<<Voices from the Hall – Should Citizens Support Passing the Political Reform Proposal by LegCo?>> public survey Back

| Background | Research team members | Contact information | Frequency tables | Demographics |


Background

The research instrument used in this study was designed entirely by the POP Team after consulting the Radio Television Hong Kong, all fieldwork operations, data collection and analysis were carried out independently by POP, in other words, POP has full independence in the survey design and operation and would take full responsibility for all the findings reported herewith.

 


Survey questions: Q1. In your personal opinion, to what extent do you support or oppose passing the political reform proposal by LegCo?
Q2. Taking the overall society into consideration, do you think Hong Kong citizens should support or oppose passing the political reform proposal by LegCo?



Research team members

Research Directors:
Robert Ting-yiu Chung,
Karie Ka-lai Pang

Research Executive:
Frank Wai-kin Lee

Data Analysts:
Edward Chit-fai Tai, Johnny Chi-chiu Yiu, Alex Ka-wai Huang



Contact information

Date

:

19-21/1/2015

Survey method

:

Telephone survey conducted by real telephone interviewers

Target

:

Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong citizens aged 18 or above

Sampling method

:

Telephone numbers are randomly generated using known prefixes assigned to telecommunication services providers under the Numbering Plan provided by the Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA). Invalid numbers are then eliminated according to computer and manual dialing records to produce the final sample. If more than one eligible subject had been available, the one who had his/her birthday next was selected.

Sample size

:

1,020 successful cases

Overall response rate

:

65.0%

Sampling error

:

Standard error less than 2%, that is, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-3.0% at 95% confidence leve

 

*In order to increase the representation of the results, the survey figures 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 2014 mid-year and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution collected in the 2011 Census. Figures in the report are prevailed according to the “weighted” sample.


Q1Taking the overall society into consideration, do you think Hong Kong citizens should support or oppose passing the political reform proposal by LegCo?

 

Frequency

Percentage
(Base=1,020)

Very much support

} Support

202

} 438

19.8%

} 43.0%

Quite support

236

23.2%

Half-Half

133

13.0%

Quite oppose

} Oppose

163

} 326

15.9%

} 31.9%

Very much oppose

163

16.0%

Don’t know/hard to say

124

12.1%

Total

1,020

100.0%


Q2. In your personal opinion, to what extent do you support or oppose passing the political reform proposal by LegCo? (Interviewer probe intensity)

 

Frequency

Percentage
(Base=1,019)

Very much support

} Support

181

} 404

17.7%

} 39.7%

Quite support

224

21.9%

Half-half

145

14.2%

Quite oppose

} Oppose

158

} 365

15.5%

} 35.8%

Very much oppose

207

20.3%

Don’t know/Hard to say

105

10.3%

Total

1,019

100.0%


Sex

 

Frequency

Percentage
(Base=1,020)

Male

462

45.3%

Female

558

54.7%

Total

1,020

100.0%


Age

 

Frequency

Percentage
(Base=1,013)

18 - 39

368

36.4%

40 - 59

395

39.0%

60 or above

249

24.6%

Total

1,013

100.0%

Missing

7

 


Education attainment

 

Frequency

Percentage
(Base=1,017)

Primary or below

119

11.7%

Secondary school

486

47.7%

Tertiary or above

412

40.5%

Total

1,017

100.0%

Missing

3

 


Occupation

 

Frequency

Percentage
(Base=1,008)

Executives and professionals

272

27.0%

Clerical & service workers

198

19.7%

Production workers

65

6.5%

Students

96

9.5%

Housewives

154

15.3%

Others

222

22.0%

Total

1008

100.0%

Missing

12

 


Social strata

 

Frequency

Percentage
(Base=1,012)

Self-claim “upper class”

232

22.9%

Self-claim “middle class”

326

32.2%

Self-claim “lower class”

430

42.4%

Total

1012

100.0%

Missing

8

 



| Background | Research team members | Contact information | Frequency tables | Demographics |