Wang Fuk Court Major Repair Controversy Record
Event Overview: The Wang Fuk Court major repair project involves a HKD 3.3 billion cost, allegations of bid-rigging, and material safety issues revealed after the fire. This page details the relevant Owners' Corporations (OC) terms, project timeline, tender details, and key points of controversy.
1. Relevant Owners' Corporations and Figures
The Wang Fuk Court Owners' Corporation was incorporated in 1997. The committees directly relevant to this major repair controversy are the 11th and 12th Management Committees (Old OC) and the Current Management Committee (New OC).
| Period | Name | Role | Key Office Bearers | Other Members (Excerpt) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020–2024 | 11th Management Committee | Old OC (Phase 1) | Chairman: Tang Kwok-kuen Vice-chair: Chan Ling-to Secretary: Mak Mun-tong Treasurer: Sin Lai-mei |
Mok Wah-mun, Kwok Ka-leung, Lee Koon-wah, Lam Sin-bik, Chan Tak-shing, Shum Choi-ha, Ng Siu-fong, Ho Wai-lin, Choi Kam-lun, Yuen Fuk-wah, Lee Ting-wah, Wong Yuk-yi, Chan Man-cheung, etc. | Handled late stages of mandatory inspection and preparation for major repairs.^3 |
| 2024–2024/09 | 12th Management Committee | Old OC (Phase 2) | Chairman: Tang Kwok-kuen Vice-chair: Chan Tak-shing Secretary: Ho Wai-lin Treasurer: Sin Lai-mei |
Kong Cheung-fat, Mok Wah-mun, Chan Wai-kuen, Kwok Ka-leung, Mak Mun-tong, Lee Koon-wah, Lam Sin-bik, Shum Choi-ha, Chan Ling-to, Chan Man-cheung, Choi Kam-lun, Yuen Fuk-wah, Lee Ting-wah | Term ended Sep 6, 2024. The last OC before being revoked by owners.^3 |
| 2024/09–Present | Current Management Committee | New OC | Chairman: Tsui Mun-kam Vice-chair: Mak Chi-hung Secretary: Ho Chung-hang Treasurer: Cheung Tsz-wan |
Yip Bik-yee, Tse Po-sum, Law Wing-lun, Chan Man-ho, Fung Ching-yan, Kong Cheung-fat, Tang Ka-yan, Lam Wai-man, So Sin-ting, Mak Chi-shing, Lee Yat-hing | Elected at the Special Owners' Meeting in Sep 2024. In office during the fire.^2^5 |
2. Key Timeline of Major Repair Project
| Date | Event | Relevant OC | Details & Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-06-10 | Mandatory Inspection Notice | Old OC | Government issued mandatory building/window inspection notices to Wang Fuk Court. OC required to appoint registered inspector.^4 |
| 2019-12 | Inspection Report | 11th MC | Registered inspector completed report, identifying defects like spalling, exposed rebar, and seepage.^4 |
| 2023-05-16 | Open Tender | 11th/12th MC | OC launched open tender via URA "Smart Tender" platform and advertised in Sing Tao Daily.^11 |
| 2023-07-04 | Tender Closing | Old OC | A total of 57 eligible contractors submitted bids.^12^14 |
| 2023-07-05 | Bid Opening | Old OC | Bids opened in presence of OC and URA representatives; consultant began detailed evaluation.^12^9 |
| 2023-08 | Consultant Analysis Report | Old OC | Consultant Will Power Architects submitted analysis. Macro Construction rated as having "no litigation record" and given high scores.^15 |
| 2024-01 | Scheme Approved | 12th MC | Owners' meeting approved HKD 3.3 billion scheme; Macro Construction Engineering selected as contractor.^7^9 |
| 2024-04 | Contract Signed | 12th MC | OC formally signed construction contract with Macro.^7 |
| 2024-07 | Works Commenced | Old OC | Scaffolding and protective netting installation began on all 8 blocks simultaneously.^7 |
| 2024-09 | OC Changeover | New OC | Residents, dissatisfied with high costs and suspected bid-rigging, revoked the Old OC and elected the New OC at a special meeting.^6 |
| 2025-11-26 | Fire Incident | New OC | Severe fire occurred at Wang Fuk Court; scaffolding materials fueled the spread. |
| 2025-11-29 | ICAC Action | - | ICAC arrested consultant executives and others, investigating bid-rigging and material fraud.^17 |
3. Tender Process Details and Suspicious Points
Despite using the URA "Smart Tender" platform, the tender process and results contain multiple serious irregularities, triggering allegations of bid-rigging.
3.1 Basic Tender Data and Estimates
- URA Independent Estimate: Approx. HKD 1.44 billion (core works).
- Consultant (Will Power) Estimate: Approx. HKD 1.55 billion.
- Macro Construction Bid: Approx. HKD 1.52 billion (core works).
