特首民望：常見問題 Popularity of the Chief Executive: FAQsBack

　 　
下列常見問答會隨著社會變化和大眾需要而不斷更新
The content of this FAQ page will be updated from time to time to match societal changes and community needs
　 　
常見問題 Frequently asked Questions
　 　
問：「支持度」和「支持率」有什麼分別？ 
Q： What is the difference between "support ratings" and "support rates"?
　 　
問：為什麼特首民望調查要每月進行兩次？
Q：Why does POP measure CE's popularity twice a month?
　 　
問：有沒有最理想的調查頻率？
Q： Is there an ideal frequency for opinion polling?
　 　
問：為什麼特首和問責官員的支持率採用不同提問方式？
Q： Why are we using different wordings to measure the support rates of CE and the principal officials?
　 　
問：最新調查中特首的支持率有73%，反對率有9%，抽樣誤差+/-3%，是否表示他的「實質」支持率是70%至76%，「實質」反對率是6%至12%？
Q： CE's support rate in the latest survey is 73%, objection rate 9%, sampling error being +/-3%, does this mean that his "real" support rate is 70% to 76%, and his "real" objection rate is 6% to 12%?
　 　
問：可否進一步說明樣本數目、百分比數字和抽樣誤差的關係？
Q： Can you further elaborate the relationship among sample size, percentages and sampling errors?
　 　
問：抽樣調查可以如何避免系統性偏差？
Q： How can systematic biases be eliminated in sample surveys?
　 　
問：為什麼不以專家意見取代巿民意見？
Q： Why not interview experts and professionals instead of members of the general public?
　 　
問：有沒有「理想」的支持率？
Q： Is there an "ideal" support rate?
　 　
問：「理想」和「成功」支持率的負面基準是什麼？
Q： Are there other benchmarks of popularity other than "ideal" and "successful", "depressing" and "disastrous"?
　 　
問：除了「理想」、「成功」、「失敗」和「拙劣」外，還有什麼民望基準？
Q： Are there other benchmarks of popularity other than "ideal" and "successful", "depressing" and "disastrous"?
　 　
問：以民意支持率計，在最新調查中，特首和各問責官員的民望可以用什麼基準來形容？
Q： In HKUPOP's latest survey, judging from government officials' support rates alone, how can we describe the popularity of the CE and the principal officials using various benchmarks?
　 　
　 　
　 　
　 　
常見問題與答案 Frequently asked Questions with Answers
　 　
問：「支持度」和「支持率」有什麼分別？ 
Q：What is the difference between "support ratings" and "support rates"?

答：「支持度」的單位是0分至100分，顯示一般巿民對支持某某人士或團體的好感程度。「支持率」的單位是0％至100％，代表幾多巿民支持某某人士或政黨。某某人士可能表現平平，得分僅僅合格，但在蜀中無大將的情況下，可能差不多所有巿民都支持他執行某個要職。相反，某某人士可能人品不錯，得分尚可，但因為不是領袖人材，所以巿民都反對他出任某個要職。(初版：2006年1月10日新聞公報之附加資料)
A："Support ratings" are expressed on a 0-100 scale, it shows how good or bad people feel about certain public figures or organizations. "Support rates" are expressed in terms of 0% - 100%, indicating the proportion of people supporting certain public figures or political groups. A person may have a mediocre support rating, but he may be considered by most people as the best person suited to a job, simply because there is no better people around. Likewise, a person may have an acceptable rating, but because he lacks leadership, nobody wants him to take up a certain job. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 10 January 2006)
　 　
問：為什麼特首民望調查要每月進行兩次？
Q：Why does POP measure CE's popularity twice a month?

答：環顧先進民主國家，最高領導人的民望調查是不可或缺的民調項目，而且一定是民調的主要項目。有見及此，民研計劃一開始便把港督或特首評分列為主項，在能力範圍內以最頻密的操作記錄及發表結果，是責任使然。(初版：2006年1月24日新聞公報之附加資料) 
A：In advanced democratic countries, the popularity of their supreme leaders is the crux of all opinion pollings. We see it as our responsibility to measure and release the popularity of our top leader, may it be the Governor or the Chief Executive, as frequently as we could, under our limited resources. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 24 January 2006)
　 　
問：有沒有最理想的調查頻率？
Q：Is there an ideal frequency for opinion polling?

