Appendix III - J District Summaries of Written Representations

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

1 J01 – 1 The representation The representation is not accepted Kwun proposes to: because: Tong Central (a) transfer the residential for proposal (a) buildings in the north (i) the residential buildings of Kwun Tong Road concerned have all along been in from J01 to J27, J28, J01; and J29 or J30 as J01 (ii) if the residential buildings mainly consists of concerned are excluded from industrial buildings, J01, the population of J01 would and the concerns of be 296 (-98.28%), and it would residential and have to merge with the industrial buildings residential buildings nearby to are different; and form a new DCCA.

(b) merge J01 with J02 or for proposal (b) J22, if the resultant (i) since J02 and J22 also consist of population of J01 is residential buildings, the same not within the situation of having both permissible limits. industrial and residential buildings in one DCCA would also occur; and (ii) the proposal would result in changes in J01, J02, J27, J29 and J30, which do not require any changes at all in the original proposal.

2 J07 – 7 (a) All of these The representations are not accepted Shun Tin representations because: suggest transferring (i) the resultant population of one J08 – Tin Hang House and DCCA in any one of the Sheung Tin Yiu House of proposals would exceed the Shun Shun Tin Estate from permissible limits: J09 back to J07 (ie to Proposal (a) J09 – group the all blocks of J07: 24,694 (+43.62%) Lee On Shun Tin Estate in Proposal (b) Tin one DCCA); J07: 24,694 (+43.62%) Proposal (c) (b) one representation J10: 22,515 (+30.95%) further proposes to Proposal (d) move Lee Ming J10: 22,515 (+30.95%) House and Lee Yip

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

House of Shun Lee (ii) J08, which is unaltered, would Estate from J08 to be affected under proposals (b) J09; and (d);

(c) one representation (iii) Shun Tin Estate is also separated further proposes to into two DCCAs under the status move Tin Wan House quo; and Tin Chu House of Shun Tin Estate from (iv) political implications will not be J07 to J10 instead; considered; and (v) Shun Tin Estate, Shun On Estate (d) one representation and Shun Lee Estate in J09 are suggests the same of the same type of housing; thing as proposals (a) to (c), and to rename (vi) population figures quoted come J09 and J10. from the as at June 2002; it is essential to Reasons given are: adopt the forecast figures provided by the Ad Hoc (i) division of Shun Tin Subgroup; and Estate into different DCCAs would (vii) there is a representation adversely affect its supporting the proposals for J07 community integrity (see item 12). as the component blocks of Shun Tin Estate share common concerns and facilities;

(ii) by maintaining different blocks of Shun Tin Estate almost equally in two DCCAs, there would be an equal share of the DC members’ services enjoyed by residents; otherwise, Tin Hang House and Tin Yiu House would become the minority in J09;

(iii) it would be difficult for the DC member concerned to serve

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

three estates as there would be conflicting interests among them; and

(iv) the population of Shun Tin Estate has been overestimated.

3 J11 – 3 (a) One representation For proposal (a) Sau Mau proposes to move Sau The representation is not accepted as Ping Ming House of Sau Sau Ming House has not been in J11 North Mau Ping Estate from since 1999, and under the proposal J13 to J11 so as to the resultant population of J11 would J13 – preserve community be 23,420, which exceeds the upper Sau Mau ties; permissible limit (+36.21%). Ping South (b) two representations For proposal (b) propose the same as The representations are not accepted (a) above, but further as Sau Nga House and Sau Yee suggest moving Sau House are geographically separated Nga House and Sau from the rest of J13. Yee House from J11 to J13, as it would For proposal (c) result in a better (i) Proposal (c)(i) is not accepted population as the delineation of J11 and J13 distribution; and is in fact similar to that for the 1999 DCs Election, and electors (c) one representation have got used to such names; proposes to amend the names of DCCAs and (ii) proposal (c)(ii) is accepted boundary descriptions because most blocks of Sau Mau as follows: Ping (III) Estate have been (i) J11 and J13 to be demolished and it would be renamed as Upper clearer to specify the two blocks which still exist; and and Lower Sau Mau Ping (iii) proposal (c)(iii) is accepted. respectively; (ii) Sau Mau Ping (III) Estate to be deleted and Sau Hong House and Sau Lok House to be added in the boundary descriptions of J11; and

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

(iii) blocks 19-20 of Sau Mau Ping (I) Estate to be deleted and Ancillary Facilities Block to be added in the boundary descriptions of J13.

