HKU POP releases findings of an instant poll on Policy AddressBack

Press Release on January 15, 2015

Abstract

The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at The University of Hong Kong interviewed 640 Hong Kong people last night (January 14, 2015) by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. Some of its findings have already been released via our "POP Site" yesterday, today we release the more comprehensive and in-depth analyses. According to this survey, among those who had some knowledge of this year's Address, 30% said they were satisfied, 35% said they were not, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 5 percentage points. This is significantly poorer than his previous two Addresses, probably due to the recent low popularity of Leung himself. On a scale of 0-100, this year's Address scored 49.5 marks, which is also significantly poorer than last two years. This is the first time since CH Tung's Policy Address in 2004 that people give less than 50 marks to the Address. Looking back, among the 18 Policy Addresses after the handover and counting net satisfaction of instant surveys alone, people's appraisal of this year's "post-occupy" Address is very similar to that of the "post-July 1st" Address in 2004. Of course, how public opinion would change after CE and his officials explain their policies remains to be seen. As for Leung's own popularity after the Address, his support rating has gone up significantly by 4.2 marks to 44.8, while his net popularity improves from negative 39 to negative 35 percentage points, meaning that the Address has a positive effect on his popularity. Looking back at the instant effect of CH Tung and Donald Tsang's Policy Addresses across the years, Tung's Addresses usually had a stimulating effect, while Tsang's Addresses on the whole usually had a dampening effect. Whether the positive effect of Leung's Addresses could be sustained remains to be seen. Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of this year's Policy Address, 22% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased after the Policy Address, 38% said their confidence had dropped, while 35% said "no change", thereby giving a net effect of negative 16 percentage points on people's confidence. Further analysis shows that those of age 18 to 29 are significantly less satisfied with the Address. They give significantly lower ratings to CE and his Address, as well as the strongest opposition against him as CE. However, for those of age 50 or above, more said their confidence in Hong Kong has increased because of the Address. Our instant survey describes people's instant reaction towards the Policy Address, their follow-up reactions remain to be seen. The sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling errors of rating figures and net values need another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 67%.

Points to note:

[1] The address of the "HKU POP SITE" is http://hkupop.pori.hk, journalists can check out the details of the survey there.
[2] The sample size of this survey is 640 successful interviews, not 640 x 67.4% 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. "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 all percentages not more than +/-4%, that of ratings not more than +/-2.4 and net values not more than +/-7 percentage points, at 95% confidence level". Because POP introduced "rim weighting" in 2014, during the transition period, whether changes in various figures are beyond sampling errors are based on tests using the same weighting methods. That is, to test whether the first set of figures collected in 2014 is significantly different from that of the previous survey, both sets of data are rim weighted before testing, instead of using simple computation of the published figures.
[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. From 1998 onwards, we expanded our instant surveys to cover the Budget Talks. Starting 2008, we split up previous years' instant survey into two surveys. 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. In our second survey, we focus on people's reactions towards different government proposals, their satisfaction with CE's policy direction, and other relevant issues. The instant survey we conducted this year is the seventh survey under our new operation. Some of its findings have already been released via our "POP Site" yesterday, today we release the more comprehensive and in-depth analyses.

Latest Figures

POP today releases the latest findings of the Policy Address instant poll. 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 of various surveys:

Year of survey	Date of survey	Total sample size	Response rate	Sampling error of %^[6]
Year of survey	Date of survey	Total sample size	Response rate	Sampling error of %^[6]
2015	14/1/15	640	67.4%	+/-4%
2014	15/1/14	1,017	66.7%	+/-3%
2013	16/1/13	1,021	68.7%	+/-3%
2011	12/10/11	1,032	65.6%	+/-3%
2010	13/10/10	1,020	66.9%	+/-3%
2009	14/10/09	1,007	71.9%	+/-3%
2008	15/10/08	1,011	74.9%	+/-3%
2007	10/10/07	1,023	69.9%	+/-3%
2006	11/10/06	1,027	60.7%	+/-3%
2005	12/10/05	914	66.1%	+/-3%
2004	7/1/04	1,040	67.5%	+/-3%
2003	8-9/1/03	1,259	68.9%	+/-3%
2001	10/10/01	1,051	66.0%	+/-3%
2000	11/10/00	1,059	69.7%	+/-3%
1999	6/10/99	888	54.5%	+/-3%
1998	7/10/98	1,494	56.5%	+/-3%
1997	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.

