Back
Press Release on January 19, 2016
| Detailed Findings (Policy Address Feature Page) |
Abstract
According to the Policy Address instant survey conducted by the Public Opinion Programme (POP) at The University of Hong Kong, among respondents who had some knowledge of CY Leung’s fourth Policy Address, net satisfaction was negative 20 percentage points. In our follow-up survey, it plunges 17 percentage points to negative 37 percentage points, while satisfaction rating drops 3.6 marks to 37.5. The former is another record low since the handover in 1997, while the latter is also the poorest rating since record begins in 2008. In other words, after some initial discussions, people’s appraisal of this year’s Policy Address has turned significantly more negative. Most of those who did not express an opinion on the day of the Address now hold a negative view. POP will conduct another round of follow-up survey to map people’s further reaction. Regarding the theme of the Address, 47% agree that “Innovate for the Economy, Improve Livelihood, Foster Harmony, Share Prosperity” meets the need of society, which is the lowest in the four Policy Addresses. In terms of key policy areas, other than the various policies about “Innovation and Technology” which enjoy more support than opposition, the housing policies proposed, the various proposals regarding Belt and Road Initiative, as well as the general measures taken to address Hong Kong’s current problems all face more opposition than support. Moreover, 58% agree that this year’s Policy Address tends to address social problems in Hong Kong from the perspective of the Central Government rather than from that of the citizens’. Meanwhile, people’s net satisfaction with CE’s policy direction now stands at negative 31 percentage points, indicating a slight decrease of 4 percentage points from that of last year. POP will release another round of Policy Address survey findings in a little more than three weeks’ time. Whether public opinion would change after many rounds of discussion remains to be seen. The follow-up survey interviewed 514 Hong Kong people by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while that of rating figure is +/-2.5 and net value needs another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 66%.
Points to note:
[1] The address of the “HKU POP SITE” is http://hkupop.hku.hk, journalists can check out the details of the survey there.
[2] The sample size of this survey is 514 successful interviews, not 514 x 65.8% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[3] The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figures and net values needs another calculation. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. When quoting these figures, journalists can state “sampling error of various ratings not more than +/-2.5, that of percentages not more than +/-4% and net values not more than +/-8% at 95% confidence level”.
[4] Because of sampling errors in conducting the survey(s) and the rounding procedures in processing the data, the figures cannot be too precise, and the totals may not be completely accurate. Therefore, when quoting percentages of the survey(s), journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places, but when quoting the rating figures, one decimal place can be used.
[5] The data of this survey is collected by means of random telephone interviews conducted by real interviewers, not by any interactive voice system (IVS). If a research organization uses “computerized random telephone survey” to camouflage its IVS operation, it should be considered unprofessional.
Background
Since 1992, POP has been conducting Policy Address instant surveys every year. In 1998, we expanded our instant surveys to cover the Budget Talks. In general, such instant polls which measure people’s instant reactions would be repeated later by a follow-up survey which measure people’s more matured reactions. We believe this is the correct way to study public opinion. In 2008, we further split our instant survey into two. In our first survey, we measure people’s overall appraisal of the Policy Address, their rating of the Policy Address, their change in confidence towards Hong Kong’s future, and CE’s popularity. One to two days later, we would conduct our first follow-up survey to study people’s reactions towards different government proposals, and any change in their satisfaction of the Policy Address. The findings of this year’s instant survey were already released on January 13 and 14. Today, we release the results of our first follow-up survey.
