HKU POP releases the results of the Policy Address second follow-up surveyBack
Press Release on February 11, 2016
| Detailed Findings (Policy Address Feature Page) |
Abstract
The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at The University of Hong Kong interviewed 515 Hong Kong people between 1 and 2 February by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers, in order to measure again people’s reaction to this year’s Policy Address. According to our Policy Address instant survey, among respondents who had some knowledge of the fourth address of CY Leung, net satisfaction was negative 20 percentage points. In our first follow-up survey, it plunged to negative 37 percentage points, while satisfaction rating dropped to 37.5. Two weeks later, net satisfaction slightly rises 1 percentage point to negative 36 percentage points, while satisfaction rating also slightly rises to 39.7 marks. People’s net satisfaction with CY Leung’s policy direction now stands at negative 29 percentage points. Regarding the theme of the Address, those who agree that “Innovate for the Economy, Improve Livelihood, Foster Harmony, Share Prosperity” meets the need of society have significantly increased over the past two weeks. In terms of key policy areas, net support for the various policies regarding “Innovation and Technology” has significantly risen, while that for the various proposals about Belt and Road Initiative has not changed much, and remains negative. People’s appraisal of the housing policies proposed as well as the general measures taken to address Hong Kong’s current problems also has not changed much, and remains negative. Besides, about 60% continue to support the view that this year’s Policy Address tends to address social problems in Hong Kong from the perspective of the Central Government rather than from that of the citizens’. All in all, after many rounds of discussion, people’s appraisal of the policy address has slightly improved, but it is still negative. The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while that of rating figure is +/-2.4 and net value needs 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 515 successful interviews, not 515 x 66.5% 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, while the sampling error of rating figures and net
values needs another calculation. "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 various ratings not more than +/-2.4, that of percentages not more than +/-4% and net values no more than +/-8% at 95% confidence
level".
[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. 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. Our Policy Address’s instant and first follow-up surveys this year were released on January 13, 14 and 19 respectively, while the findings of the second follow-up poll are released today.
Latest Figures
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 2015 and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution collected in the 2011 Census. Herewith the contact information of various surveys:
|
Survey series |
Date of survey |
Sample base |
Overall response rate |
Sampling error of percentages[6] |
|
2016 Second follow-up |
1-2/2/16 |
515 |
66.5% |
+/-4% |
|
2016 First follow-up |
14-15/1/16 |
514 |
65.8% |
+/-4% |
|
2016 Instant |
13/1/16 |
608 |
64.1% |
+/-4% |
|
2015 Second follow-up |
3-4/2/15 |
514 |
67.9% |
+/-4% |
|
2015 First follow-up |
15-16/1/15 |
500 |
65.7% |
+/-4% |
|
2015 Instant |
14/1/15 |
640 |
67.4% |
+/-4% |
|
2014 Second follow-up |
28-29/1/14 |
516 |
65.2% |
+/-4% |
|
2014 First follow-up |
16-17/1/14 |
519 |
68.7% |
+/-4% |
|
2014 Instant |
15/1/14 |
1,017 |
66.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2013 Second follow-up |
22-24/1/13 |
507 |
66.6% |
+/-4% |
|
2013 First follow-up |
17-18/1/13 |
530 |
66.2% |
+/-4% |
|
2013 Instant |
16/1/13 |
1,021 |
68.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2011 Second follow-up |
17-20/10/11 |
518 |
73.9% |
+/-4% |
|
2011 First follow-up |
13-14/10/11 |
520 |
65.5% |
+/-4% |
|
2011 Instant |
12/10/11 |
1,032 |
65.6% |
+/-3% |
|
2010 Second follow-up |
26-27/10/10 |
523 |
64.0% |
+/-4% |
|
2010 First follow-up |
14-16/10/10 |
507 |
64.9% |
+/-4% |
|
2010 Instant |
13/10/10 |
1,020 |
66.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2009 Second follow-up |
20-26/10/09 |
513 |
72.1% |
+/-4% |
|
2009 First follow-up |
15-17/10/09 |
508 |
70.6% |
+/-4% |
|
2009 Instant |
14/10/09 |
1,007 |
71.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2008 Second follow-up |
27-29/10/08 |
1,015 |
70.3% |
+/-3% |
|
2008 First follow-up |
17-19/10/08 |
505 |
70.9% |
+/-4% |
|
2008 Instant |
15/10/08 |
1,011 |
74.9% |
+/-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.