Recent figures on CY Leung's popularity are summarized as follows:

Date of survey	17-19/11/14	8-11/12/14	17-22/12/14	2-8/1/15	14/1/15	Latest change
Sample base	1,022	1,005	1,021	1,021	640	--
Overall response rate	67.5%	64.5%	68.0%	65.5%	67.4%	--
Latest finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding and Error^[7]	--
Rating of CE CY Leung	44.7^[8]	39.7^[8]	43.2^[8]	40.6^[8]	44.8+/-2.3	+4.2^[8]
Vote of confidence in CE CY Leung	24%	24%	26%	23%	25+/-3%	+2%
Vote of no confidence in CE CY Leung	57%	63%^[8]	59%^[8]	62%	60+/-4%	-2%
Net approval rate	-33%	-39%^[8]	-33%^[8]	-39%^[8]	-35+/-7%	+4%

[7] 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.
[8] 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.

Figures on Chief Executive's popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from the handover till present are summarized as follows:

CE Tung Chee-hwa's popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from 1997 to 2005
	1st Policy Address	2nd Policy Address	3rd Policy Address	4th Policy Address	5th Policy Address	6th Policy Address	7th Policy Address	8th Policy Address
Date of PA Speech	8/10/97	7/10/98	6/10/99	11/10/00	10/10/01	8/1/03	7/1/04	12/1/05
CE's popularity rating before the PA & error^[9]	65.8 +/-1.4	55.8 +/-1.6	54.0 +/-1.8	48.2 +/-2.2	48.4 +/-1.4	46.6 +/-1.4	42.9 +/-1.4	47.2 +/-1.2
CE's popularity rating at PA instant survey & error^[9]	66.1 +/-1.0	56.1 +/-1.0	54.3 +/-1.4	50.7 +/-1.4	50.6 +/-1.4	47.3 +/-1.4	44.6 +/-1.4	48.4 +/-1.4
*Change in CE's rating*	+*0.3*	*+0.3*	*+0.3*	*+2.5^[10]*	*+2.2^[10]*	*+0.7*	*+1.7^[10]*	*+1.2*

CE Donald Tsang's popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from 2005 to 2011
	1st Policy Address	2nd Policy Address	3rd Policy Address	4th Policy Address	5th Policy Address	6th Policy Address	7th Policy Address
Date of Policy Address Speech	12/10/05	11/10/06	10/10/07	15/10/08	14/10/09	13/10/10	12/10/11
CE's popularity rating before the PA & error^[9]	68.0+/-1.0	62.9 +/-1.2	65.8+/-1.2	52.7+/-1.3	55.2+/-1.2	55.4+/-1.2	48.4+/-1.4
CE's popularity rating at PA instant survey & error^[9]	67.4+/-1.1	59.8+/-1.1	64.4+/-1.0	53.9+/-1.6	54.2+/-1.4	56.2+/-1.6	50.6+/-1.6
*Change in CE's rating*	*-0.6*	*-3.1^[10]*	*-1.4^[10]*	*+1.2*	*-1.0*	*+0.8*	*+2.2^[10]*
CE's net approval rate before the PA & error^[9]	68+/-4%	48+/-5%	48+/-5%	5+/-6%	7+/-6%	-1+/-6%	-45+/-5%
CE's net approval rate at PA instant survey & error^[9]	65+/-4%	36+/-5%	48+/-5%	10+/-7%	8+/-7%	0+/-8%	-41+/-6%
*Change in CE's net approval rate^[11]***	*-3%*	*-12%* *^[10]*	--	*+5%*	+1%	+1%	+4%

CE CY Leung's popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from 2013 to 2015
	1st Policy Address	2nd Policy Address	3rd Policy Address
Date of Policy Address Speech	16/1/13	15/1/14	14/1/15
CE's popularity rating before the PA & error^[9]	48.9+/-1.6	45.6+/-1.6	40.6+/-1.8
CE's popularity rating at PA instant survey & error^[9]	52.2+/-1.6	48.9+/-1.6	44.8+/-2.3
*Change in CE's rating*	*+3.3^[10]***	*+3.3^[10]***	+4.2^[10]
CE's net approval rate before the PA & error^[9]	-20+/-6%	-31+/-5%	-39+/-5%
CE's net approval rate at PA instant survey & error^[9]	-11+/-6%	-24+/-6%	-35+/-7%
*Change in CE's* *net* *approval rate^[11]***	*+9%^[10]***	*+7%^[10]***	+4%

[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] Instant surveys on Policy Address included CE's approval rate since 2004, so it is not listed under Tung's series.

