HKU| FSS| Contact Us| Sitemap

• 
• 

Search Wizard

Local Public Figures Non-local Public Figures Research on Politics and Policies Social Research Groups & Organizations [-] [+]

Press Releases POP Polls POP Columns Features Research Report

Press Release on February 23, 2016

| Detailed Findings (Social Indicators) |

| Detailed Findings (Freedom Indicators) |

| Detailed Findings (Rule of law indicators) |

Special Announcements

1. POP will conduct instant survey on FS’s Budget Talk - As in previous years, Public Opinion Programme (POP) at The University of Hong Kong will conduct an instant survey after the Financial Secretary John Tsang gives his Budget Talk tomorrow (February 24, 2016). Results will be announced as soon as possible, after which POP will conduct follow-up surveys. Media interested in sponsoring these surveys can contact POP.

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 91 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.

Abstract

POP interviewed 1,026 Hong Kong people between February 15 and 18 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. Our latest survey shows that compared to half a year ago, most social indicators continue to drop, many have again dropped to their record lows in over ten years. This shows that people appraised the Hong Kong society less positively. To be specific, the ratings of all 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 “stability” and “prosperity”. All the 5 indicators have dropped to their record lows since 2003 or 2004. As for the 7 non-core social indicators, only “fairness” and“equality” have slightly gone up while all others have dropped. Among them, degrees of “public order”, “social welfare sufficiency” and “civilization” register significant decreases. Besides, 4 among the 10 freedom sub-indicators have gone up while 6 have dropped. Among them, freedom of “speech” has gone up, while that of “publication”, “association” and “artistic literary creation” has 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” and “academic research” manage to reach 7 marks or above, while those of “academic research”, “artistic literary creation” and “publication” have dropped to all-time record lows since this survey series began in 1997. All in all, people still consider Hong Kong’s degree of freedom to be positive, but their appraisal of some types of freedom has gone worse obviously. In the area of rule of law, all ratings have also gone down, of which the rating of “fairness of the judicial system” has registered significant decrease. The sampling error of rating figure of various indicators is no greater than +/-0.21 marks at 95% confidence level, while that of Geoffrey Ma is no greater than +/-2.2 marks. 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 total sample size of this survey is 1,026 successful interviews, not 1,026 x 66.8% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.

[3] “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 rating of various indicators not more than +/-0.21 while that of Geoffrey Ma not more than +/-2.2 at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above 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.

Latest Figures

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 2015 mid-year and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution collected in the 2011 Census. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:

Date of survey	Overall sample size	Response rate	Maximum sampling error of ratings[6]
15-18/2/2016	1,026	66.8%	+/-2.2

[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:

Date of survey	7-12/2/14	21-24/7/14	9-12/2/15	20-23/7/15	15-18/2/16	Latest change
Total sample size [7]	1,031	1,017	1,019	1,010	1,026	--
Overall response rate	68.0%	68.3%	69.1%	66.4%	66.8%	--
Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding & error[8]	--
Degree of freedom	7.30	7.13	7.16	6.98[9]	6.91+/-0.18	-0.07
Compliance with the rule of law	6.91	6.65[9]	6.67	6.56	6.45+/-0.18[10]	-0.11
Degree of prosperity	7.02	6.87[9]	6.82	6.66[9]	6.45+/-0.16[10]	-0.21[9]
Degree of democracy	6.25	5.93[9]	6.11	6.05	5.89+/-0.21	-0.16
Degree of stability	6.80	6.44[9]	6.54	6.60	5.84+/-0.17	-0.76[9]

[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 594 to 656, 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 +/-0.21 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.

[10] In four decimal places, the rating of compliance with the rule of law is 6.4474 and that of degree of prosperity is 6.4471.

