HKU POP releases the first Budget follow-up surveyBack
Press Release on March 2, 2016
| Detailed Findings (Budget Feature Page) |
Abstract
People’s instant reaction to the Budget in the first night can be considered positive, with a net satisfaction of positive 17 percentage points, but a significant decrease of 11 percentage points was registered from last year. As for the rating of the Budget, this year’s instant survey gives a rating of 57.2 marks. Results of the first Budget follow-up survey conducted by the Public Opinion Programme (POP) at The University of Hong Kong shows that, after one to two days’ media coverage, the reaction became significantly more positive. The latest satisfaction rate stands at 41%, dissatisfaction rate 17%, net satisfaction rate goes up significantly to positive 24 percentage points, while satisfaction rating also surged by 3.3 marks to 60.5. This shows people’s response has become more positive after digesting some information and discussions on the Budget. Of course, how people’s reaction will change after knowing even more about the Budget remains to be revealed by our second follow-up survey to be conducted weeks later. According to our latest survey, over half of the people feel that the relief measures to the public and the support measures to small and medium enterprises suggested by the Financial Secretary this year are enough, they also tend to think the budget plan mainly benefits the middle class. According to the Financial Secretary’s saying, tension and turbulence are mounting in Hong Kong, we need to look squarely at the problems and have the determination to resolve these conflicts, 73% agreed to this saying. In terms of macroscopic appraisal of Hong Kong’s economic condition, 58% consider Hong Kong’s tax system fair, but 57% consider the distribution of wealth unreasonable. Meanwhile, 37% are satisfied with the government’s fiscal policies, 34% are dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction of positive 3 percentage points, which has not changed much compared to last year. The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figures is +/-1.8, and net values need another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 69%.
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 514 successful interviews, not 514 x 68.6% 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 figure and net
value 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 +/-1.8 and sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, and net values not more than +/-7% 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
In free and democratic societies, instant surveys are indispensable sources of free information. Combined with appropriate follow-up surveys, and in parallel to expert analyses, they give a multi-dimensional picture of opinion development. They are an important part of a society’s interactive development. In the United States, for example, every year after the President gives a “State of the Union” to Congress, their media would conduct instant polls to measure public opinion. For example again, whenever there are candidate debates in Taiwan and United States during presidential elections, which Hong Kong people seem to know more, there will be instant polls to gauge instant changes in candidate popularity. As a matter of fact, these professional instant polls are everywhere in advanced societies, and they are all completed within a day.
Since 1992, POP has already been conducting Policy Address instant surveys every year. From 1998 onwards, we expanded our instant surveys to cover the Budget Talks. Starting from 2008, we further enhanced our operation by splitting up our usual exercise into two rounds. In our first survey, we measure people’s overall appraisal of the Budget, their rating of the Budget, their change in confidence towards Hong Kong’s future, and the Financial Secretary’s popularity. In our second survey, we focus on people’s reactions towards major government proposals, their satisfaction with the government’s fiscal policies, and other relevant issues. Starting 2011, we revised our design to concentrate on people’s appraisal of the Budget and FS’s popularity in our instant survey, and move the remaining questions to our follow-up survey. There is no change to our operation this year.