The install poll conducted last night showed that, after CE CY Leung announced his Policy Address, his latest support rating was 44.8 marks, with an approval and disapproval rate of 25% and 60% respectively, giving a net approval of negative 35 percentage points. As for people's satisfaction of various Policy Addresses after the handover, the figures are summarized below:

Date of Survey	Sub- sample base^[13]	Appraisal of Policy Address^[12]
Date of Survey	Sub- sample base^[13]	Satisfaction rate^[14]	Half-half	Dissatisfaction rate^[14]	Net satisfaction rate	Mean value^[14]	Satisfaction rating of Policy Address
14/1/15	*503*	30+/-4%^[15]`	24+/-4%^[15]	35+/-4%	-*5+/-7%^[15]*	2.8+/-0.1 (Base=449)	49.5+/-2.4^[15]
15/1/14	611	36+/-4%	30+/-4%^[15]	31+/-4%^[15]	5+/-7%	3.0+/-0.1 (Base=593)	54.1+/-1.9^[15]
16/1/13	759	36+/-3%^[15]	35+/-3%	24+/-3%^[15]	11+/-6%^[15]	3.1+/-0.1 (Base=717)	56.4+/-1.7^[15]
12/10/11	816	47+/-3%^[15]	32+/-3%	18+/-3%	28+/-5%^[15]	3.3+/-0.1 (Base=791)	59.1+/-1.4
13/10/10	747	41+/-4%^[15]	33+/-3%^[15]	19+/-3%^[15]	22+/-5%^[15]	3.2+/-0.1 (Base=695)	58.9+/-1.4^[15]
14/10/09	462	30+/-4%	37+/-4%	28+/-4%	2+/-7%	3.0+/-0.1 (Base=434)	53.5+/-2.1
15/10/08	515	31+/-4%^[15]	35+/-4%^[15]	26+/-4%^[15]	4+/-7%^[15]	3.0+/-0.1 (Base=474)	53.8+/-2.0^[15]
10/10/07	602	52+/-4%^[15]	29+/-4%^[15]	10+/-2%^[15]	42+/-5%^[15]	3.5+/-0.1 (Base=551)	65.2+/-1.6^[15]
11/10/06	445	30+/-4%^[15]	37+/-5%	22+/-4%^[15]	8+/-7%^[15]	3.0+/-0.1 (Base=397)	55.8+/-2.0^[15]
12/10/05	377	48+/-5%^[15]	33+/-5%	9+/-3%^[15]	39+/-7%^[15]	3.5+/-0.1 (Base=338)	66.4+/-1.9^[15]
12/1/05	391	38+/-5%^[15]	30+/-5%	20+/-4%^[15]	18+/-7%^[15]	3.2+/-0.1 (Base=342)	56.3+/-2.4^[15]
7/1/04	381	25+/-4%	26+/-4%	33+/-5%^[15]	-8+/-8%	2.8+/-0.1 (Base=322)	49.3+/-2.4
8/1/03^[16]	377	22+/-4%^[15]	29+/-5%	27+/-5%	-5+/-7%	2.8+/-0.1 (Base=561)	51.6+/-2.6^[15]
10/10/01	433	29+/-4%	33+/-5%	27+/-4%	1+/-7%	3.0+/-0.1 (Base=386)	56.7 +/-2.2
11/10/00	262	25+/-5%^[15]	28+/-6%	31+/-6%	-6+/-9%^[15]	2.9+/-0.1 (Base=219)	55.2 +/-2.8
6/10/99	236	31+/-6%^[15]	30+/-6%	25+/-6%^[15]	6+/-10%^[15]	3.0+/-0.1 (Base=202)	57.3 +/-2.8
7/10/98	508	22+/-4%^[15]	35+/-4%^[15]	35+/-4%^[15]	-14+/-7%^[15]	2.8+/-0.1 (Base=469)	--
8/10/97	534	45+/-4%	30+/-4%^[15]	14+/-3%^[15]	31+/-6%	3.4+/-0.1 (Base=474)	--

[12] 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.
[13] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. Because of the smaller sample size, the sampling error has increased accordingly.
[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.
[16] The 2003 Policy Address instant poll was conducted for two days. Only figures registered in the first day of fieldwork are listed in this table for direct comparison and analysis. Aggregate results are available in our "POP SITE".

After excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of this year's Policy Address, this year's instant survey showed that 30% were satisfied with it, 35% were dissatisfied and 24% said "half-half", giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 5 percentage points. The mean score is 2.8, meaning close to "half-half" in general. Meanwhile, the average rating registered for the Policy Address was 49.5 marks. Because part of the respondents said they were not familiar with the Policy Address during the instant poll, the valid sub-sample of this item was smaller. The sampling error for this question has increased accordingly.

