HKU POP releases findings of an instant poll on Policy AddressBack
Press Release on January 14, 2016
| Detailed Findings (Policy Address Feature Page) |
Abstract
The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at The University of Hong Kong interviewed 608 Hong Kong people last night (January 13, 2016) by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. Some of its findings have already been released via our “HKU POP SITE” (http://hkupop.pori.hk) yesterday, today we release the more comprehensive and in-depth analyses. According to our Policy Address instant survey, among those who had some knowledge of the fourth Address by CE CY Leung, 19% said they were satisfied, 39% said they were not, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 20 percentage points, which is significantly poorer than his previous three Addresses and a record low since the handover in 1997. On a scale of 0-100, this year’s Address scored 41.1 marks, which is also significantly poorer than last year, also an all-time record low. Looking back, among the 19 Policy Addresses after the handover and counting both rating and net satisfaction of instant surveys alone, people’s appraisal of this year’s Address is rather negative. 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 slightly dropped by 0.5 mark to 37.0, while his net approval rate dropped significantly from negative 44 to negative 54 percentage points, both at all-time record low since he became CE, meaning that the Address has a negative 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. Leung enjoyed a stimulating effect from his three previous Addresses but it turned negative this time, whether this effect would continue remains to be seen. Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of this year’s Policy Address, 16% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased after the Policy Address, 44% said their confidence had dropped, while 31% said “no change”, thereby giving a net effect of negative 27 percentage points on people’s confidence, which is another record low since the handover. Further analysis shows that the younger the respondents, the more dissatisfied they are with this fourth Address by CE CY Leung, give lower ratings to the Address and CE, show stronger opposition against him as CE, and their confidence in Hong Kong more likely to have decreased 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 64%.
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 608 successful interviews, not 608 x 64.1% 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 +/-2.3 and net values not more than +/-6 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 eighth 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 2015 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] |
|
2016 |
13/1/16 |
608 |
64.1% |
+/-4% |
|
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% |
|
2005 |
12/1/05 |
1,034 |
66.5% |
+/-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 |
18-24/11/15 |
3-7/12/15 |
16-21/12/15 |
4-6/1/16 |
13/1/16 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
1,021 |
1,011 |
1,012 |
1,013 |
608 |
-- |
|
Overall response rate |
66.4% |
65.4% |
66.6% |
63.9% |
64.1% |
-- |
|
Latest finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and Error [7] |
-- |
|
Rating of CE CY Leung |
43.3 |
41.8 |
42.7 |
37.5[8] |
37.0+/-2.3 |
-0.5 |
|
Vote of confidence in CE CY Leung |
26% |
24% |
26% |
22%[8] |
18+/-3% |
-4%[8] |
|
Vote of no confidence in CE CY Leung |
58% |
63%[8] |
59%[8] |
66%[8] |
72+/-4% |
+6%[8] |
|
Net approval rate |
-33% |
-39%[8] |
-33%[8] |
-44%[8] |
-54+/-6% |
-10%[8] |
[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. Media can state “sampling error of rating not more than +/-2.3, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error of net approval rates 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.
[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 2016 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
1st Policy Address |
2nd Policy Address |
3rd Policy Address |
4th Policy Address |
|||||||||||||||
|
Date of Policy Address Speech |
16/1/13 |
15/1/14 |
14/1/15 |
13/1/16 |
||||||||||||||
|
CE’s popularity rating before the PA & error[9] |
48.9+/-1.6 |
45.6+/-1.6 |
40.6+/-1.8 |
37.5+/-1.9 |
||||||||||||||
|
CE’s popularity rating at PA instant survey & error[9] |
52.2+/-1.6 |
48.9+/-1.6 |
44.8+/-2.3 |
37.0+/-2.3 |
||||||||||||||
|
Change in CE’s rating |
+3.3[10] |
+3.3[10] |
+4.2[10] |
-0.5 |
||||||||||||||
|
CE’s net approval rate before the PA & error[9] |
-20+/-6% |
-31+/-5% |
-39+/-5% |
-44+/-5% |
||||||||||||||
|
CE’s net approval rate at PA instant survey & error[9] |
-11+/-6% |
-24+/-6% |
-35+/-7% |
-54+/-6% |
||||||||||||||
|
Change in CE’s net approval rate [11] |
+9%[10] |
+7%[10] |
+4% |
-10%[10] |
||||||||||||||
[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 37.0 marks, with an approval and disapproval rate of 18% and 72% respectively, giving a net approval of negative 54 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] |
|||||
|
Satisfaction rate[14] |
Half-half |
Dissatisfaction rate[14] |
Net satisfaction rate |
Mean value[14] |
Satisfaction rating of Policy Address |
||
|
13/1/16 |
522 |
19+/-3%[15]` |
23+/-4% |
39+/-4% |
-20+/-6%[15] |
2.5+/-0.1[15] (Base=423) |
41.1+/-2.6[15] |
|