Latest Figures
POP today releases the latest findings of the Policy Address follow-up survey. From 2014, POP enhanced the previous simple weighting method based on age and gender distribution to “rim weighting” based on age, gender and education (highest level attended) distribution. The latest figures released today have been rim-weighted according to provisional figures obtained from the Census and Statistics Department regarding the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population in mid-year 2015 and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution collected in the 2011 Census. Herewith the contact information of various surveys:
|
Year of survey |
Date of survey |
Overall sample size |
Response rate |
Maximum sampling error of percentages[6] |
|
2016 Follow-up |
14-15/1/16 |
514 |
65.8% |
+/-4% |
|
2016 Instant |
13/1/16 |
608 |
64.1% |
+/-4% |
|
2015 Follow-up |
15-16/1/15 |
500 |
65.7% |
+/-4% |
|
2015 Instant |
14/1/15 |
640 |
67.4% |
+/-4% |
|
2014 Follow-up |
16-17/1/14 |
519 |
68.7% |
+/-4% |
|
2014 Instant |
15/1/14 |
1,017 |
66.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2013 Follow-up |
17-18/1/13 |
530 |
66.2% |
+/-4% |
|
2013 Instant |
16/1/13 |
1,021 |
68.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2011 Follow-up |
13-14/10/11 |
520 |
65.5% |
+/-4% |
|
2011 Instant |
12/10/11 |
1,032 |
65.6% |
+/-3% |
|
2010 Follow-up |
14-16/10/10 |
507 |
64.9% |
+/-4% |
|
2010 Instant |
13/10/10 |
1,020 |
66.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2009 Follow-up |
15-17/10/09 |
508 |
70.6% |
+/-4% |
|
2009 Instant |
14/10/09 |
1,007 |
71.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2008 Follow-up |
17-19/10/08 |
505 |
70.9% |
+/-4% |
|
2008 Instant |
15/10/08 |
1,011 |
74.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2007 Instant |
10/10/07 |
1,023 |
69.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2006 Instant |
11/10/06 |
1,027 |
60.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2005 Instant |
12/10/05 |
914 |
66.1% |
+/-3% |
|
2005 Instant |
12/1/05 |
1,034 |
66.5% |
+/-3% |
|
2004 Instant |
7/1/04 |
1,040 |
67.5% |
+/-3% |
|
2003 Instant |
8-9/1/03 |
1,259 |
68.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2001 Instant |
10/10/01 |
1,051 |
66.0% |
+/-3% |
|
2000 Instant |
11/10/00 |
1,059 |
69.7% |
+/-3% |
|
1999 Instant |
6/10/99 |
888 |
54.5% |
+/-3% |
|
1998 Instant |
7/10/98 |
1,494 |
56.5% |
+/-3% |
|
1997 Instant |
8/10/97 |
1,523 |
61.5% |
+/-3% |
[6] Calculated at 95% confidence level using full sample size. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Questions using only sub-samples would have bigger sample error. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.
Results of the follow-up survey of Policy Address, together with the instant poll, for 2015 and 2016 are tabulated below:
|
|
2015 |
2016 |
||||
|
Instant survey [7] |
Follow-up survey |
Change |
Instant survey [8] |
Follow-up survey |
Latest Change |
|
|
Date of survey |
14/1/15 |
15-16/1/15 |
-- |
13/1/16 |
14-15/1/16 |
-- |
|
Sample base |
640 |
500 |
-- |
608 |
514 |
-- |
|
Overall response rate |
67.4% |
65.7% |
-- |
64.1% |
65.8% |
-- |
|
Latest finding |
Finding |
Finding |
-- |
Finding |
Finding and error [9] |
-- |
|
Appraisal of Policy Address: Satisfaction rate [10] |
30% |
20% |
-10%[11] |
19% |
17+/-3% |
-2% |
|
Appraisal of Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate [10] |
35% |
47% |
+12%[11] |
39% |
53+/-4% |
+14%[11] |
|
Net value |
-5% |
-27% |
-22%[11] |
-20% |
-37+/-7% |
-17%[11] |
|
Mean value [10] |
2.8 (Base=449) |
2.5 (Base=465) |
-0.3[11] |
2.5 (Base=423) |
2.3+/-0.1 (Base=451) |
-0.2[11] |
|
Satisfaction rating of Policy Address (0 to 100 marks) |
49.5 |
43.4 |
-6.1[11] |
41.1 |
37.5+/-2.5 |
-3.6[11] |
[7] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. The sub-sample size was 503.
[8] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. The sub-sample size was 522.
[9] Errors are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.
[10] Collapsed from a 5-point scale, the mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of importance level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[11] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level under the same weighting method, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
Our latest survey revealed that 17% of the respondents were satisfied with the Policy Address and 53% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 37 percentage points. The mean score is 2.3, which is in between “half-half” and “quite dissatisfied”. The average rating registered for the Policy Address was 37.5 marks. With respect to people’s specific reactions towards the contents of this year’s Policy Address, relevant findings are summarized below:
|
Finding and error [12] |
|||||
|
Big |
Half-half |
Small (including no effect) |
Don’t know /
|
Total |
|
|
Do you think the effect of the housing and land supply policies proposed by CY Leung on tackling housing problems would be big or small? |
23+/-4% |
19+/-3% |
52+/-4% |
7+/-2% |
100% |
|
Do you think the effect of the various policies proposed by CY Leung in the Policy Address on tackling current problems facing Hong Kong would be big or small? |
11+/-3% |
17+/-3% |
62+/-4% |
10+/-3% |
100% |
[12] Errors are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified.