答：理想頻率會因應民意怎樣波動和我們是否重視該等波動而定。選舉期間，不少國際級數的調查機構會以滾動調查不斷掌握民意，每天翻新數據。民研計劃會每兩星期翻新特首評分一次，每月翻新政府民望一次，有些項目則會每年翻新一次。(初版：2006年1月24日新聞公報之附加資料)
A：It depends on how opinion fluctuates on specific items, and how serious we take those fluctuations. For example, during elections, rolling polls are often conducted by internationally renowned organizations to measure fluctuations on a daily basis. POP now measures CE's popularity once every two weeks, the popularity of the government once every month, and some items once every year. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 24 January 2006)
　 　
問：為什麼特首和問責官員的支持率採用不同提問方式？
Q：Why are we using different wordings to measure the support rates of CE and the principal officials?

答：「支持率」和「認許率」都只是概括用詞，讀者適宜參閱網站內問卷全文。特首支持率的提問方式為──「假設明天選舉特首，而你又有權投票，你會唔會選曾蔭權做特首？」問責官員支持率的提問方式為──「假設明天你有權投票決定續任或者罷免某某官員，你會投續任、罷免、定棄權票？」簡而言之，問卷設計是要盡量劃一概念而又要符合實際需要。(初版：2006年2月9日新聞公報之附加資料)
A："Support rate", "approval rate" and "vote of confidence/dismissal" used in this release are just a general expressions. One should always look at the exact wordings used in the questionnaire. To measure the support rate of the CE, we used this question -- "If a general election of the Chief Executive were to be held tomorrow, and you had the right to vote, would you vote for Donald Tsang Yam-kuen?" To measure the support rate of the principal officials, we used this question -- "If you had the right to vote on the reappointment or dismissal of a certain official tomorrow, how would you vote?" Put it in simple terms, we have tried our best to use the same concept modified to suit different situations. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 9 February 2006)
　 　
問：最新調查中特首的支持率有73%，反對率有9%，抽樣誤差+/-3%，是否表示他的「實質」支持率是70%至76%，「實質」反對率是6%至12%？
Q：CE's support rate in the latest survey is 73%, objection rate 9%, sampling error being +/-3%, does this mean that his "real" support rate is 70% to 76%, and his "real" objection rate is 6% to 12%?

答：這是非常簡化的演繹。以95%置信水平計算，抽樣誤差+/-3個百分比只出現在某項數字近乎50%的時候。當數字偏向兩極，抽樣誤差便會相對減少。以1,015個樣本計算，讀數是73%時，抽樣誤差是+/-2.8個百分比；讀數是9%時，抽樣誤差是+/-1.8個百分比。西方傳媒常用之「誤差幅度」（margin of error），只是道出最大誤差的約數，應用到偏大或偏小的百分數時，須要適當調整。(初版：2006年4月25日新聞公報之附加資料)
A：This is oversimplification. Using 95% as the confidence level, sampling errors of +/-3 percentage points only occur when certain figures reach about 50%. For figures near the two extremes, sampling errors are smaller. For a sample of 1,015 subjects, the sampling error for a figure at 73% is +/-2.8 percentage points, while the sampling error for a figure at 9% is +/-1.8 percentage points. The expression "margin of error" commonly used by the Western media is jus a simplified concept, it needs to be adjusted when applied to relatively large or small percentages. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 25 April 2006)
　 　
問：可否進一步說明樣本數目、百分比數字和抽樣誤差的關係？
Q：Can you further elaborate the relationship among sample size, percentages and sampling errors?

答：請參閱《民意網站》中「民意專欄」所載「滾動調查小常識」一文，發表於2004年9月11日。(初版：2006年4月25日新聞公報之附加資料)
A：Please refer to the article "The Basics of Rolling Polls" carried in "POP Column" of the "HKU POP SITE". The article was published on September 11, 2004. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 25 April 2006)
　 　
問：抽樣調查可以如何避免系統性偏差？
Q：How can systematic biases be eliminated in sample surveys?