Latest Figures
POP today releases the findings of the first Budget follow-up survey. 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 First Follow-up |
25-26/2/2016 |
514 |
68.6% |
+/-4% |
|
2016 Instant |
24/2/2016 |
528 |
63.6% |
+/-4% |
|
2015 First Follow-up |
26-27/2/2015 |
520 |
66.5% |
+/-4% |
|
2015 Instant |
25/2/2015 |
610 |
67.4% |
+/-4% |
|
2014 First Follow-up |
27-28/2/2014 |
516 |
67.6% |
+/-4% |
|
2014 Instant |
26/2/2014 |
1,005 |
62.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2013 First Follow-up |
28/2-1/3/2013 |
520 |
66.0% |
+/-4% |
|
2013 Instant |
27/2/2013 |
1,024 |
67.3% |
+/-3% |
|
2012 First Follow-up |
2-3/2/2012 |
504 |
63.7% |
+/-4% |
|
2012 Instant |
1/2/2012 |
1,015 |
71.1% |
+/-3% |
|
2011 First Follow-up |
24-25/2/2011 |
515 |
72.6% |
+/-4% |
|
2011 Instant |
23/2/2011 |
1,031 |
72.8% |
+/-3% |
|
2010 First Follow-up |
25-27/2/2010 |
517 |
67.1% |
+/-4% |
|
2010 Instant |
24/2/2010 |
1,008 |
65.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2009 First Follow-up |
26/2/2009 |
525 |
66.5% |
+/-4% |
|
2009 Instant |
25/2/2009 |
1,015 |
67.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2008 First Follow-up |
28/2/2008 |
525 |
70.1% |
+/-4% |
|
2008 Instant |
27/2/2008 |
1,077 |
75.5% |
+/-3% |
|
2007 Instant |
28/2/2007 |
1,018 |
65.2% |
+/-3% |
|
2006 Instant |
22/2/2006 |
1,026 |
68.3% |
+/-3% |
|
2005 Instant |
16/3/2005 |
1,041 |
65.2% |
+/-3% |
|
2004 Instant |
10/3/2004 |
1,023 |
64.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2003 Instant |
5/3/2003 |
1,047 |
71.4% |
+/-3% |
|
2002 Instant |
6/3/2002 |
1,041 |
59.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2001 Instant |
7-8/3/2001 |
502 |
67.1% |
+/-4% |
|
2000 Instant |
8/3/2000 |
856 |
56.4% |
+/-3% |
|
1999 Instant |
3/3/1999 |
1,190 |
62.1% |
+/-3% |
|
1998 Instant |
18/2/1998 |
804 |
54.7% |
+/-4% |
[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. Questions using only sub-samples would have bigger sample error. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.
Results of the first Budget follow-up surveys of 2014 to 2016 together with their corresponding instant polls are tabulated below:
|
2016 |
|||
|
Instant survey |
First follow-up survey[7] |
Latest change |
|
|
Date of survey |
24/2/2016 |
25-26/2/2016 |
-- |
|
Sample base |
528[8] |
514 |
-- |
|
Overall response rate |
63.6% |
68.6% |
-- |
|
Appraisal of Budget: Satisfaction rate[9] |
36%[10] |
41+/-4% |
+5%[10] |
|
Appraisal of Budget: Dissatisfaction rate[9] |
20% |
17+/-3% |
-3% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
17%[10] |
24+/-6% |
+7%[10] |
|
Mean value[9] |
3.2 (Base=432) |
3.3+/-0.1 (Base=449) |
+0.1 |
|
Satisfaction rating of Budget (0 to 100 marks) |
57.2[10] |
60.5+/-1.8 |
+3.3[10] |
|
2015 |
|||
|
Instant survey |
First follow-up survey[7] |
Latest change |
|
|
Date of survey |
25/2/2015 |
26-27/2/2015 |
-- |
|
Sample base |
610[11] |
520 |
-- |
|
Overall response rate |
67.4% |
66.5% |
-- |
|
Appraisal of Budget: Satisfaction rate[9] |
45%[10] |
44% |
-1% |
|
Appraisal of Budget: Dissatisfaction rate[9] |
18%[10] |
20% |
+2% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
28%[10] |
24% |
-4% |
|
Mean value[9] |
3.3[10] (Base=483) |
3.3 (Base=493) |
-- |
|
Satisfaction rating of Budget (0 to 100 marks) |
60.2[10] |
59.7 |
-0.5 |
|
2014 |
|||
|
Instant survey |
First follow-up survey[7] |
Latest change |
|
|
Date of survey |
26/2/2014 |
27-28/2/2014 |
-- |
|
Sample base |
1,005[12] |
516 |
-- |
|
Overall response rate |
62.7% |
67.6% |
-- |
|
Appraisal of Budget: Satisfaction rate[9] |
24%[10] |
23% |
-1% |
|
Appraisal of Budget: Dissatisfaction rate[9] |
45%[10] |
45% |
-- |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
-20%[10] |
-22% |
-2% |
|
Mean value[9] |
2.7[10] (Base=660) |
2.6 (Base=471) |
-0.1 |
|
Satisfaction rating of Budget (0 to 100 marks) |
49.8[10] |
48.5 |
-1.3 |
[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. Questions using only sub-samples would have bigger sample error. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.
[8] Excluding respondents who said they had not heard of the Budget, or were not clear about the Budget content. The sub-sample size was 500.
[9] 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.
[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] Excluding respondents who said they had not heard of the Budget, or were not clear about the Budget content. The sub-sample size was 529.
[12] Excluding respondents who said they had not heard of the Budget, or were not clear about the Budget content. The sub-sample size was 695.
