Sometimes it seems, when we listen to lawyers in action, that they live on a different planet than the rest of us. Consider the performance this week in the ongoing Wang Fuk Court fire investigation by Senior Counsel Jenkin Suen.
For those just tuning in, the Wang Fuk fire was a residential blaze in Hong Kong in November that left 168 dead. The investigation is into other common causes and topics.
Research of this type is often a little gold mine for the legal profession and this will be no exception. Mr Suen is a distinguished practitioner not usually on the government payroll, although he is a part-time High Court judge and chairman of the Copyright Tribunal.
However, with Mr Suen appearing on behalf of the Hong Kong government, the official permanent legion of lawyers is apparently very busy.
Last week, the lawyer for the inquiry, another senior barrister, Victor Dawes, revealed that the inquiry would be told that the Housing Bureau’s Independent Inspection Unit – which was supposed to carry out safety checks on building sites, had usually warned the consulting firm overseeing the Wang Fuk renovation project when an inspection was imminent.
The consultants, Will Power Architects, had passed this intelligence on to the contractor, Prestige Construction. Mr Dawes said the contractor had, as a result, been able to “mess up” the job site before inspectors arrived.
All of this was reported, as you might expect. Mr. Suen, addressing the court on behalf of the government, was not satisfied with this. In some reports, the watchdog unit was “portrayed as informing or cooperating with the firms,” ​​he said. “Such characterizations were completely unfounded.”
Now we must note in fairness to Mr. Suen this was in Cantonese, so there may be some room for misunderstanding here. But I think most of us would understand that to mean that there was no information, and therefore, there could not have been any collusion.
However, surprisingly, Mr. Suen went on to explain and defend… information. There was a practical need for government departments to arrange inspections in advance, he said, so that the inspected party would be available to provide samples and explanations. And, he added, the advance notice was given only a day before the actual inspection.
I remember the woman who was accused of giving birth to a child out of wedlock and said it was “just a little one.”
There is an old joke about a lawyer’s son who got into trouble at school for hitting a cricket ball through the headmaster’s window. Asked to explain, he said “the window wasn’t broken; if it was broken, it wasn’t by a cricket ball. If it was broken by a cricket ball, it wasn’t hit by me, and if it was hit by me, it was an accident.”
Lawyers are allowed to do this. The line of Mr. Suen appears to have had no information – but if there was, it was a legitimate offer to improve inspection.
Of course, there is a place for advanced warning inspections. They are often used in military circles. The inspected unit has an incentive and an opportunity to spruce itself up, note all the small maintenance items that have been waiting for attention, and put your best foot forward.
Many years ago, I unexpectedly found myself the head of the Department of Communication at what was Hong Kong Baptist College. I discovered that, like the teachers, I was also responsible for a series of studios, workshops, and darkrooms in which students could practice the communication arts with the help of qualified technicians.
I didn’t know—indeed, I still don’t—what the standard academic management solution to this situation is. But I borrowed from the Royal Navy the idea of ​​doing a ground-to-roof inspection about once a month, accompanied by the chief engineer. There was no warning; I didn’t particularly want to surprise people, but I didn’t want them to waste time preparing for my arrival.
I suppose we should leave the question of whether monitoring renovation projects was an appropriate task for a pre-warning inspection. But I’m afraid the general public’s opinion will be that an Independent Oversight Unit should be a bit more meat-eating.
| HKFP is an unbiased platform and does not necessarily share the views of columnists or advertisers. HKFP presents a diversity of views and regularly invites figures across the political spectrum to write for us. Freedom of the press is guaranteed by the Basic Law, the Security Law, the Bill of Rights and the Chinese Constitution. Opinions are intended to constructively point out errors or defects in government, law or policy, or are intended to suggest ideas or changes through legal means without the intention of hatred, resentment or hostility against other authorities or communities. |