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

Date of survey	7-12/2/14	21-24/7/14	9-12/2/15	20-23/7/15	15-18/2/16	Latest change
Total sample size [11]	1,031	1,017	1,019	1,010	1,026	--
Overall response rate	68.0%	68.3%	69.1%	66.4%	66.8%	--
Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding & error[12]	--
Degree of public order	7.59[13]	7.40[13]	7.45	7.44	6.79+/-0.16	-0.65[13]
Degree of civilization	7.25[13]	7.03[13]	6.88[13]	6.90	6.74+/-0.15	-0.16[13]
Degree of efficiency	6.87	6.82	6.86	6.59[13]	6.54+/-0.18	-0.05
Degree of corruption- free practices	6.61[13]	6.25[13]	6.48[13]	6.39	6.36+/-0.17	-0.03
Degree of social welfare sufficiency	6.39	6.23	6.59[13]	6.49	6.20+/-0.19	-0.29[13]
Degree of equality	6.00	6.01	6.09	5.84[13]	5.90+/-0.18	+0.06
Degree of fairness	5.72	5.71	5.67	5.45[13]	5.53+/-0.21	+0.08

[11] Starting from August 2010, these questions only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sub-sample sizes of this survey range from 587 to 644, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.

[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. Media can state “sampling error of various ratings not more than +/-0.21 at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures.

[13] 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:

Date of survey	7-12/2/14	21-24/7/14	9-12/2/15	20-23/7/15	15-18/2/16	Latest change
Total sample size [14]	1,031	1,017	1,019	1,010	1,026	--
Overall response rate	68.0%	68.3%	69.1%	66.4%	66.8%	--
Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding & error[15]	--
Degree of freedom (repeated listing)	7.30	7.13	7.16	6.98[16]	6.91+/-0.18	-0.07
Freedom of religious belief	8.58	8.30[16]	8.63[16]	8.49	8.51+/-0.14	+0.02
Freedom to enter or leave Hong Kong	8.48	8.28[16]	8.14	8.16	8.17+/-0.17	+0.01
Freedom to engage in academic research	7.48[16]	7.29[16]	7.33	7.27	7.08+/-0.19	-0.19
Freedom to engage in artistic and literary creation	7.26[16]	7.22	7.50[16]	7.18[16]	6.96+/-0.19	-0.22[16]
Freedom of speech	7.07[16]	6.83[16]	6.88	6.69	6.90+/-0.19	+0.21[16]
Freedom of procession and demonstration	7.05[16]	6.70[16]	6.53	6.77[16]	6.65+/-0.21	-0.12
Freedom to strike	6.51[16]	6.51	6.41	6.50	6.62+/-0.21	+0.12
Freedom of association	6.91[16]	6.78	6.65	6.71	6.48+/-0.21	-0.23[16]
Freedom of press	6.61[16]	6.29[16]	6.62[16]	6.43	6.41+/-0.20	-0.02
Freedom of publication	7.04[16]	6.60[16]	6.81[16]	6.61[16]	6.27+/-0.20	-0.34[16]

[14] 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 583 to 662, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.

[15] 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.

[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.

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

Date of survey	7-12/2/14	21-24/7/14	9-12/2/15	20-23/7/15	15-18/2/16	Latest change
Total sample size[17]	1,031	1,017	1,019	1,010	1,026	--
Overall response rate	68.0%	68.3%	69.1%	66.4%	66.8%	--
Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding & error[18]	--
Compliance with the rule of law (repeated listing)	6.91	6.65[19]	6.67	6.56	6.45+/-0.18	-0.11
Impartiality of the courts	7.06[19]	6.91	7.32[19]	6.91[19]	6.84+/-0.17	-0.07
Fairness of the judicial system	6.73	6.59	6.89[19]	6.63[19]	6.40+/-0.18	-0.23[19]
Support rating of Geoffrey Ma	60.6[19]	62.9[19]	68.4[19]	66.0[19]	65.5+/-2.2	-0.5

[17] 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 602 to 634, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.

[18] 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 +/-0.18 at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures, and that “sampling error is not more than +/-2.2 at 95% confidence level” when citing Geoffrey Ma’s rating.

[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.

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 6.91 marks, followed by “compliance with the rule of law” and “prosperity”, both with 6.45 marks, and then “democracy” and “stability”, with 5.89 and 5.84 marks respectively.

As for the non-core social indicators, “public order” has the highest score of 6.79 marks, followed by “civilization”, “efficiency”, “corruption-free practices”,“social welfare sufficiency”,“equality” and “fairness”, with scores of 6.74, 6.54, 6.36, 6.20, 5.90 and 5.53 marks correspondingly.

