Tai Po fire probe: Blaze revealed systemic issues from potential collusion to ‘rubber-stamp inspections,’ inquiry hears

2026-03-20 - 11:41

The deadly blaze that killed 168 at a Tai Po housing estate in November revealed “widespread systemic issues” ranging from potential collusive tendering to rubber-stamp inspections and unauthorised proxy votes, a public inquiry has heard. A tender document listing Prestige Construction & Engineering Company as the top-rated contractor for maintenance works at Wang Fuk Court. Photo: Kyle Lam/HKFP. Senior Counsel Victor Dawes, the lead lawyer for the independent committee probing the fire, said on Friday – the second day of the hearings – that the Wang Fuk Court fire probe would examine whether there were latent risks of corruption in the bidding process. He presented evidence on the appointment of Prestige Construction & Engineering Company, the maintenance contractor at Wang Fuk Court, and Will Power Architects, the consultant overseeing a large-scale maintenance project at the estate. Dawes presented tender documents at the hearing showing that Will Power was chosen to oversee the project after offering a HK$308,000 consultancy fee and HK$220,000 to inspect the entire estate, both far lower than the market rate, he said. See also: How deadly Tai Po fire brings to light bid-rigging epidemic in Hong Kong renovation industry Previously, Will Power has been accused of bid-rigging, a process that usually involves a consultant offering a low price for its services, therefore “rigging” the tendering process in favour of an affiliated contractor. Conviction records removed Dawes on Friday also said that Will Power hid Prestige’s lengthy conviction records from tender documents, a practice he described as “alarming.” He noted that Wong Hap-yin, a director at Will Power, removed Prestige’s litigation records from a tender analysis report. Hung Sai-kit, a project manager at the consultancy, said Wong told him to go ahead with the changes. The report said that Prestige had not faced prosecution over the past eight years, when in fact it had been convicted 24 times from 2017 to 2023 over occupational safety regulations. Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po, pictured on November 28, 2025, in the aftermath of the fatal blaze. Photo: Kyle Lam/HKFP. “The fact that the consultant had not disclosed the criminal or conviction records of tenderers was alarming,” Dawes said, adding that the Buildings Department had not verified the report either. Dawes also said that there was evidence of unauthorised proxy voting in the selection process. Residents in February 2024 reported the suspected unauthorised votes and illegal tendering to the Home Affairs Department (HAD), which told the residents to take it up with the owners’ corporation board. They also raised concerns as to why Prestige’s litigation records had been removed from tender documents. When the board refused to hold an owners’ meeting to overturn the HK$330 million construction contract, the HAD refused to step in, saying it would only intervene as a “last resort.” The department only sent advisory letters to the owners’ corporation chairperson, Dawes added. Rubber stamp Dawes said that Wilson Ng, another director for Will Power, had not carried out his duties as a “registered inspector” (RI) and instead acted as a “rubber stamp character” who signed off documents for the consultancy. A tender analysis report signed off by Wilson Ng in August 2023. Photo: Kyle Lam/HKFP. A registered inspector is the person tasked with overseeing the inspection or supervision of the prescribed repair under the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme, under which Wang Fuk Court was required to undergo renovation. Ng received a “monthly incentive” of HK$15,000 for acting as a registered inspector for Will Powe, earning a total of HK$190,000. “He probably never fulfilled his responsibility as an RI,” Dawes said. Ng would only be informed in a piecemeal manner when the situation warranted. The senior counsel cited text messages in which Ng’s fellow director Wong asked him to “take a look” at forms that he needed signed. The probe should consider whether the inspector carried out his responsibilities, Dawes said. “This is a very serious situation. If the RI is a rubber stamp, who is responsible for such works?”