As different questions involve different sub-samples, the sample 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:
|
Sample size (total sample or sub-sample) |
Sampling error of percentages[7] (maximum values) |
Sample size (total sample or sub-sample) |
Sampling error of percentages[7] (maximum values) |
|
1,300 |
+/- 2.8 % |
1,350 |
+/- 2.7 % |
|
1,200 |
+/- 2.9 % |
1,250 |
+/- 2.8 % |
|
1,100 |
+/- 3.0 % |
1,150 |
+/- 3.0 % |
|
1,000 |
+/- 3.2 % |
1,050 |
+/- 3.1 % |
|
900 |
+/- 3.3 % |
950 |
+/- 3.2 % |
|
800 |
+/- 3.5 % |
850 |
+/- 3.4 % |
|
700 |
+/- 3.8 % |
750 |
+/- 3.7 % |
|
600 |
+/- 4.1 % |
650 |
+/- 3.9 % |
|
500 |
+/- 4.5 % |
550 |
+/- 4.3 % |
|
400 |
+/- 5.0 % |
450 |
+/- 4.7 % |
[7] Based on 95% confidence interval.
Results of the second follow-up survey of Policy Address, together with the instant and first follow-up surveys, for 2015 (CY Leung’s third Policy Address) and 2016 (CY Leung’s fourth Policy Address) are tabulated below:
|
2015 |
2016 |
|||||||
|
Instant survey |
First follow-up survey |
Second follow-up survey |
Change |
Instant survey |
First follow-up survey |
Second follow-up survey |
Latest change |
|
|
Date of survey |
14/1/15 |
15-16/1/15 |
3-4/2/15 |
-- |
13/1/16 |
14-15/1/16 |
1-2/2/16 |
-- |
|
Sample base |
640[8] |
500 |
514 |
-- |
608[8] |
514 |
515 |
-- |
|
Overall response rate |
67.4% |
65.7% |
67.9% |
-- |
64.1% |
65.8% |
66.5% |
-- |
|
Latest Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
-- |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and error[9] |
-- |
|
Policy Address: Satisfaction rate[10] |
30% |
20%[11] |
22% |
+2% |
19% |
17% |
18+/-3% |
+1% |
|
Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate[10] |
35% |
47%[11] |
49% |
+2% |
39% |
53%[11] |
54+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Net value |
-5% |
-27%[11] |
-26% |
+1% |
-20% |
-37%[11] |
-36+/-7% |
+1% |
|
Mean Value[10] |
2.8 (Base=449) |
2.8[11 (Base=449) |
2.5 (Base=476) |
-0.3[11] |
2.5 (Base=423) |
2.3[11] (Base=451) |
2.3+/-0.1 (Base=460) |
-- |
|
Rating of Policy Address (0 to 100 marks) |
49.5 |
43.4[11] |
41.7 |
-1.7 |
41.1 |
37.5[11] |
39.7+/-2.4 |
+2.2 |
|
Satisfaction rate of Leung’s policy direction[10] |
-- |
24% |
23% |
-1% |
-- |
22% |
25+/-4% |
+3% |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of Leung’s policy direction[10] |
-- |
52% |
48% |
-4% |
-- |
54% |
53+/-4% |
-1% |
|
Net value |
-- |
-27% |
-25% |
+2% |
-- |
-31% |
-29+/-7% |
+2% |
|
Mean Value[10] |
-- |
2.5 (Base=483) |
2.5 (Base=488) |
-- |
-- |
2.4 (Base=487) |
2.4+/-0.1 (Base=487) |
-- |
[8] Excluding respondents who were not clear about the Policy Address. The sub-sample size in 2015 was 503 and that in 2016 was 522.
[9] 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.
Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.
[10] 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 importance level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[11] 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.