As for the freedom sub-indicators, the freedom of “religious belief” scored the highest rating with 8.51 marks. Freedom of “entering or leaving Hong Kong” came second with 8.17 marks. Freedoms of “academic research”, “artistic and literary creation”, “speech”, “procession and demonstration”, “freedom to strike”, “association”, “press” and “publication” formed the next tier, with respective scores of 7.08, 6.96, 6.90, 6.65, 6.62, 6.48, 6.41 and 6.27 marks.

Finally, for the two rule of law sub-indicators, the impartiality of the courts scored 6.84 marks, while the rating of the fairness of the judicial system was 6.40 marks. Meanwhile, the latest popularity rating of Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, a representative figure of the judicial system, was 65.5 marks, on a scale of 0-100.

Opinion Daily

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 let readers 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 each day since July 24, a record of significant events of that day, according to the research method designed by POP. These daily entries would be uploaded to “Opinion Daily” as soon as they are verified by POP.

For the polling items covered in this press release, the previous survey was conducted from July 20 to 23, 2015, while the latest one was conducted from February 15 to 18, 2016. 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.

9/2/16	A conflict between protesters and police in Mong Kok was triggered by the eviction of food hawkers on the first day of the Lunar New Year.
4/2/16	The meeting of Copyright Amendment Bill in Legislative Council is adjourned for the fourth time due to low attendance.
28/1/16	The chairman of the HKU governing council Arthur Li accuses Civic Party of manipulating students.
13/1/16	CY Leung delivers the 2016 Policy Address.
5/1/16	Media reports on the missing of Causeway Bay bookstore’s shareholder.
30/11/15	The latest estimate cost of high-speed railway revised to HK$84.4 billion.
22/11/15	The turnout rate of the District Council Election reaches a record high of 47%.
31/10/15	Territory-wide System Assessment will be reviewed by Education Bureau.
30/9/15	The Council of The University of Hong Kong rejects Johannes Chan’s appointment as Pro-Vice-Chancellor.
12/9/15	Zhang Xiaoming says Chief Executive’s authority is above the executive, legislative and judicial institutions.
6/9/15	Protest against parallel traders in Sheung Shui.
25/7/15	The water quality issues at public housing estates.

Commentary

Edward Chit-Fai Tai, Senior Data Analyst of POP, observed, “Our latest survey shows that compared to half a year ago, most social indicators continue to drop, many have again dropped to their record lows in over ten years. This shows that people appraised the Hong Kong society less positively. To be specific, the ratings of all 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 ‘stability’ and ‘prosperity’. All the 5 indicators have dropped to their record lows since 2003 or 2004. As for the 7 non-core social indicators, only ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’ have slightly gone up while all others have dropped. Among them, degrees of ‘public order’, ‘social welfare sufficiency’ and ‘civilization’ register significant decreases. Besides, 4 among the 10 freedom sub-indicators have gone up while 6 have dropped. Among them, freedom of ‘speech’ has gone up, while that of ‘publication’, ‘association’ and ‘artistic literary creation’ has 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’ and ‘academic research’ manage to reach 7 marks or above, while those of ‘academic research’, ‘artistic literary creation’ and ‘publication’ have dropped to all-time record lows since this survey series began in 1997. All in all, people still consider Hong Kong’s degree of freedom to be positive, but their appraisal of some types of freedom has gone worse obviously. In the area of rule of law, all ratings have also gone down, of which the rating of ‘fairness of the judicial system’ has registered significant decrease. 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.”

Future Releases (Tentative)

• February 25, 2016 (Thursday) 1pm to2pm: Budget instant survey
• March 1, 2016 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and HKSAR Government

No. of hits since Jun 3, 2000: 81,053,762

No. of hits since Jan 1, 2018: 191,814

• 
• 
• 
• 

Everything carried in this website does not represent the stand of the University of Hong Kong. Dr Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, is responsible for everything posted herewith, except for column articles and messages posted at the opinion platforms. Any responsibility, legal and otherwise, arising from any such item shall vest entirely with its author. The intellectual property of all information contained in this website, including questionnaire design and research reports, originally belongs to HKU POP unless specified otherwise. HKU POP opens their copyright to the world via this website, but would request all users to acknowledge their source properly.

HKU POP all rights reserved.

Last update :  26/6/2019