4 J16 – 1 The representation The representation is accepted for proposes to delete “Lam the reason so specified. Tin Estate” from the boundary descriptions of J16 because the estate has already been demolished.

5 J16 – 1 The representation The representation is not accepted Lam Tin proposes to move Ping because the resultant population of Chun House of Ping Tin J16 would be 12,671, which exceeds J18 – Estate from J16 to J18 the lower permissible limit Ping Tin because: (-26.31%). (a) all blocks of Ping Tin Estate are in J18, except Ping Chun House;

(b) to preserve the community integrity, the whole Ping Tin Estate should be kept intact in J18; and

(c) it would also facilitate the DC member to serve the whole Ping Tin Estate.

6 J18 – 1 The representation The representation is not accepted Ping Tin proposes to transfer SHK because: Kei Hau Secondary J23 – School and FDBWA Szeto (i) the two schools have all along King Tin Ho Secondary School been in J18, and there are no from J18 to J23 to substantial reasons in support of facilitate efficiency in the proposed move; and community building.

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

(ii) the population of J18 and that of J23 are within the permissible limits. Changing their boundaries is therefore not necessary.

7 J21 – 4 The representations object The representations are accepted to allocating blocks 32-38 because: Sze Shan (Phase 3) of (i) keeping Laguna City intact West to J21 and propose to would preserve the community move these blocks back to integrity and resident’s sense of J22 – J22 because: belonging; Lai Kong (a) community integrity and residents’ sense (ii) the concerns of residents in of belonging would be Laguna City are very different hampered by the from those living in J21, which separation; mainly comprises housing (b) it would diffuse the estates and village clusters; and enthusiasm of the voters living in Phase (iii) Phase 3 of Laguna City may be 3 to cast their votes as isolated as it is geographically the polling station for separated from the rest of J21 by J21 would be far away ; from Laguna City; notwithstanding that the resultant (c) Phase 3 is population (23,204) will exceed the geographically upper permissible limit (+34.95%) separated from the while the overall population of Kwun rest of J21 by Cha Tong has decreased by 2,174 (0.37%) Kwo Ling and there is when compared with that of 1999. hardly anything in common between residents of the two areas;

(d) residents of Laguna City share common community problems and concerns, and it would be a waste of resources to have 2 DC members serving them;

(e) the population of J21 would likely increase sharply in the coming

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

years, and Phase 3 of Laguna City may then have to be moved to other DCCAs;

(f) the population of Laguna City is just the same as that in 1999 and the supporting reasons in keeping Laguna City intact in the 1999 DCs Election should still be valid; and

(g) there are other DCCAs with population exceeding the permissible limits under the provisional recommendations.

8 J31 – 1 The representation The supporting view is noted. Ngau Tau supports the demarcation Kok proposals for J31.

9 J31 – 1 The representation The representation is not accepted Ngau Tau proposes to transfer Tak because: Kok Bo Garden from J31 to (i) the nearest DCCA, J32, would other DCCAs because it is then have a population of a private residential 22,055, which exceeds the upper development, which is permissible limit (+28.27%); and different from the public (ii) there is a representation housing estates in the rest supporting the demarcation of the constituency. proposals for J31 (see item 8).

10 J33 – 1 The representation The representation is not accepted Lok Wah suggests to move Fai Wah because: North House of Lok Wah South (i) the population of J33 and J34 are Estate from J33 to J34 within the permissible limits and J34 – because the population of the change of boundary is not Lok Wah the latter is smaller. necessary; and South (ii) changes to existing unaltered DCCAs should be kept to the minimum and suggestions for any such changes solely for bringing about a better population distribution should

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

not be entertained, since, by doing so, many unaltered DCCAs would have to be re-delineated.

Kwun Tong District Oral Representations Received at the Public Forum on 23 January 2003

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

11 J07 – 3 Same as item 2. See item 2. Shun Tin

J09 – Lee On Tin

12 J07 – 1 This representation opines Views are noted. Shun Tin that: (a) putting Tin Hang J09 – House and Tin Yiu Lee On House in J09 would Tin not cause confusion; (b) the delineation of DCCAs should not affect district administration and residents’ use of facilities; and (c) a DC member should serve all residents in the DCCA concerned irrespective of the types of housing.

13 J21 – 4 Same as item 7. See item 7. Yau Tong Sze Shan West

J22 – Lai Kong