Request edit access
聯署反對A/H6/87香港大坑道 4-4C 號及毗連政府土地的擬議行車通道及公眾行人通道系統 (及其補充文件)(2018年12月)Objection to planning application A/H6/87 on proposed vehicular access and pedestrian walkway at 4-4C Tai Hang Road and adjoining government land (and the supplementary Documents) (2018/12)
(please scroll down for English)


【數千灌水假意見 4-4C出盡茅招】

1. 兩種格式、一樣內文
根據於城規會查閱的公眾意見,7月及 9月各有一批贊成信件。基於文書字跡相同、格式和模式相似,有理由相信是同一人或幾個人假冒或虛構不同人撰寫贊成信,意圖誘使城規會委員誤會很多人贊成規劃申請。

2. 字跡相似

3. 簽署模式相似
意見人在簽署一欄寫「名 + 姓」,在簽署用單獨使用「名」。「不同人」在簽署和姓名皆不約而同使用洋名。以上意見書集中在幾個日期,由專人提交,沒有聯絡方法,令人懷疑是虛假文書,而城規會至今仍拒絕查明真偽。

4. 「超時空」意見

5. 編號錯誤


“Once every two months!”
The developer has submitted documents for 4-4C Tai Hang Road six times this year. We discover thousands of questionable letters within the public consultation. We are looking into this matter. Please alert your friends and fight this application.

Is the 4-4C developer flooding the public consultation process with falsified “letters of support”?

The 4 - 4C developer has made additional submissions supporting their project. Going through documents they submitted to the Town Planning Board, we discovered letters of support numbering into the thousands – but they had some suspicious characteristics:

1. Different handwriting, same content

Among the public opinions submitted, letters of support were submitted in 2 batches in July and September. Looking at the forms, there is reason to believe that a large number of them were completed by 1 person or a small group of individuals, trying to create the illusion that many people support this project.

2. Similar handwriting across multiple letters

Many letters submitted by supposedly different people had a similar way of writing the letter “C” – with a little hook.

3. Similar way of signing

A large number of these supportive letters used the same way to sign their forms – first using first and last name in the “name” field, and then a similar signature in the “signature” field. All of these forms were submitted in one lot, over several days, and did not have contact details – all very suspicious. The Town Planning Board has so far not looked into their validity.

4. Letters “from the future”

In over 1000 letters submitted on Oct 31, a batch were all dated 4 days later, on November 4 – looking like a rather sloppy attempt to forge a large number of letters of support.

5. Wrong application number

In another batch, approval letters all referred to application "A/H6/82" – an application by the developer from a year ago! -- instead of the current "A/H6/87." We believe the Town Planning Board should not include comments that do not match with the current application number.

We must not let the developer use their dirty tricks to overshadow the true voice of our residents! Please join our petition immediately to oppose the footbridge proposal and to protest against these fake documents!

Official link of the application:

Initiated by: Clarisse Yeung, Wan Chai District Councillor

本人謹此提出反對—— 理據如下:(可全選)I hereby object to this application. The reasons are as follows: (you may tick all.)
其他意見及建議 Other Comment and Recommendation:
Your answer
姓名 Name *
Your answer
電話 Contact Number *
Your answer
電郵 Email Address *
Your answer

Data collected will be handled by the TPB. Detailed records may be retrieved by other government departments and concern groups for policy-making. we will make sure that personal information remains confidential. It serves to ensure the authenticity of sources.
Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Report Abuse - Terms of Service