HKU POP releases popularity figures of top 5 Hong Kong disciplinary forces and the PLA Hong Kong GarrisonBack

The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at the University of Hong Kong conducted a double stage survey on people’s satisfaction with the top 5 disciplinary forces in the second half of November to early December 2013 by means of random telephone surveys conducted by real interviewers. The survey shows that compared to six months ago, the popularity ratings of various Hong Kong disciplinary forces have dropped, but their net satisfaction rates have increased, indicating an increase in the number of extreme rating scores. All in all, the popularity of the forces is quite positive. In terms of relative rankings of ratings, among the “top 5” Hong Kong disciplinary forces, Hong Kong Fire Services Department stays at the top. Auxiliary Medical Service gets into “top 5” for the first time to rank second, while Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department, Hong Kong Immigration Department and Hong Kong Police Force each goes down one position to rank third to fifth. In terms of absolute ratings, all “top 5” disciplinary forces get more than 60 marks, four of which are above 70, which is very good. In terms of net satisfaction, Hong Kong Fire Services Department registers positive 90 percentage points, and is definitely the most popular disciplinary force in Hong Kong. Before 2012, this survey series only studied people's satisfaction with the "Hong Kong Police" together with that of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. The former is now renamed in the survey as “Hong Kong Police Force” while the latter remains unchanged. According to the latest survey, the net satisfaction rates of Hong Kong Police Force and the PLA Hong Kong Garrison are positive 51 and positive 33 percentage points respectively. It should be noted that our list of “top 5” only includes disciplinary forces best known to the public, ranked according to their satisfaction ratings. Some of other disciplinary forces may well have very high or low satisfaction ratings, but because they are not the most well-known forces, they do not appear on the list by design. The maximum sampling error of all percentage figures is +/-4 percentage points, while that of rating figures is below +/-2.5 marks at 95% confidence level, and the sampling error of net values need another calculation. The response rate of the satisfaction survey is 71%.

Since its establishment in 1991, POP has been conducting different types of opinion studies on social and political issues. Shortly after the handover of Hong Kong in July 1997, POP began our regular surveys on people’s satisfaction with the performance of the Hong Kong Police Force and PLA Hong Kong Garrison. At the beginning, the surveys were conducted once every month. Then in September 2000 the frequency was changed to once every two months. Since October 2003, the surveys have been conducted once every three months to cope with the changing social conditions until December 2011. In 2012, as Hong Kong marks its 15th anniversary of the handover, POP again revised the design of this survey series, by splitting the survey into two stages. A naming survey of people’s most familiar disciplinary forces in Hong Kong would be conducted first, then a survey on people’s satisfaction with their top 6 most familiar disciplinary forces as well as the PLA Hong Kong Garrison would be conducted according to the results of the naming survey. All findings of these surveys are published regularly at the HKU POP Site.

The survey results released by POP today via the “POP SITE” have been, as a general practice, weighted according to provisional figures obtained from the Census and Statistics Department regarding the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population in 2013 mid-year.

[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. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.

The research design of our “Top 5 Hong Kong disciplinary forces” satisfaction survey is similar to that of various “Top 10” series conducted by POP, it is explained in detail under “Survey Method” in our web page. The Hong Kong disciplinary forces listed in our latest survey are those which obtained highest unprompted mentions in our first stage naming survey conducted in the second half of November. In that survey, respondents could name, unaided, up to 5 Hong Kong disciplinary forces which they knew best, with the following results:

[7] The sub-sample size in the survey conducted in June 2012 was 645, November 2012 was 684,June 2013 was 673 while that in November 2013 was 602.
[8] All error figures in the table are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level”, meaning 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. Media can state “sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. Numbers in square brackets { } indicates rankings in our naming survey.
[9] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, 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.
[10] The percentages of respondents who could name Hong Kong Immigration Department and Hong Kong Correctional Services were 34.28% and 34.26%, so Hong Kong Immigration Department ranked the 4th, while Hong Kong Correctional Services ranked the 5th.
[11] The percentages of respondents who could name Independent Commission Against Corruption and Civil Aid Service were 9.3% and 8.6%, so Independent Commission Against Corruption ranked the 6th, while Civil Aid Service was not short-listed.
[12] The percentages of respondents who could name Auxiliary Medical Service and Civil Aid Service were 9.0% and 8.9%, so Auxiliary Medical Service ranked the 6th, while Civil Aid Service was not short-listed.

The naming survey conducted in the second half of November showed that Hong Kong Police Force was named most frequently with a recognition rate of 82%. Hong Kong Fire Services Department, Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department, Hong Kong Immigration Department, Hong Kong Correctional Services and Auxiliary Medical Service with recognition rate of 69%, 51%, 38%, 30% and 9%, ranked the 2nd to 6th. However, 15% could not name any disciplinary forces.