The survey also gauged the change of people's confidence towards Hong Kong's future after CE CY Leung has delivered his Policy Address. Results are as follows:

Date of survey	Sub-sample base^[18]	Overall response rate	Confidence in HK's future^[17]
Date of survey	Sub-sample base^[18]	Overall response rate	Increased	Unchanged	Decreased	Don't know/ Hard to say	Net effect on confidence
14/1/15	*501*	67.4%	*22+/-4%*	*35+/-*4%	*38+/-*4%^[19]	*5+/-2%*	*-16+/-7%*
15/1/14	846	66.7%	24+/-3%^[19]	38+/-3%	32+/-3%^[19]	5+/-2%^[19]	-9+/-5%^[19]
16/1/13	913	68.7%	31+/-3%	38+/-3%^[19]	23+/-3%	7+/-2%^[19]	8+/-5%
12/10/11	957	65.6%	29+/-3%	45+/-3%	21+/-3%	5+/-1%	8+/-5%^[19]
13/10/10	914	66.9%	31+/-3%^[19]	45+/-3%	18+/-3%^[19]	6+/-2%	14+/-5%^[19]
14/10/09	749	71.9%	27+/-3%^[19]	47+/-4%^[19]	22+/-3%^[19]	5+/-2%	5+/-5%^[19]
15/10/08	761	74.9%	23+/-3%^[19]	38+/-4%^[19]	32+/-3%^[19]	7+/-2%	-9+/-5%^[19]
10/10/07	388	69.9%	53+/-5%^[19]	31%/-5%^[19]	7+/-3%^[19]	9+/-3%	46+/-6%^[19]
11/10/06	431	60.7%	25+/-4%^[19]	51+/-5%^[19]	16+/-4%^[19]	8+/-3%	9+/-6%^[19]
12/10/05	476	66.1%	54+/-5%^[19]	33+/-4%^[19]	5+/-2%^[19]	8+/-2%^[19]	49+/-5%^[19]
12/1/05	658	66.5%	34+/-4%	41+/-4%	12+/-3%^[19]	14+/-3%	22+/-5%^[19]
7/1/04	602	67.5%	32+/-4%^[19]	40+/-4%	16+/-3%^[19]	12+/-3%	16+/-5%^[19]
8/1/03^[20]	513	67.3%	25+/-4%	40+/- 4%^[19]	22+/-4%	14+/-3%^[19]	3+/-6%
10/10/01	591	66.0%	22+/-3%	50+/- 4%^[19]	21+/-3%^[19]	7+/-2%^[19]	1+/-5%^[19]
11/10/00	292	69.7%	22+/-5%^[19]	40+/-6%	15+/-4%	22+/-5%^[19]	7+/-7%^[19]
6/10/99	233	54.5%	40+/-6%^[19]	36+/- 6%^[19]	16+/-5%^[19]	8+/-4%	24+/-9%^[19]
7/10/98	505	56.5%	21+/-4%	52+/-4%	22+/-4%	5+/-2%	-1+/-6%

[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. This survey series began in 1998. Net effect on confidence means "increased" figure minus "decreased" figure.
[18] Excluding respondents who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. Because of the smaller sample size, the sampling error has increased accordingly.
[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.
[20] The 2003 Policy Address instant poll was conducted for two days. Only figures registered in the first day of fieldwork are listed in this table for direct comparison and analysis. Aggregate results are available in our "HKU POP SITE".

Results showed that, excluding those who did not have any knowledge of this year's Policy Address, 22% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased, 35% opted for "no change", whilst 38% said their confidence had dropped, giving a net effect on confidence of negative 16 percentage points.

Indepth Analysis

In the survey, we also asked respondents for their age. If they were reluctant to give their exact age, they could give us a range. According to their answers, we grouped them into 18-29, 30-49, and 50 years or older. Herewith further analysis of public's satisfaction rate of the Policy Address, CE's popularity and effect of the Policy Address on their confidence in HK's future by respondents' age:

Date of survey: 14/1/15		18-29	30-49	50 or above	Overall
Satisfaction rating of Policy Address^[21]		40.8+/-4.6 (80)	46.9+/-3.9 (168)	55.1+/-3.5 (219)	49.7+/-2.4 (467)
Satisfaction rate of the Policy Address^[21]	Satisfaction	15+/-8% (13)	25+/-6% (45)	40+/-6% (93)	30+/-4% (152)
	Half-half	30+/-10% (25)	24+/-6% (43)	21+/-5% (49)	24+/-4% (118)
	Dissatisfaction	44+/-11% (38)	39+/-7% (70)	28+/-6% (66)	35+/-4% (174)
	Don't know/ hard to say	11+/-7% (9)	12+/-5% (22)	10+/-4% (23)	11+/-3% (54)
	Total	100% (86)	100% (180)	100% (232)	100% (498)
	Mean value	2.5+/-0.2 (77)	2.7+/-0.2 (159)	3.1+/-0.2 (208)	2.8+/-0.1 (444)