Latest second follow-up survey revealed that 18% of the respondents were satisfied with the Policy Address and 54% were dissatisfied, giving net satisfaction of negative 36 percentage points. The mean score is 2.3, which is between “half-half” and “quite dissatisfied” in general. The average rating registered for the Policy Address was 39.7 marks. As for people’s satisfaction with CY Leung's policy direction, 25% of the respondents showed satisfaction while 53% were not satisfied, giving net satisfaction of negative 29 percentage points. The mean score is 2.4, 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 – 2016) are tabulated below:
|
Date of survey |
Sub-sample base |
Appraisal of PA: Satisfaction [12] |
Appraisal of PA: Half-half |
Appraisal of PA: Dissatisfaction [12] |
Net value (Satisfaction minus dissatisfaction) |
|
Finding & error[13] |
Finding & error[13] |
Finding & error[13] |
Finding & error[13] |
||
|
1-2/2/16 |
515 |
18[14]+/-3% |
17[14]+/-3% |
54[14]+/-4% |
-36[14]+/-7% |
|
3-4/2/15 |
514 |
22[14] +/-4% |
22[14] +/-4% |
49[14] +/-4% |
-26[14] +/-7% |
|
28-29/1/14 |
516 |
27[14] +/-4% |
27+/-4% |
37[14] +/-4% |
-11[14] +/-7% |
|
22-24/1/13 |
506 |
22+/-4% |
29+/-4% |
45+/-4% |
-23+/-7% |
|
17-20/10/11 |
517 |
33+/-4% |
32+/-4% |
32+/-4% |
1+/-7% |
|
26-27/10/10 |
517 |
31[14]+/-4% |
30+/-4% |
33[14]+/-4% |
-2[14]+/-7% |
|
20-26/10/09 |
506 |
20+/-4% |
28[14]+/-4% |
45[14]+/-4% |
-25[14]+/-7% |
|
27-29/10/08 |
556 |
24[14]+/-4% |
36[14] +/-4% |
35[14]+/-4% |
-11[14]+/-6% |
|
22-23/10/07 |
526 |
43[14]+/-4% |
31[14]+/-4% |
18[14]+/-3% |
25+/-6% |
|
23-24/10/06 |
506 |
26[14]+/-4% |
41[14]+/-4% |
23[14]+/-4% |
3[14]+/-6% |
|
25-27/10/05 |
511 |
41+/-4% |
24+/-4% |
5+/-2% |
36+/-5% |
|
27-31/1/05 |
1,012 |
17+/-2% |
37[14]+/-3% |
23[14]+/-3% |
-6[14]+/-4% |
|
14-16/1/04 |
987 |
10[14]+/-2% |
27[14]+/-3% |
29[14]+/-3% |
-19[14]+/-4% |
|
23-28/1/03 |
1,049 |
13+/-2% |
22[14] +/-3% |
37[14]+/-3% |
-24[14]+/-4% |
|
21-23/10/01 |
1,056 |
14+/-2% |
32[14]+/-3% |
31[14]+/-3% |
-16[14]+/-4% |
|
23-25/10/00 |
1,026 |
15[14]+/-2% |
28+/-3% |
25+/-3% |
-10[14]+/-4% |
|
22/10/99 |
553 |
12[14]+/-3% |
28+/-4% |
27[14]+/-4% |
-15+/-5% |
|
20/10/98 |
460 |
22[14]+/-4% |
31+/-4% |
37[14]+/-5% |
-15+/-7% |
|
14-15/10/97 |
515 |
31[14]+/-4% |
27+/-4% |
14+/-3% |
17+/-6% |
[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 fourth 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 2016 are tabulated below:
|
First follow-up survey |
Second follow-up survey |
Change |
|
|
Date of survey |
14-15/1/16 |
1-2/2/16 |
-- |
|
Sample base |
514 |
515 |
-- |
|
Overall response rate |
65.8% |
66.5% |
-- |
|
Latest Finding |
Finding |
Finding and error[15] |
-- |
|
The theme of this year’s Policy Address “Innovate for the Economy, Improve Livelihood, Foster Harmony, Share Prosperity” concurs the current needs of the society. |
47% |
54+/-4% |
+7%[16] |
|
The theme of this year’s Policy Address “Innovate for the Economy, Improve Livelihood, Foster Harmony, Share Prosperity” does not concur the current needs of the society. |
33% |
31+/-4% |
-2% |
|
Regard the effect of the housing and land supply policies proposed by CY Leung on tackling housing problems to be large. |
23% |
20+/-3% |
-3% |
|
Regard the effect of the housing and land supply policies proposed by CY Leung on tackling housing problems to be small (including no effect).. |
52% |
54+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Regard the effect of the various policies proposed by CY Leung in the Policy Address on tackling current problems facing Hong Kong to be large. |
11% |
10+/-3% |
-1% |
|
Regard the effect of the various policies proposed by CY Leung in the Policy Address on tackling current problems facing Hong Kong to be small (including no effect). |
62% |
65+/-4% |
+3% |
|
Support CY Leung’s policy proposals regarding “Innovation and Technology”, including earmarking $2 billion to the ITB so that investment income generated from the allocation can be used to fund research undertaken by institutions; setting up the Innovation and Technology Fund for Better Living respectively; developing a “smart city”, etc. |
44% |
50+/-4% |
+6%[16] |
|
Oppose to CY Leung’s policy proposals regarding “Innovation and Technology”, including earmarking $2 billion to the ITB so that investment income generated from the allocation can be used to fund research undertaken by institutions; setting up the Innovation and Technology Fund for Better Living respectively; developing a “smart city”, etc. |
31% |
28+/-4% |
-3% |
|
Net support |
13% |
22+/-8% |
+9%[16] |
|
