29th October 2026 – (Hong Kong) The Independent Committee’s Wang Fuk Court fire report says the evidence before it does not show that then Tai Po District Councillor Peggy Wong, or her Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong colleague Mui Siu-fung, took part in any bid-rigging or anti-competitive conduct.
The government today published the panel’s findings in two volumes totalling 1,013 pages. Beyond departmental accountability, attention also fell on Ms Wong, who was drawn into controversy over proxy votes at the Tai Po Home Ownership Scheme estate. The report states that if either she or Mr Mui engaged in improper acts behind the scenes, that would be a matter for law-enforcement agencies to investigate.
A chapter on district councillors’ involvement names Ms Wong, then the Tai Po South member, and Mr Mui, noting both attended owners’ meetings at Wang Fuk Court on several occasions. In a written statement dated 8th April this year, Ms Wong said she was invited on 17th November 2021 to act as an unpaid, voluntary adviser to the estate’s management committee after a telephone approach from then chairman Tang Kwok-kuen, without a formal appointment process. She described the role as advisory community service with no decision-making power and no need to sign an interest declaration.
She denied any part in choosing contractors, assessing tenders or preparing the works budget. She also denied knowing renovation contractor Hung Yip or its director Hau Wah-kin before the blaze, saying she learnt who Mr Hau was only from news reports afterwards. She rejected claims that she handed out lucky bags in exchange for proxy votes, saying a 2022 community bag-distribution drive had nothing to do with the maintenance works.
Ms Wong did admit collecting proxies for two meetings — on 11th December 2021 and 6th September 2024 — after some residents opposed resolutions to remove the previous management committee and asked her to vote against those motions. She said she attended and voted as they wished, but denied casting their proxies for other resolutions, including the 11th December 2021 appointment of consultant Hung Ngai. Estate manager Hop On’s records showed she held 29 proxies (373 undivided shares) at the earlier meeting and 24 (318 shares) at the later one, matching her account. An Excel file labelled units authorising Ms Wong listed about 131 proxies for the 2021 meeting, though most did not name her as the representative.
Responding on 8th May to residents’ allegations aired at the hearings, she said she had helped gather 131 proxies for the 2021 meeting and 148 for the 2024 meeting, even though only 24 on each occasion named her personally. She said she collected them through committee members, volunteers and community contacts solely for delivery to the management office, and denied soliciting proxies from strangers. Leading counsel for the committee, Victor Dawes SC, observed that disputes over choosing consultants and contractors at Wang Fuk Court were constant and that her involvement sharpened those tensions. The proxies she helped gather accounted for about 25 per cent of 520 at the 2021 meeting and about 20 per cent of 746 in 2024, placing her fifth-highest on both occasions.
The report accepts that district councillors may assist owners and take a position, yet says concern arises when meetings ultimately pick problematic consultants and contractors — and that residents’ questions about Ms Wong’s role in the tender process are understandable. Holding large numbers of proxies, or possible favouritism by some committee members towards particular firms, is not by itself enough to prove illegal bid-rigging on a major renovation, it adds. Any cash benefit tied to gathering proxies would be different, but such complaints are best left to agencies with power to probe covert activity. Some of the public had hoped Ms Wong would appear in person to explain herself; the panel said that expectation was natural for a public office-holder, yet legally it first had to assess whether there was a prima facie case of unlawful or improper conduct.