答：我們可能永遠無法避免偏差，但我們可以盡量把它減到最低。民研計劃的電話調查，會先從住戶電話號碼簿中抽取電話號碼，然後再從目標住戶中以出生日期抽取一人接受訪問。理論上，這個抽樣架已經涵蓋了所有香港居民。不過，測試樣本代表性的最好方法，就是比較樣本和母體的人口特性，通常包括性別、年齡、教育程度、房屋類型、職業、地域分佈等等。民研計劃在所有調查報告和發放中，都會交代有關資料。(初版：2006年5月16日新聞公報之附加資料)
A：We may never be able to eliminate all biases, but we can minimize them. For HKUPOP telephone surveys, we randomly sample telephone numbers from household telephone directories, and then select one respondent from a target household using the "next birthday rule". Theoretically, our sampling frame covers everyone in Hong Kong. The best way to examine the representativeness of a sample is to compare its demographic profile with that of the target population, usually in terms of gender, age, education attainment, housing type, occupation, geographical distribution and so on. Such profiles are always given in HKUPOP survey reports and releases. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 16 May 2006)
　 　
問：為什麼不以專家意見取代巿民意見？
Q：Why not interview experts and professionals instead of members of the general public?

答：我們有時也會調查專家的意見。不過，專家和巿民的意見始終屬於不同層次，不能互相替代。在民主社會中，重要事情往往最終是由人民投票決定。因此，無論專家意見如何，總要不時探討巿民的意見和需要。(初版：2006年5月16日新聞公報之附加資料)
A：We sometimes do. However, expert and public opinions belong to different levels and they cannot replace each other. In democratic societies where important issues are ultimately decided by the popular vote, it is important to study from time to time what the public wants, in spite of what the experts say. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 16 May 2006)
　 　
問：有沒有「理想」的支持率？
Q：Is there an "ideal" support rate?

答：本欄從今天開始會因應調查數據不時討論這個問題。特首曾蔭權的最新民意支持率是66%，正是討論這個話題的好時機。特首不是普選產生，民望支持率的概念與一般民主社會不同。暫且不談民意支持率與民主選舉結果的關係，如果民意支持率可以直接化成選票，則三分之二絕對支持率，即67%，應可視為一般憲制要求的最高標準。特首曾蔭權的最新支持率剛剛跌出這個標準，在分析上有一定意義。當然，統計上的偶然結果、「棄權」意見的作用、「支持度」與「支持率」的關係等因素，都會影響有關分析，本欄日後會跟進討論。(初版：2006年7月25日新聞公報之附加資料)
A：We will tackle this question every now and then in this section in light of survey findings. The latest support rate of CE Donald Tsang is 66%, which is opportune moment to discuss this question. To start with, our CE is not returned by universal suffrage, so our idea of support rate differs from that in normal democratic societies. Brushing aside the connection between support rate in opinion polls and actual election results, and assuming that our support rate figures can be converted to vote shares, then two-thirds majority, or 67%, can be taken as the ultimate test for all constitutional requirements. The fact that CE Donald Tsang's support rate has just dropped behind that standard has a special meaning conceptually. Of course, whether this is just a statistical coincidence, the meaning of "abstention", and the connections between "support ratings" and "support rates", are also important factors to be considered. We will discuss them here in future. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 25 July 2006)
　 　
問：「理想」和「成功」支持率的負面基準是什麼？
Q：Are there other benchmarks of popularity other than "ideal" and "successful", "depressing" and "disastrous"?

答：本欄在2006年7月25日和8月8日的公報中分別討論了「理想」和「成功」支持率的問題，指出如果民意支持率可以直接化成選票，則三分之二絕對支持率，即67%，應可視為「理想」的支持率，而半數以上的絕對支持率，即50%以上，則可視為「成功」支持率。反過來說，如果民意罷免率達到50％或67％以上，則分別可以視為「很差」和「極差」的民望基準。與「理想」和「成功」呼應，可以用「拙劣」和「失敗」來形容。當然，統計上的偶然結果、「棄權」意見的作用、「支持度」與「支持率」的關係等因素，都會影響有關分析，本欄日後會繼續討論。(初版：2006年8月29日新聞公報之附加資料)
A：We discussed the concepts of these four benchmarks in our releases of July 25, August 8 and 29, 2006, so they are not repeated here. Today's discussion is how to benchmark some officials' performance if they are not known by the people over a long period of time, meaning that the summation of their popularity support and disapproval rates is lower than 50%, and none of the 4 benchmarks has ever been achieved. According to our reasoning regarding the conversion of support rate figures into real votes, in many constitutions, less than 50% turnout in a referendum would make it invalid. We therefore deduce that if the total proportion of an official's "abstention" or "don't know" rates exceeds 50% in an opinion survey, then whatever the distribution of his/her "support" versus "disapproval" rates, he/she is not seen to be a capable official. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 29 August 2006)
　 　
問：除了「理想」、「成功」、「失敗」和「拙劣」外，還有什麼民望基準？
Q：Are there other benchmarks of popularity other than "ideal" and "successful", "depressing" and "disastrous"?