Support the Government to set up a steering committee for the Belt and Road, which will be responsible for formulating strategies and policies for Hong Kong’s participation in the Belt and Road Initiative. A Belt and Road Office will also be established to take forward related studies. Besides, a $1 billion scholarship fund will be set up to attract more students from the Belt and Road countries to study in Hong Kong. |
21% |
25+/-4% |
+4% |
|
Oppose the Government to set up a steering committee for the Belt and Road, which will be responsible for formulating strategies and policies for Hong Kong’s participation in the Belt and Road Initiative. A Belt and Road Office will also be established to take forward related studies. Besides, a $1 billion scholarship fund will be set up to attract more students from the Belt and Road countries to study in Hong Kong. |
60% |
60+/-4% |
-- |
|
Net support |
-39% |
-36+/-8% |
+3% |
|
Agree with the saying that this year’s Policy Address tends to address social problems in Hong Kong from the perspective of the Central Government rather than from citizens’ perspective. |
58% |
60+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Disagree with the saying that this year’s Policy Address tends to address social problems in Hong Kong from the perspective of the Central Government rather than from citizens’ perspective. |
23% |
24+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Net support |
36% |
36+/-7% |
-- |
[15] 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.
[16] 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 the second follow-up poll showed that 54% thought the theme of the Policy Address “Innovate for the Economy, Improve Livelihood, Foster Harmony, Share Prosperity” concurred with the current needs of the society while 31% did not think so. Besides, 20% considered the effect of the housing and land supply policies on tackling housing problems big while 54% considered it small (including no effect). As for the effect of various policies proposed by CY Leung in the Policy Address on tackling current problems facing Hong Kong, 10% said the effect would be big, while 65% said it would be small (including no effect). Besides 50% support CY Leung’s policy proposals regarding “Innovation and Technology”, including granting money to the ITB to fund research undertaken by institutions, setting up two funds about Innovation and Technology, developing a “smart city” and other policies, while 28% opposed. Meanwhile, 25% support the Government’s proposals about Belt and Road Initiative, including setting up a steering committee for the Belt and Road, a Belt and Road Office and a scholarship to attract more students from the Belt and Road countries to study in Hong Kong, while 60% opposed. Regarding the saying that this year’s Policy Address tends to address social problems in Hong Kong from the perspective of the Central Government rather than from citizens’ perspective, 60% agreed with the saying, while 24% opposed.
Commentary
Note: The following commentary was written by Senior Data Analyst of POP, Edward Chit-Fai Tai.
According to our Policy Address instant survey, among respondents who had some knowledge of the fourth address of CY Leung, net satisfaction was negative 20 percentage points. In our first follow-up survey, it plunged to negative 37 percentage points, while satisfaction rating dropped to 37.5. Two weeks later, net satisfaction slightly rises 1 percentage point to negative 36 percentage points, while satisfaction rating also slightly rises to 39.7 marks. People’s net satisfaction with CY Leung’s policy direction now stands at negative 29 percentage points. Regarding the theme of the Address, those who agree that “Innovate for the Economy, Improve Livelihood, Foster Harmony, Share Prosperity” meets the need of society have significantly increased over the past two weeks. In terms of key policy areas, net support for the various policies regarding “Innovation and Technology” has significantly risen, while that for the various proposals about Belt and Road Initiative has not changed much, and remains negative. People’s appraisal of the housing policies proposed as well as the general measures taken to address Hong Kong’s current problems also has not changed much, and remains negative. Besides, about 60% continue to support the view that this year’s Policy Address tends to address social problems in Hong Kong from the perspective of the Central Government rather than from that of the citizens’. All in all, after many rounds of discussion, people’s appraisal of the policy address has slightly improved, but it is still negative.
Future Release (Tentative)
February 16, 2016 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and Principal Officials