Results showed that 23% consider the effect of the housing and land supply policies on tackling housing problems would be big while 52% said it would be small (including no effect). Besides, 11% believed the effect of various policies proposed by CY Leung in the Policy Address on tackling current problems facing Hong Kong would be big, while 62% said there would be small or even no effect.
|
Finding and error [13] |
||||||
|
Support |
Half-half |
Oppose |
Don’t know /
|
Total |
Net Support |
|
|
CY Leung proposed several policies regarding “Innovation and Technology”, including earmarking $2 billion to the ITB so that investment income generated from the allocation can be used to fund research undertaken by institutions; setting up the Innovation and Technology Venture Fund and the Innovation and Technology Fund for Better Living respectively; developing a “smart city”, etc. Do you support or oppose these proposals? |
44+/-4% |
13+/-3% |
31+/-4% |
12+/-3% |
100% |
13+/-8% |
|
CY Leung also said that the Government will set up a steering committee for the Belt and Road, which will be responsible for formulating strategies and policies for Hong Kong’s participation in the Belt and Road Initiative. A Belt and Road Office will also be established to take forward related studies. Besides, a $1 billion scholarship fund will be set up to attract more students from the Belt and Road countries to study in Hong Kong. Do you support or oppose these proposals? |
21+/-4% |
9+/-3% |
60+/-4% |
10+/-3% |
100% |
-39+/-7% |
[13] Errors are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified.
Specifically, when asked the various policies made in the Policy Address regarding “Innovation and Technology”, including granting money to the ITB to fund research undertaken by institutions, setting up two funds about Innovation and Technology, developing a “smart city” and other policies, 44% of the respondents expressed support whereas 31% opposed. As for the various proposals about Belt and Road Initiative, including setting up a steering committee for the Belt and Road, a Belt and Road Office and a scholarship to attract more students from the Belt and Road countries to study in Hong Kong, 21% supported them while 60% opposed.
|
Finding and error [14] |
||||||
|
Support |
Half-half |
Oppose |
Don’t know /
|
Total |
Net Support |
|
|
There is a saying that this year’s Policy Address tends to address social problems in Hong Kong from the perspective of the Central Government rather than from citizens’ perspective. Do you support or oppose this view? |
58+/-4% |
10+/-3% |
23+/-4% |
9+/-3% |
100% |
36+/-7% |
[14] Errors are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified.
Besides, for the view that this year’s Policy Address tends to address social problems in Hong Kong from the perspective of the Central Government rather than from citizens’ perspective, 58% showed support for such a view while 23% opposed.
Findings on people’s opinion on whether the theme of Policy Address concurred with the current needs of the society from 1997 up to this year are summarized as follows:
|
People’s opinion on whether the theme of Policy Address delivered by CY Leung
|
|||||||
|
Date of Survey |
Sample/ Sub sample base [16] |
Policy Address |
Theme |
Finding and error [17] |
|||
|
Yes |
Half-half |
No |
Don’t know /
|
||||
|
14-15/1/16 |
514 |
4th |
Innovate for the Economy
|
47[18]
|
15
|
33[18]
|
5
|
|
15-16/1/15 |
500 |
3rd |
Uphold the Rule of Law
|
54% |
14% |
28%[18] |
3% |
|
16-17/1/14 |
519 |
2nd |
Support the Needy
|
56% |
17%[18] |
22% |
5%[18] |
|
17-18/1/13 |
530 |
1st |
Seek Change
|
53% |
12% |
27% |
8% |
|
People’s opinion on whether the theme of Policy Address delivered by Donald Tsang
|
|||||||
|
Date of Survey |
Sample/ Sub sample base [16] |
Policy Address |
Theme |
Finding and error [17] |
|||
|
Yes |
Half-half |
No |
Don’t know /
|
||||
|
13-14/10/11 |
520 |
7th |
From Strength to Strength |
43%[18] |
9%[18] |
36%[18] |
12%[18] |
|
14-16/10/10 |
507 |
6th |
Sharing Prosperity
|
66%[18] |
13% |
18%[18] |
4%[18] |
|
15-17/10/09 |
506 |
5th |
Breaking New Ground Together |
45%[18] |
16%[18] |
30%[18] |
9% |
|
17-19/10/08 |
503 |
4th |
Embracing New Challenges |
57%[18] |
10% |
24%[18] |
9%[18] |
|
10/10/07 |
512 |
3rd |
A New Direction for Hong Kong |
69% |
8% |
9%[18] |
15%[18] |
|
11/10/06 |
582 |
2nd |
Proactive Pragmatic
|
71% |
10% |
14%[18] |
5%[18] |
|
12/10/05 |
913 |
1st |
Strong Governance for the People |
72% |
10% |
8% |
10% |
|
People’s opinion on whether the theme of Policy Address delivered by Tung Chee-hwa
|
|||||||
|
Date of Survey |
Sample/ Sub sample base [16] |
Policy Address |
Theme |
Finding and error [17] |
|||
|
Yes |
Half-half |
No |
Don’t know /
|
||||
|
12/1/05 |
1,031 |
8th |
Working Together for Economic Development and Social Harmony |
77%[18] |
7%[18] |
10%[18] |
6%[18] |
|
7/1/04 |
1,031 |
7th |
Seizing Opportunities for Development: Promoting People-based Governance |
49%[18] |
12%[18] |
19% |
20%[18] |
|
8-9/1/03 |
1,250 |
6th |
Capitalising on Our Advantages:
|
61%[18] |
7%[18] |
18%[18] |
13%[18] |
|
10/10/01 |
1,048 |
5th |
Building on our Strengths,
|
45%[18] |
12%[18] |
25%[18] |
18%[18] |
|
11/10/00 |
1,041 |
4th |
Serving the Community,
|
63%[18] |
6% |
17% |
15%[18] |
|
6/10/99 |
888 |
3rd |
Quality People, Quality Home |
69% |
7% |
15% |
8% |
|
7/10/98[19] |
-- |
2nd |
From Adversity to Opportunity |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
8/10/97[19] |
-- |
1st |
Building Hong Kong for a New Era |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
[15] The question wordings were “The theme of this year’s Policy Address is ‘XXXX’. Do you think this theme concurs with the current needs of the society?”