答：本欄在2006年7月25日、8月8日和8月29日的公報中討論了以上四個基準，在此不贅。今回討論的，是倘若有官員長期不被巿民認識，民意支持率和罷免率合計起來都低於50％，亦即是說以上四個基準無一達到，他是屬於怎麼樣的官員。根據我們以民意支持率化成選票的推理，在不少憲制中，低於50％投票率的全民表決會被視為表決無效。以此推理，在民望調查中，如果某官員的「棄權」、「不知道」等比率合計超過50％，則不論他的「支持」與「罷免」比率如何分佈，他都是一個「不顯得稱職」的官員。(初版：2006年9月12日新聞公報之附加資料)
A：We discussed the concepts of these four benchmarks in our releases of July 25, August 8 and 29, 2006, so they are not repeated here. Today's discussion is how to benchmark some officials' performance if they are not known by the people over a long period of time, meaning that the summation of their popularity support and disapproval rates is lower than 50%, and none of the 4 benchmarks has ever been achieved. According to our reasoning regarding the conversion of support rate figures into real votes, in many constitutions, less than 50% turnout in a referendum would make it invalid. We therefore deduce that if the total proportion of an official's "abstention" or "don't know" rates exceeds 50% in an opinion survey, then whatever the distribution of his/her "support" versus "disapproval" rates, he/she is not seen to be a capable official. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 12 September 2006)
　 　
問：以民意支持率計，在最新調查中，特首和各問責官員的民望可以用什麼基準來形容？
Q：In HKUPOP's latest survey, judging from government officials' support rates alone, how can we describe the popularity of the CE and the principal officials using various benchmarks?

答：關於官員民望基準的問題，本欄在2006年7月25日、8月8日、8月29日、9月12日和9月26日已經討論了五個基準，包括「理想」、「成功」、「失敗」、「拙劣」和「不彰」，在此不贅。今日討論的，是如何把以上基準應用在最新的調查上。數據顯示，在10月初，保安局局長李少光的支持率超過66％，屬於表現「理想」；律政司司長黃仁龍、特首曾蔭權、財政司司長唐英年、及環境運輸及工務局局長廖秀冬的支持率超過50％，屬於表現「成功」；公務員事務局局長俞宗怡、工商及科技局局長王永平、及政務司司長許仕仁的支持和反對率合計不足50％，屬於表現「不彰」；其餘官員的表現介乎「成功」與「失敗」之間，屬於表現「一般」，包括經濟發展及勞工局局長葉澍、衛生福利及食物局局長周一嶽、教育統籌局局長李國章、財經事務及庫務局局長馬時亨、民政事務局局長何志平、房屋及規劃地政局局長孫明揚、及政制事務局局長林瑞麟。以10月初計，沒有官員的表現屬於「失敗」或者「拙劣」。(初版：2006年10月10日新聞公報之附加資料)
A：In our press releases of July 25, August 8 and 29, September 12 and 26, 2006, we discussed five benchmarks of popularity, namely, "ideal", "successful", "depressing", "disastrous" and "inconspicuous". We will not repeat the discussion here, but we will apply them to our latest survey findings. In early October, the support rate of Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee exceeds 66%, his performance can be labeled as "ideal". The support rates of SJ Wong Yan-lung, CE Donald Tsang, FS Henry Tang and Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works Sarah Liao all exceed 50%, their performance can be labeled as "successful". The combined support and disapproval rates of Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue, Secretary for the Commerce, Industry and Technology Joseph Wong and CS Rafael Hui do not reach 50%, their performance can be labeled as "inconspicuous". The performance of all other officials range between "successful" and "depressing", they can be labeled as just "mediocre". They include Secretary for Economic Development and Labour Stephen Ip, Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food York Chow, Secretary for Education and Manpower Arthur Li, Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Frederick Ma, Secretary for Home Affairs Patrick Ho, Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Michael Suen, and Secretary for Constitutional Affairs Stephen Lam. In early October, no official falls under the categories of "depressing" or "disastrous". (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 10 October 2006)