HKU POP releases the latest social indicatorsBack

1. Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong has uploaded the full set of video record of the July 1 Rally onto the “PopCon” e-platform (http://popcon.hk). People can download the videos from the “July 1 Rally Feature page”, and do their own headcount of the Rally. Video clips at higher resolutions are also available for purchase at production cost. Details available at the feature page.


2. To facilitate academic study and rational discussion, POP has already released for public examination some time ago via the “HKU POP SITE” (http://hkupop.pori.hk) the raw data of all 77 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 interviewed 1,010 Hong Kong people between July 20 and 23 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. Our latest survey shows that compared to 6 months ago, most social indicators have dropped, many have even dropped to their record lows in over ten years. This shows that people are significanlty less positive about Hong Kong society than before. To be specific, the ratings of 4 out of 5 core social indicators (namely, “democracy”, “freedom”, “prosperity”, “stability” and the “rule of law”) have gone down. Those with decrements beyond sampling errors include the ratings of “freedom” and “prosperity”. Together with “rule of law”, the three indicators have dropped to their record lows since 2004 or 2005. As for the 7 non-core social indicators, only “civilization” has slightly gone up while all others have dropped. Among them, degrees of “efficiency”, “equality” and “fairness” register significant decreases, and the degree of “equality” has reached all-time record low since this survey series began in 1997. Besides, 4 among the 10 freedom sub-indicators have gone up while 6 have dropped. Among them, freedom of “procession and demonstration” has gone up, and “artistic literary creation” and “publication” have gone down beyond sampling errors. In terms of absolute ratings, among the 10 freedom sub-indicators, only the freedoms of “religious belief”, “entering or leaving Hong Kong”, “academic research” and “artistic literary creation” manage to reach 7 marks, while that of “artistic literary creation” has also reached all-time record low since this survey series began in 1997. All in all, people continue to consider Hong Kong’s degree of freedom positive. In the area of rule of law, all ratings have gone down including the popularity of its representative figure Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, which has gone down significantly by 2.4 marks to 66.0 marks, whereas the ratings of “impartiality of the courts” and “fairness of the judicial system” also registered significant decreases. The sampling error of rating figure of various indicators is no greater than +/-0.21 marks while that of Geoffrey Ma is no greater than +/-1.9 marks. The response rate of the survey is 66%.

POP today releases on schedule via the “POP SITE” the latest social indicators, include 5 core indicators, 7 non-core indicators, 10 freedom sub-indicators, 2 rule of law sub-indicators, and the rating of Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li. 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 year-end and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution collected in the 2011 Census. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:

[6] 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.

Herewith the latest figures of the 5 core social indicators:

[7] Starting from February 2011, these questions only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sub-sample sizes of this survey range from 563 to 602, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.
[8] 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 various ratings not more than +/-0.20 at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures.
[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.

Herewith the latest figures of the 7 non-core social indicators:

[10] Starting from August 2010, these questions only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sub-sample sizes of this survey range from 550 to 596, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.
[11] 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 various ratings not more than +/-0.19 at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures.
[12] 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.

Herewith the latest figures of the 10 freedom sub-indicators:

[13] Starting from August 2010, all questions of sub-indicators only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sub-sample sizes of this survey range from 535 to 632, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.
[14] 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 various ratings not more than +/-0.21 at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures.
[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.

Herewith the latest figures of the 2 rule of law sub-indicators and the rating of the Chief Justice:

[16]Starting from August 2010, all questions of sub-indicators only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sub-sample sizes of this survey range from 563 to 603, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.
[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 various ratings not more than +/-0.17 at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures, and that “sampling error is not more than +/-1.9 at 95% confidence level” when citing Geoffrey Ma’s rating.
[18] 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.

Regarding the core social indicators, latest results showed that, on a scale of 0-10, Hong Kong’s degree of “freedom” scored the highest rating with 6.98 marks, followed by “prosperity” with 6.66 marks, and then “stability” ,“compliance with the rule of law” and “democracy”, with 6.60, 6.56 and 6.05 marks respectively.