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 19% were satisfied with it, 39% were dissatisfied and 23% said “half-half”, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 20 percentage points. The mean score is 2.5, which is in between “quite dissatisfied” and “half-half”. Meanwhile, the average rating registered for the Policy Address was 41.1 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] |
||||
|
Increased |
Unchanged |
Decreased |
Don’t know/ Hard to say |
Net effect on confidence |
|||
|
13/1/16 |
521 |
64.1% |
16+/-3%[19] |
31+/-4% |
44+/-4%[19] |
10+/-3%[19] |
-27+/-6%[19] |
|
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, 16% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased, 31% opted for “no change”, whilst 44% said their confidence had dropped, giving a net effect on confidence of negative 27 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: 13/1/16 |
18-29 |
30-49 |
50 or above |
Overall |
|
|
Satisfaction rating of Policy Address[21] |
33.5+/-5.2 (87) |
39.4+/-4.5 (151) |
45.6+/-3.9 (211) |
41.0+/-2.6 (449) |
|
|
Satisfaction rate of the Policy Address[21] |
Satisfaction |
8+/-5% (7) |
16+/-6% (30) |
26+/-6% (62) |
19+/-3% (100) |
|
Half-half |
21+/-8% (20) |
23+/-6% (43) |
23+/-5% (57) |
23+/-4% (119) |
|
|
Dissatisfaction |
53+/-10% (52) |
40+/-7% (72) |
33+/-6% (79) |
39+/-4% (203) |
|
|
Don’t know/ hard to say |
18+/-8% (18) |
20+/-6% (37) |
18+/-5% (43) |
19+/-3% (98) |
|
|
Total |
100% (97) |
100% (182) |
100% (241) |
100% (520) |
|
|
Mean value |
2.1+/-0.2 (80) |
2.5+/-0.2 (145) |
2.7+/-0.2 (198) |
2.5+/-0.1 (422) |
|
[21] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.
|
Date of survey: 13/1/16 |
18-29 |
30-49 |
50 or above |
Overall |
|
|
Rating of CE CY Leung[22] |
24.9+/-4.7 (107) |
35.9+/-3.9 (220) |
42.5+/-3.5 (268) |
36.9+/-2.4 (595) |
|
|
Vote of confidence/ no confidence in CE CY Leung[22] |
Support |
7+/-5% (7) |
20+/-5% (44) |
21+/-5% (57) |
18+/-3% (108) |
|
Oppose |
91+/-5% (97) |
68+/-6% (150) |
68+/-6% (187) |
72+/-4% (434) |
|
|
Don’t know/ hard to say |
2+/-2% (2) |
12+/-4% (27) |
12+/-4% (33) |
10+/-2% (62) |
|
|
Total |
100% (106) |
100% (221) |
100% (276) |
100% (603) |
|
[22] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.
|
Date of survey: 13/1/16 |
18-29 |
30-49 |
50 or above |
Overall |
|
|
Confidence in HK’s future[23] |
Increased |
7+/-5% (8) |
13+/-5% (29) |
19+/-5% (52) |
15+/-3% (89) |
|
Unchanged |
28+/-9% (30) |
29+/-6% (64) |
29+/-5% (80) |
29+/-4% (174) |
|
|
Decreased |
55+/-10% (58) |
40+/-7% (89) |
39+/-6% (108) |
42+/-4% (255) |
|
|
Don’t know/ hard to say |
10+/-6% (10) |
18+/-5% (40) |
13+/-4% (36) |
14+/-3% (86) |
|
|
Total |
100% (107) |
100% (221) |
100% (276) |
100% (604) |
|
[23] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.
Commentary
Note: The following commentary was written by Research Manager of POP, Frank Lee.
According to our Policy Address instant survey, among those who had some knowledge of the fourth Address by CE CY Leung, 19% said they were satisfied, 39% said they were not, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 20 percentage points, which is significantly poorer than his previous three Addresses and a record low since the handover in 1997. On a scale of 0-100, this year’s Address scored 41.1 marks, which is also significantly poorer than last year, also an all-time record low. Looking back, among the 19 Policy Addresses after the handover and counting both rating and net satisfaction of instant surveys alone, people’s appraisal of this year’s Address is rather negative. 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 slightly dropped by 0.5 mark to 37.0, while his net approval rate dropped significantly from negative 44 to negative 54 percentage points, both at all-time record low since he became CE, meaning that the Address has a negative 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. Leung enjoyed a stimulating effect from his three previous Addresses but it turned negative this time, whether this effect would continue remains to be seen.
Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of this year’s Policy Address, 16% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased after the Policy Address, 44% said their confidence had dropped, while 31% said “no change”, thereby giving a net effect of negative 27 percentage points on people’s confidence, which is another record low since the handover.
Further analysis shows that the younger the respondents, the more dissatisfied they are with this fourth Address by CE CY Leung, give lower ratings to the Address and CE, show stronger opposition against him as CE, and their confidence in Hong Kong more likely to have decreased 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 19, 2016 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Policy Address first follow-up survey
About HKUPOP: “Outline of our operation for the Policy Address instant survey of 2016”
- 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 6:30 p.m. on that day, involving around 110 interviewers and other staff. The interviews finished around 10 p.m., after collecting 608 samples.
- Data verification and quantitative analyses followed immediately, together with the release of preliminary results at around midnight, 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.
