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

To facilitate academic study and rational discussion, The Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong has already released for public examination some time ago via the “HKU POP Site” (http://hkupop.pori.hk) the raw data of all 60 regular rating surveys of CE CY Leung, as well as the 181 regular rating surveys of former CE Donald Tsang and 239 regular rating surveys of former CE CH Tung, along with related demographics of respondents. Please follow normal academic standards when using or citing such data.

POP conducted a double stage survey on people’s satisfaction with the top 5 disciplinary forces in late November 2014 by means of random telephone surveys conducted by real interviewers. The survey shows that compared to five months ago, the popularity ratings and net satisfaction rates of most disciplinary forces have increased except for Hong Kong Police Force. In terms of relative rankings of ratings, among the “top 5” Hong Kong disciplinary forces, Hong Kong Fire Services Department stays at the top. Hong Kong Immigration Department and Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department swap positions with each other to rank second and third. Civil Aid Service and Hong Kong Police Force stay at the fourth and fifth positions. 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 93 percentage points, and is definitely the most popular disciplinary force in Hong Kong. However, that of Hong Kong Police Force registers positive 29 percentage points, which is record low since July 1997. Meanwhile, both the popularity rating and net satisfaction rate of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison have slightly increased compared to the last survey, now at 63.1 marks and positive 35 percentage points respectively. The popularity drop of the Police is obviously due to the recent Occupy Movement, which has caught the Police in between different political forces. To overcome this problem, the Police will have to strengthen its professionalism in executing its duties, and also its affection and care for the society. It should not lean towards any political force, nor resort to improper means, just let political problems be resolved in political ways. As a methodological note, 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 +/-2.8 marks at 95% confidence level, and the sampling error of net values need another calculation. The response rate of the satisfaction survey is 67%.

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 when the frequency was changed to once every six months. 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.

POP today releases on schedule via the POP Site the latest survey results. 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 2014 mid-year and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution collected in the 2011 Census. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:

[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 mid-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 November 2012 was 684, June 2013 was 673, November 2013 was 602, June 2014 was 542 while that in November 2014 was 647.
[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 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] The percentages of respondents who could name Independent Commission Against Corruption and Auxiliary Medical Service were 9.4% and 8.6%, both of them were not short-listed.

The naming survey conducted in mid-November showed that Hong Kong Police Force was named most frequently with a recognition rate of 84%. Hong Kong Fire Services Department, Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department, Hong Kong Correctional Services Department, Hong Kong Immigration Department and Civil Aid Service with recognition rate of 73%, 45%, 42%, 36% and 13%, ranked the 2nd to 6th. However, 12% 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 in late November, 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 +/-2.4 marks, that of percentages not more than +/-4%, and that of net values not more than +/-7% 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 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.

The satisfaction survey conducted in late November showed that Hong Kong Fire Services Department ranked first, attaining 80.2 marks, 94% of the citizens interviewed were satisfied with its performance, 1% were not satisfied, with a net satisfaction rate of positive 93 percentage points and a mean value of 4.4 marks, which is between “quite satisfied” and “very satisfied” in general. Hong Kong Immigration Department ranked the second with 73.3 marks, 79% were satisfied with its performance. Its net satisfaction rate stands at positive 74 percentage points, with a mean value of 4.0 marks, meaning “quite satisfied”. The 3rd and 4th ranks went to Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department and Civil Aid Service, with satisfaction ratings at 73.0 and 71.6 marks respectively. Their corresponding satisfaction rates obtained were 79% and 64%, their net satisfaction stand at positive 76 and 63 percentage points respectively, while their respective mean values registered were both 4.0, meaning “quite satisfied”. Meanwhile, Hong Kong Police Force ranked 5th, with a satisfaction rating at 61.0 marks, satisfaction rate at 56%, net satisfaction at positive 29 percentage points, and mean value at 3.4 marks, meaning between “half-half” and “quite satisfied” in general. In this survey, Hong Kong Correctional Services Department obtained a rating of 71.7 marks, 61% of the citizens interviewed were satisfied with its performance, but it was dropped due to its relatively low recognition rate.

Meanwhile, this survey series registered people’s satisfaction level of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. Here are the results of the latest five 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 +/-2.8 marks, that of percentages not more than +/-4%, and that 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] 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.

Results of survey conducted in late November showed that the satisfaction rating of PLA is 63.1 marks, 46% are satisfied with the performance of the PLA stationed in Hong Kong, only 10% are dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction of positive 35 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, “Our latest survey conducted in late November shows that compared to five months ago, the popularity ratings and net satisfaction rates of most disciplinary forces have increased except for Hong Kong Police Force. In terms of relative rankings of ratings, among the ‘top 5’ Hong Kong disciplinary forces, Hong Kong Fire Services Department stays at the top. Hong Kong Immigration Department and Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department swap positions with each other to rank second and third. Civil Aid Service and Hong Kong Police Force stay at the fourth and fifth positions. 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 93 percentage points, and is definitely the most popular disciplinary force in Hong Kong. However, that of Hong Kong Police Force registers positive 29 percentage points, which is record low since July 1997. Meanwhile, both the popularity rating and net satisfaction rate of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison have slightly increased compared to the last survey, now at 63.1 marks and positive 35 percentage points respectively. The popularity drop of the Police is obviously due to the recent Occupy Movement, which has caught the Police in between different political forces. To overcome this problem, the Police will have to strengthen its professionalism in executing its duties, and also its affection and care for the society. It should not lean towards any political force, nor resort to improper means, just let political problems be resolved in political ways. As a methodological note, 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 16, 2014 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and Principal Officials