As for the non-core social indicators, “public order” has the highest score of 7.44 marks, followed by “civilization”, “efficiency”, “social welfare sufficiency”, “corruption-free practices”, “equality” and “fairness”, with scores of 6.90, 6.59, 6.49, 6.39, 5.84 and 5.45 marks correspondingly.

As for the freedom sub-indicators, the freedom of “religious belief” scored the highest rating with 8.49 marks. Freedom of “entering or leaving Hong Kong” came second with 8.16 marks. Freedoms of “academic research”, “artistic and literary creation”, “procession and demonstration”, “association”, “speech”, “publication”, “freedom to strike” and “press” formed the next tier, with respective scores of 7.27, 7.18, 6.77, 6.71, 6.69, 6.61, 6.50 and 6.43 marks.

Finally, for the two rule of law sub-indicators, the impartiality of the courts scored 6.91 marks, while the rating of the fairness of the judicial system was 6.63 marks. Meanwhile, the latest popularity rating of Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, a representative figure of the judicial system, was 66.0 marks, on a scale of 0-100.

In January 2007, POP opened a feature page called “Opinion Daily” at the “POP Site”, to record significant events and selected polling figures on a day-to-day basis, in order to provide readers with accurate information so that they can judge by themselves the reasons for the ups and downs of different opinion figures. In July 2007, POP collaborated with Wisers Information Limited whereby Wisers supplies to POP since July 24 each day a record of significant events of that day, according to the research method designed by POP. These daily entries would be uploaded to the “Opinion Daily” feature page as soon as they are verified by POP.

For the polling items covered in this press release, the previous survey was conducted from February 9 to 12, 2015, while the latest one was conducted from July 20 to 23, 2015. In between these two surveys, herewith the significant events selected from counting newspaper headlines and commentaries on a daily basis and covered by at least 25% of the local newspaper articles. Readers can make their own judgment if these significant events have any impacts to different polling figures.

Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, observed, “Our latest survey shows compared to 6 months ago, most social indicators have dropped, many have even dropped to their record lows in over ten years. This shows that people are significanlty less positive about Hong Kong society than before. To be specific, the ratings of 4 out of 5 core social indicators (namely, ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’, ‘prosperity’, ‘stability’ and the ‘rule of law’) have gone down. Those with decrements beyond sampling errors include the ratings of ‘freedom’ and ‘prosperity’. Together with ‘rule of law’, the three indicators have dropped to their record lows since 2004 or 2005. As for the 7 non-core social indicators, only ‘civilization’ has slightly gone up while all others have dropped. Among them, degrees of ‘efficiency’, ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ register significant decreases, and the degree of ‘equality’ has reached all-time record low since this survey series began in 1997. Besides, 4 among the 10 freedom sub-indicators have gone up while 6 have dropped. Among them, freedom of ‘procession and demonstration’ has gone up, and ‘artistic literary creation’ and ‘publication’ have gone down beyond sampling errors. In terms of absolute ratings, among the 10 freedom sub-indicators, only the freedoms of ‘religious belief’, ‘entering or leaving Hong Kong’, ‘academic research’ and ‘artistic literary creation’ manage to reach 7 marks, while that of ‘artistic literary creation’ has also reached all-time record low since this survey series began in 1997. All in all, people continue to consider Hong Kong’s degree of freedom positive. In the area of rule of law, all ratings have gone down including the popularity of its representative figure Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, which has gone down significantly by 2.4 marks to 66.0 marks, whereas the ratings of ‘impartiality of the courts’ and ‘fairness of the judicial system’ also registered significant decreases. As for the reasons affecting the ups and downs of various indicators, we leave it for our readers to make their own judgement after reading detailed records shown in our ‘Opinion Daily’ feature page.”

• August 11, 2015 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and Principal Officials