The 6 disciplinary forces which were named most frequently then entered into the second stage satisfaction survey. At the second stage satisfaction survey conducted from late November to early December, respondents were asked to rate each of the 6 short-listed disciplinary forces in turn using a 0-100 scale, with 0 meaning very dissatisfied, 100 meaning very satisfied, and 50 meaning half-half. After calculation, the bottom disciplinary force in terms of recognition rate was dropped; the remaining 5 were then ranked according to their satisfaction ratings, then by satisfaction rates if they are the same, giving the following results for “top 5 disciplinary forces”:

[13] All error figures in the table are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level”, meaning 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. Media can state “ sampling error of ratings not more than +/-1.6 marks, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error of net values not more than +/-6% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. Numbers in square brackets { } indicate the rankings.
[14] 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 positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[15] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, 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.

The satisfaction survey conducted from late November to early December showed that Hong Kong Fire Services Department ranked first, attaining 77.3 marks, 91% of the citizens interviewed were satisfied with its performance, 1% were not satisfied, with a net satisfaction rate of positive 90 percentage points and a mean value of 4.2 marks, which is close to “quite satisfied” in general. Auxiliary Medical Service ranked the second with 75.1 marks, 79% were satisfied with its performance. Its net satisfaction rate stands at positive 78 percentage points, with a mean value of 4.1 marks, meaning close to “quite satisfied”. The 3rd and 4th ranks went to Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department and Hong Kong Immigration Department, with satisfaction ratings at 71.9 and 71.4 marks respectively. Their corresponding satisfaction rates obtained were 81% and 84%, their net satisfaction stand at positive 78 and 79 percentage points respectively, while their respective mean values registered were 4.0 and 3.9, meaning close to “quite satisfied” in general. Meanwhile, Hong Kong Police Force ranked 5th, with a satisfaction rating at 63.7 marks, satisfaction rate at 64%, net satisfaction at positive 51 percentage points, and mean value at 3.6 marks, meaning between “half-half” and “quite satisfied” in general. In this survey, Hong Kong Correctional Services obtained a rating of 67.7 marks, 58% citizens interviewed were satisfied with its performance, but it was dropped due to its relatively low recognition rate.

Before 2012, this survey series registered people’s satisfaction level of the “Hong Kong Police” together with that of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. The former is now renamed in the survey as “Hong Kong Police Force” while the latter remains unchanged. Here are the results of the last surveys:

[16] Starting from 2011, these questions only uses sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies.
[17] All error figures in the table 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. Media can state “ sampling error of ratings not more than +/-2.5 marks, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error of net values not more than +/-6% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site. 
[18] 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 positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[19] The wordings used in surveys before 2012 were “Are you satisfied with the performance of the Hong Kong Police?”
[20] Assuming that the change in questionnaire wording from “HKP” to “HKPF” has no significant effect, such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, 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.
[21] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, 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.

Results of survey conducted from late November to early December showed that the satisfaction rating of PLA is 61.4 marks, 42% are satisfied with the performance of the PLA stationed in Hong Kong, only 9% are dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction of positive 33 percentage points, and a mean scores of 3.6, meaning between “half-half” and “quite satisfied” in general.

Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, observed, “Compared to six months ago, the popularity ratings of various Hong Kong disciplinary forces have dropped, but their net satisfaction rates have increased, indicating an increase in the number of extreme rating scores. All in all, the popularity of the forces is quite positive. In terms of relative rankings of ratings, among the ‘top 5’ Hong Kong disciplinary forces, Hong Kong Fire Services Department stays at the top. Auxiliary Medical Service gets into ‘top 5’ for the first time to rank second, while Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department, Hong Kong Immigration Department and Hong Kong Police Force each goes down one position to rank third to fifth. In terms of absolute ratings, all ‘top 5’ disciplinary forces get more than 60 marks, four of which are above 70, which is very good. In terms of net satisfaction, Hong Kong Fire Services Department registers positive 90 percentage points, and is definitely the most popular disciplinary force in Hong Kong. Before 2012, this survey series only studied peoples’ satisfaction with the ‘Hong Kong Police’ together with that of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. The former is now renamed in the survey as ‘Hong Kong Police Force’ while the latter remains unchanged. According to the latest survey, the net satisfaction rates of Hong Kong Police Force and the PLA Hong Kong Garrison are positive 51 and positive 33 percentage points respectively. It should be noted that our list of ‘top 5’ only includes disciplinary forces best known to the public, ranked according to their satisfaction ratings. Some of other disciplinary forces may well have very high or low satisfaction ratings, but because they are not the most well-known forces, they do not appear on the list by design. As for the reasons affecting the differences as well as the ups and downs of these figures, we leave it to our readers to form their own judgment using the detailed records displayed in the ‘Opinion Daily’ of our POP Site.”

• December 10, 2013 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and Principal Officials