HKU POP releases the results of the Policy Address second follow-up surveyBack

The Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong conducted a headcount exercise on February 1 and released the preliminary results on the same day. POP has now released the details of the headcount via the “HKU POP Site” (http://hkupop.pori.hk), and will upload the video clippings onto the “PopCon Site” (http://popcon.hk) tomorrow for people to verify the figures this week.

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. In general, such surveys would be repeated some time later to measure people's more matured reactions. In 2008, we further enhanced our survey design by splitting our Policy Address instant survey into two. In our instant 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. One to two days later, we started to conduct our first follow-up survey, which mainly studies people’s reactions towards different government proposals, and any change in their satisfaction of the Policy Address. Our second follow-up survey would be conducted a short period later, to repeat our measurement of people’s reactions towards different government proposals, and any change in their satisfaction of the Policy Address. We believe this is a better way to study public opinion on these issues: measuring people's instant reaction first, and then repeat our measurement some time later to check people's more matured reaction. Findings of our Policy Address’s instant and first follow-up surveys this year were released on January 14, 15 and 20 respectively, while that of the second follow-up poll are released today.

POP today releases the latest findings of the second follow-up survey of Policy Address. 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 mid-year 2014 and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution collected in the 2011 Census. Herewith the contact information of various surveys:

As different questions involve different sub-samples, the sampling errors will vary accordingly. The table below briefly shows the relationship between sampling errors and sample size for the readers to capture the corresponding changes:

Results of the second follow-up survey of Policy Address, together with the instant and first follow-up surveys, for 2014 (CY Leung’s second Policy Address) and 2015 (CY Leung’s third Policy Address) are tabulated below:

The second follow-up survey revealed that 22% of the respondents were satisfied with the Policy Address and 49% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction of negative 26 percentage points. The mean score is 2.5, which is between “half-half” and “quite dissatisfied” in general. The average rating registered for the Policy Address was 41.7 marks. As for people’s satisfaction with CY Leung’s policy direction, 23% of the respondents showed satisfaction while 48% were not satisfied, giving net satisfaction of negative 25 percentage points. The mean score is 2.5, which is between “half-half” and “quite dissatisfied” in general.

Results of people’s satisfaction with the Policy Address in previous similar surveys (follow-up survey of Policy Address in 1997, 1998 and 2000 – 2007 and second follow-up surveys of Policy Address in 1999, 2008 – 2015) are tabulated below:

[12] Collapsed from a 5-point scale.
[13] Errors are 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.
[14] 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.

Compared to similar surveys conducted after the handover, people’s net satisfaction with CY Leung’s third Policy Address is lower than those registered for all seven addresses of Tsang and all eight addresses of Tung. Other results of both first and second follow-up surveys of Policy Address 2015 are tabulated below:

Results of the second follow-up poll showed that 60% thought the theme of the Policy Address “Uphold the Rule of Law, Seize the Opportunities, Make the Right Choices, Pursue Democracy, Boost the Economy, Improve People’s Livelihood” concurred with the current needs of the society while 21% did not think so. Besides, 23% considered the effect of the housing and land supply policies on tackling housing problems big while 55% considered it small (including no effect). As for the effect of the youth education and development policies proposed by CY Leung on tackling youth problems, 13% said the effect would be big while 58% said it would be small (including no effect). Besides, 10% believed the effect of various policies proposed by CY Leung in the Policy Address on tackling current problems facing Hong Kong would be big, while 58% said there would be small or even no effect. Meanwhile, 51% supported CY Leung’s the suspension of the Capital Investment Entrant Scheme while 26% opposed. Regarding CY Leung’s criticism made in the introduction of the Policy Address on the official magazine of The Hong Kong University Student’s Union, “Undergrad”, for advocating Hong Kong should find a way to self-reliance and self-determination, and called on people to stay alert and discourage it, 24% supported this approach, while 61% opposed.

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

According to our Policy Address instant survey, among respondents who had some knowledge of the third address of CY Leung, net satisfaction was negative 5 percentage points. In our first follow-up survey, it plunged to negative 27 percentage points, while satisfaction rating plunged to 43.4. About three weeks later, net satisfaction slightly rises 1 percentage point to negative 26 percentage points, but satisfaction rating continues to drop to 41.7 marks, which is the poorest policy address rating since record begins in 2005. People’s net satisfaction with CY Leung’s policy direction now stands at negative 25 percentage points. Regarding the theme of the Address, those who agree that “Uphold the Rule of Law, Seize the Opportunities, Make the Right Choices, Pursue Democracy, Boost the Economy, Improve People’s Livelihood” meets the need of society have increased over the past three weeks. In terms of key policy areas, net support for the suspension of the Capital Investment Entrant Scheme has dropped. People’s appraisal of the housing and education policies proposed, as well as the general measures taken to address Hong Kong’s current problems, has not changed much and remains negative. About 60% continue to object CY Leung’s criticizing The Hong Kong University Students’ Union magazine, “Undergrad”, at the beginning of his Address, for advocating “self-reliance” and “self-determination” in Hong Kong. All in all, after many rounds of discussion, people’s appraisal of the policy address has not changed much, still negative.

• February 17, 2015 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Social, freedom and legal indicators