- Consultant and some media described the bid as "within professional estimates".^11
3.2 Discrepancy in Risk Rating and Litigation Record
In the August 2023 report, the consultant rated the risks of contractors: * High Risk Ratio: Out of 57 bidders, 47 companies (approx. 82%) were rated C to E "High Risk".^11 * Macro's Rating: Macro was listed as one of the few Grade A risk, best background contractors. * Missing Records: The report stated Macro had "No record" under "Past 8-year litigation" and "Suspected bid-rigging/corruption", thus awarding it full background score of 20 points.^9
Gap between Fact and Record: Media and public records show Macro has multiple controversial records: * King Tin Court Case: Was a defendant in a civil lawsuit where owners alleged bid-rigging and unreasonable costs (though not ruled as excessive pricing, the litigation itself is a known record).^7 * Safety Record: Between 2022–2025, prosecuted at least 10 times for safety violations; license temporarily suspended; disciplined by Buildings Department in 2023.^8 * Question: The blatant mismatch between the consultant report and public records is seen as the core irregularity of the tender.^15
3.3 Scoring Discrepancy: Consultant vs OC
Internal documents reveal a huge gap in how the Consultant and the OC evaluated Macro:^9 * Consultant Score: Gave Macro 90/100 in the interview, commenting it "basically demonstrated sufficient capability and professional standard". * OC Score: The OC's own interview score for Macro was only 57/100, classified as "Needs Improvement". * Result: Despite the OC's low score, Macro was ranked in the top 5 by the consultant and ultimately won the bid.
3.4 ICAC Investigation and Material Fraud
Post-fire investigations by ICAC and the government revealed further issues: * Corruption Probe: ICAC arrested directors of the consultant (Will Power), Macro executives, and middlemen, alleging bribery in the tendering and execution process.^17 * Non-compliant Netting: Government testing found 7 out of 20 samples of protective netting failed fire retardancy standards.^20 * Material Swapping: ICAC alleged that after a typhoon in July 2025, 2,300 rolls of non-compliant netting were purchased for replacement. Later, to pass inspections, 155 rolls of compliant netting were bought to "mix in".^18
4. Conduct and Controversy of the Old OC (11th/12th MC)
4.1 Defense of Procedural Compliance
Supporters and advisors of the Old OC emphasize they followed procedures: * Legally appointed registered inspectors and independent consultants. * Used the URA "Smart Tender" platform. * Formally passed the scheme at the Jan 2024 Owners' Meeting. * Trimmed some cosmetic items (e.g., clear coating) in March 2025 to save approx. HKD 15 million.^4
4.2 Questioned Behaviors
However, residents and concern groups raise multiple allegations: 1. Choice of Problematic Contractor: Accepted the consultant's "no record" report despite Macro's known safety and bid-rigging controversy, without independent verification.^7 2. Excessive Cost: The HKD 3.3 billion total cost (HKD 150k-190k per household) was criticized as "sky-high", with some cosmetic works deemed unnecessary.^16 3. Lack of Transparency: Explanations of scope and alternatives were overly technical, forcing residents to rely on civil groups (e.g., Anti-Bid-Rigging Alliance) for analysis.^21 4. Resistance to Meetings: Residents had to make multiple efforts to successfully convene the Special Owners' Meeting to revoke the OC.^13 5. Political Connections: DAB District Councillor Wong Pik-kiu served as OC consultant, actively promoting the scheme and criticizing opposition, creating a perceived "Consultant-Contractor-Party" high-risk governance model.^16
5. Establishment and Conduct of the New OC (Current)
5.1 Background of Establishment
Dissatisfied with high costs, bid-rigging suspicions, and political interference, owners invoked the Building Management Ordinance to convene a Special Owners' Meeting in September 2024, voting by a large majority to revoke the Old OC and elect the New OC led by Tsui Mun-kam.^6
5.2 Actions and Limitations
- Inherited Contract: Took office after the contract was signed and works started (Signed Apr 2024, Started Jul 2024), limiting ability to cancel.^21
- Monitoring Pledge: Promised to re-examine terms and monitor progress. Contractor promised to accelerate works and start dismantling scaffolding in early 2026.^10
- Third-Party Supervisor Controversy: The New OC discussed hiring an independent third-party supervisor but repeatedly delayed it due to "high cost" and "unsuitability".^5
5.3 Criticisms of the New OC
After the fire, the New OC also faced allegations of ineffective supervision: 1. Failure to Address Simultaneous Works: Despite warnings from residents and unions that scaffolding on 8 blocks simultaneously was dangerous, the New OC failed to negotiate a phased approach.^5 2. Inadequate Safety Follow-up: Aware of complaints about fire alarms and safety devices, but did not personally test them or take strong measures.^5 3. Over-reliance: Chairman Tsui admitted he was not a professional and only "asked the contractor" about netting standards, which was criticized as passive.^5
6. Role and Controversy of Wong Pik-kiu
6.1 Role Before Fire
- Identity: DAB District Councillor for Tai Po South (covering Wang Fuk Court), Consultant to the Old OC.
- Actions: Actively defended the HKD 3.3 billion repair, urged residents to support the Old OC, and criticized anti-bid-rigging activists as "spreading rumors".^16
6.2 Actions After Fire
Wong's post-fire statements sparked significant controversy: 1. Downplaying Role: Initially claimed she was "unclear about progress" and even said Wang Fuk Court was "not covered by me", which was exposed as contradicting electoral data and her consultant term.^13 2. "Man-made Disaster": Described the fire as a "man-made disaster" caused by years of neglecting safety.^30 3. Reporting Current OC: Reported the Current OC to police and ICAC for alleged dereliction of duty and concealing risks, emphasizing she knew nothing after stepping down as consultant.^25
6.3 Points of Controversy
- Supporters: DAB stated they would not tolerate illegal acts but emphasized the party did not participate in tendering. Wong claimed her report was to pursue responsibility for residents.
- Opponents: Fact-checks show she was consultant when the scheme was approved. Public opinion criticizes her for targeting the New OC (in office for only 1 year) as an attempt to shift blame and distract attention.^10