[16] Excluding those respondents who refused to answer this question. In 2006 and 2007 surveys, this series of question only use sub-sample.
[17] Errors are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified.
[18] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level under the same weighting method, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
[19] This question was not covered in the instant Policy Address poll in 1997 and 1998.
The latest results showed that 47% thought the theme of the Policy Address “Innovate for the Economy, Improve Livelihood, Foster Harmony, Share Prosperity” concurred with the current needs of the society while 33% did not think so.
Respondents’ appraisals of CY Leung’s policy direction are tabulated below:
|
Date of survey |
17-18/1/13 |
16-17/1/14 |
15-16/1/15 |
14-15/1/16 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
530 |
519 |
500 |
514 |
-- |
|
Overall response rate |
66.2% |
68.7% |
65.7% |
65.8% |
-- |
|
Latest finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and error [20] |
|
|
Satisfaction rate of Leung’s
|
35% |
29%[22] |
24%[22] |
22+/-4% |
-2% |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of Leung’s
|
32% |
42%[22] |
52%[22] |
54+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Net value |
3% |
-12[22] |
-27%[22] |
-31+/-7% |
-4% |
|
Mean value [21] |
3.0 (Base=491) |
2.7[22] (Base=489) |
2.5[22] (Base=483) |
2.4+/-0.1 (Base=487) |
-0.1 |
[20] Errors are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[21] Collapsed from a 5-point scale, the mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of importance level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[22] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level under the same weighting method, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
Lastly, as for people’s satisfaction with CY Leung’s policy direction, 22% of the respondents showed satisfaction while 54% were not satisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 31 percentage points. The mean score is 2.4, which is in between “half-half” and “quite dissatisfied”.
Commentary
Note: The following commentary was written by Senior Data Analyst of POP, Edward Chit-Fai Tai.
According to our Policy Address instant survey, among respondents who had some knowledge of CY Leung’s fourth Policy Address, net satisfaction was negative 20 percentage points. In our follow-up survey, it plunges 17 percentage points to negative 37 percentage points, while satisfaction rating drops 3.6 marks to 37.5. The former is another record low since the handover in 1997, while the latter is also the poorest rating since record begins in 2008. In other words, after some initial discussions, people’s appraisal of this year’s Policy Address has turned significantly more negative. Most of those who did not express an opinion on the day of the Address now hold a negative view. POP will conduct another round of follow-up survey to map people’s further reaction.
Regarding the theme of the Address, 47% agree that “Innovate for the Economy, Improve Livelihood, Foster Harmony, Share Prosperity” meets the need of society, which is the lowest in the four Policy Addresses. In terms of key policy areas, other than the various policies about “Innovation and Technology” which enjoy more support than opposition, the housing policies proposed, the various proposals regarding Belt and Road Initiative, as well as the general measures taken to address Hong Kong’s current problems all face more opposition than support. Moreover, 58% agree that this year’s Policy Address tends to address social problems in Hong Kong from the perspective of the Central Government rather than from that of the citizens’. Meanwhile, people’s net satisfaction with CE’s policy direction now stands at negative 31 percentage points, indicating a slight decrease of 4 percentage points from that of last year.
POP will release another round of Policy Address survey findings in a little more than three weeks’ time. Whether public opinion would change after many rounds of discussion remains to be seen.
Future Release (Tentative)
January 26, 2016 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and HKSAR Government