After a fire at a housing estate in Tai Po, the government proposed changes to the building-management law and launched a public consultation in August 2026. One proposal would cap the number of proxy votes an individual could hold at an owners’ meeting.
In buildings with 50 units or fewer, the proposal would allow each person to hold one proxy vote. In buildings with more than 50 units, the number held by one person would be no more than 2% of the number of units or 20 votes, according to the consultation proposal.
The chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association supports a numerical cap, calling it a practical way to prevent proxy votes gathering in a few hands. He said that when a small number of people hold many votes, other owners may feel there is little point in attending or voting.
But he opposes limiting proxy holders to relatives or other specified groups, such as owners in the same estate. Defining relationships would be difficult, he said, and restrictions would curtail owners’ freedom to choose whom to authorise. He considers a cap without limits on the identity of proxy holders a reasonable balance.
The chairman also backed registering proxy documents 96 hours before a meeting. The consultation separately proposed displaying, 48 hours beforehand, a list of the units whose owners had submitted documents; the chairman said the list should make clear which units had authorised votes and to whom.
Checking signatures presents another difficulty. The chairman said that without special training, people may not be able to verify them reliably. The association has suggested asking property-management companies to check proxy documents, but he cautioned that stronger verification could cost more and the government might not have enough resources to check every document. For the longer term, he suggested an electronic voting platform, which he said could reflect residents’ views directly without necessarily costing a prohibitive amount.
The consultation also proposed requiring in-person votes for second-category large procurements. The association recommends applying that rule only to purchases involving significant safety concerns, possible conflicts of interest or major financial consequences. The chairman warned that requiring owners to attend in person for routine annual contracts, such as security, could leave a meeting without a quorum and affect a building’s day-to-day operations.