Can Tho City People's Committee has just reported the results of collecting public opinions on the arrangement of administrative units in Soc Trang province, Hau Giang province, Can Tho city; public opinions on the arrangement of commune-level administrative units in Can Tho city.
For Can Tho City, the total number of voters is 296,795; the number of voters participating in the consultation is 290,130 people, reaching 97.75%. The number of voters in agreement was 288,549, reaching 97.22%; the number of voters disagreeing was 1,581 people, reaching 0.53%.
Soc Trang province, the total number of voters is 337,186 people; the number of voters participating in the consultation is 330,737 people, reaching a rate of 98.09%. The number of voters in agreement was 326,405, reaching 96.80%; the number of voters disagreeing was 4,312 people, reaching 1.28%. Of which, 20 votes were invalid.
In Hau Giang province, the total number of voters is 194,299 people; the number of voters participating in the consultation is 193,851 people; reaching a rate of 99.77%. The number of voters in agreement was 193,434, reaching 99.55%; the number of voters disagreeing was 417 people, reaching 0.21%.
Regarding other opinions, Can Tho City has 5 voters with different opinions. In particular, voters proposed that the People's Council and People's Committee of Can Tho City propose to the National Assembly to adjust the boundary between An Giang province and Can Tho city at the location of Vinh Trinh commune, Vinh Thanh district, Can Tho city with an area of 41.65 hectares.
Soc Trang province has 220 voters with different opinions. Hau Giang province has 204 voters with different opinions.
For arrangement of communal administrative units of Can Tho City, the total number of voters 296,795 people; The number of voters participating in collecting comments 290,130 people, reaching 97.75%. In particular, the number of voters agreed 286,766 people, reaching 96.62%; Do not agree with 3,364 people, reaching 1.13%.
Regarding other opinions, 875 voters have other opinions. In particular, voters propose adjustments with contents such as: Regarding the plan of arranging administrative units at the commune level, about the location of the headquarters after arranging, on the name of the new ward; At the same time, people are concerned about the conversion of many relevant papers from the old DVHC to the new DVHC; The process of deployment, too urgent implementation, the voters are passive in time and access to information.