[21] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

Date of survey: 14/1/15		18-29	30-49	50 or above	Overall
Rating of CE CY Leung^[22]		32.9+/-4.8 (114)	42.3+/-3.6 (235)	52.0+/-3.5 (278)	44.9+/-2.3 (627)
Vote of confidence/ no confidence in CE CY Leung^[22]	Support	11+/-6% (12)	23+/-6% (54)	33+/-6% (92)	25+/-3% (159)
	Oppose	83+/-7% (95)	64+/-6% (150)	47+/-6% (134)	60+/-4% (379)
	Don't know/ hard to say	6+/-4% (7)	13+/-4% (30)	20+/-5% (57)	15+/-3% (95)
	Total	100% (114)	100% (234)	100% (283)	100% (632)

[22] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

Date of survey: 14/1/15		18-29	30-49	50 or above	Overall
Confidence in HK's future^[23]	Increased	8+/-5% (9)	14+/-4% (33)	29+/-5% (83)	20+/-3% (124)
	Unchanged	34+/-9% (39)	32+/-6% (76)	33+/-6% (93)	33+/-4% (208)
	Decreased	49+/-9% (56)	41+/-6% (97)	27+/-5% (78)	36+/-4% (230)
	Don't know/ hard to say	10+/-6% (11)	13+/-4% (30)	10+/-4% (30)	11+/-2% (70)
	Total	100% (114)	100% (236)	100% (283)	100% (633)

[23] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

Commentary

Note: The following commentary was written by Director of POP Robert Chung.

According to our Policy Address instant survey, among those who had some knowledge of this year's Address, 30% said they were satisfied, 35% said they were not, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 5 percentage points. This is significantly poorer than his previous two Addresses, probably due to the low recent popularity of Leung himself. On a scale of 0-100, this year's Address scored 49.5 marks, which is also significantly poorer than last two years. This is the first time since CH Tung's Policy Address in 2004 that people give less than 50 marks to the Address. Looking back, among the 18 Policy Addresses after the handover and counting net satisfaction of instant surveys alone, people's appraisal of this year's "post-occupy" Address is very similar to that of the "post-July 1st" Address in 2004. Of course, how public opinion would change after CE and his officials explain their policies remains to be seen.

As for Leung's own popularity after the Address, his support rating has gone up significantly by 4.2 marks to 44.8, while his net popularity improves from negative 39 to negative 35 percentage points, meaning that the Address has a positive effect on his popularity. Looking back at the instant effect of CH Tung and Donald Tsang's Policy Addresses across the years, Tung's Addresses usually had a stimulating effect, while Tsang's Addresses on the whole usually had a dampening effect. Whether the positive effect of Leung's Addresses could be sustained remains to be seen.

Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of this year's Policy Address, 22% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased after the Policy Address, 38% said their confidence had dropped, while 35% said "no change", thereby giving a net effect of negative 16 percentage points on people's confidence.

Further analysis shows that those of age 18 to 29 are significantly less satisfied with the Address. They give significantly lower ratings to CE and his Address, as well as the strongest opposition against him as CE. However, for those of age 50 or above, more said their confidence in Hong Kong has increased because of the Address.

Our instant survey describes people's instant reaction towards the Policy Address, their follow-up reactions remain to be seen.

Future Release (Tentative)

January 20, 2015 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Policy Address first follow-up survey

About HKUPOP: "Outline of our operation for the Policy Address instant survey of 2015"

After the HKSAR government announced the date of Policy Address, we started our planning for the instant survey.
About one month ago, we began to keep track of news about the Policy Address, in order to lay the ground work of questionnaire design.
About one week ago, we began our manpower deployment and internal preparation.
On the day CE announces the Address, we monitored the media and the Internet, including the entire Address and CE's subsequent press conferences, and then drafted the questionnaire.
Our random telephone interviews began at 6 p.m. on that day, involving over 100 interviewers and other staff. The interviews finished around 9 p.m., after collecting 640 samples.
Data verification and quantitative analyses followed immediately, together with the release of preliminary results at 10 p.m. in the evening, and drafting of the press release.
On the following day, the survey findings were verified again, while our POP Site was re-designed. Our press release was compiled, proofread, and then released for public consumption.