.

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

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.

The massive blaze, which killed 168 people in November, was “most likely” caused by smoking, the committee’s lead counsel Victor Dawes told the inquiry last month.

Lam also said on Tuesday that, under current regulations, smoking at a construction site is not an offence. Officers must also assess the fire risk at construction sites before issuing a smoking ban, she added.

Li Man-pong, a senior occupational safety officer, said that, under the proposed blanket smoking ban on construction sites, the department would no longer need to identify fire hazards before enforcing it.

See also: Gov’t agencies ‘failed in their duties’ despite complaints about renovation project, ex-member of estate board says

Murphy Yuen, chief occupational safety officer at the department, said authorities would rely on evidence submitted by residents to prosecute any worker found smoking once the proposed ban comes into effect.

The department will also look at “circumstantial evidence,” such as cigarette butts on the floor, to justify a complaint and strengthen enforcement, Yuen added.

He also said that to strengthen inspections, the department would learn from the Department of Health’s Tobacco and Alcohol Control Office, which enforces smoking bans in the city, and use drones.

Outdated certificate, wooden boards

The inquiry previously heard that the Labour Department failed to notice an outdated fire-retardancy certificate submitted by Prestige after the contractor replaced scaffold netting following major typhoons last year.

On Tuesday, Lam admitted that the department did not check the issue dates on certificates and that this could be improved.

But, she said, officers from the Labour Department were not experts on fire-retardancy requirements. “We do not have relevant qualifications, and we won’t collect samples and conduct tests,” she said in Cantonese. “We focus on ensuring that the net will prevent items from falling.”

Yuen 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’s nothing we can do other than refer the case to law enforcement agencies,” he said in Cantonese.

The Labour Department officers also addressed the removal of fireproof windows and the installation of wooden boards in the estate’s emergency staircases, which may have accelerated the spread of smoke inside the buildings during the blaze.

Li, the senior officer, said the wooden boards were useful as entry and exit points for workers on scaffolding, because workers are forbidden to climb outside buildings due to the risk of falling from height.

Judge David Lok, the chair of the committee, said Li’s account appeared to suggest a conflict of interest between workers and residents.

Dawes said the issue could be handled at a later stage when experts testify at the hearings.

He also said that four Fire Services Department officers would testify on Wednesday.