Our first Budget follow-up survey reveals that 41% of the respondents were satisfied with the Budget and 17% were dissatisfied, thus net satisfaction stands at positive 24 percentage points. The mean score is 3.3, which is in between “half-half” and “quite satisfied” in general. The average rating registered for the Budget was 60.5 marks. With respect to people’s specific reactions towards the contents of this year’s Budget, relevant findings are summarized below:
|
Finding and error[13] |
||||
|
Yes |
No |
Don’t know / hard to say |
Total |
|
|
easures suggested by the Financial Secretary to relieve people’s stress include: reducing salaries tax and tax under personal assessment, both subject to a ceiling of $20,000; waiving rates for four quarters, subject to a ceiling of $1,000 per quarter; increasing the allowance for married person and the allowance for maintaining a dependent parent or grandparent; and providing one month extra allowance to the recipients of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA), Old Age Allowance, Old Age Living Allowance and Disability Allowance. Do you think these measures are enough? |
51+/-4% |
43+/-4% |
6+/-2% |
100% |
|
Measures suggested by the Financial Secretary to support SMEs in order to boost the economy include: reduce profits tax by 75%, subject to a ceiling of $20,000; waiving the business registration fees; and waving the licence fees for many restaurants, travel agents, hotels and guesthouses for one year. Do you think these measures are enough? |
53+/-4% |
29+/-4% |
18+/-3% |
100% |
[13] 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.
Results showed that, 51% of the respondents thought that the relief measures suggested by the Financial Secretary are enough, 43% thought the opposite. Meanwhile, Financial Secretary John Tsang suggested providing support measures to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), 53% thought these measures are enough, 29% thought the opposite.
|
Finding and error[14] |
||||||
|
Support |
Half-half |
Oppose |
Don’t know / hard to say |
Total |
Net Support |
|
|
Financial Secretary said, “tension and turbulence are mounting in Hong Kong. Many of us feel suffocated by and, indeed, helpless with the tiresome confrontations day in and day out. We need to look squarely at these factors in resolving the differences and, more importantly, we need to have the determination to resolve these conflicts”. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this saying? |
73+/-4% |
12+/-3% |
9+/-3% |
6+/-2% |
100% |
63+/-6% |
|
There is a saying that the budget plan mainly benefits the middle class. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this saying? |
52+/-4% |
19+/-3% |
23+/-4% |
6+/-2% |
100% |
30+/-7% |
[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.
Financial Secretary said, “tension and turbulence are mounting in Hong Kong. Many of us feel suffocated by and, indeed, helpless with the tiresome confrontations day in and day out. We need to look squarely at these factors in resolving the differences and, more importantly, we need to have the determination to resolve these conflicts”, 73% supported this view while 9% opposed, with a net support rate of positive 63 percentage points. Besides, 52% of the respondents agreed with the saying that the budget plan mainly benefits the middle class, while 23% disagreed with it, with a net support rate of positive 30 percentage points.
With respect to people’s satisfaction with the government’s strategy in monetary arrangement and other relevant issues, the figures are summarized below:
|
Date of survey |
Total sample |
Satisfied with the government’s strategy in monetary arrangement[15] |
Dissatisfied with the government’s strategy in monetary arrangement[15] |
Net satisfaction rate |
Mean value[15] |
Perceived the tax system in Hong Kong to be fair[16] |
Perceived the tax system in Hong Kong to be unfair [16] |
Perceived the distribution of wealth in Hong Kong to be reasonable[16] |
Perceived the distribution of wealth in Hong Kong to be unreasonable[16] |
|
25-26/2/ 2016[17] |
514 |
37+/-4% |
34+/-4% |
3+/-7% |
2.9+/-0.1 (Base=457) |
58+/-4% |
28+/-4% |
30+/-4% |
57+/-4% |
|
26-27/2/ 2015[17] |
520 |
36[18]+/-4% |
31[18]+/-4% |
5[18]+/-7% |
3.0[18]+/-0.1 (Base=489) |
62[18]+/-4% |
28[18]+/-4% |
30[18]+/-4% |
56[18]+/-4% |
|
27-28/2/ 2014[17] |
516 |
27+/-4% |
38+/-4% |
-11+/-7% |
2.8+/-0.1 (Base=470) |
52+/-4% |
35+/-4% |
24[18]+/-4% |
64+/-4% |
|
28/2-1/3/ 2013[17] |
520 |
30+/-4% |
42+/-4% |
-12+/-7% |
2.8+/-0.1 (Base=495) |
51[18]+/-4% |
37[18]+/-4% |
19+/-3% |
67+/-4% |
|
2-3/2/ 2012[17] |
504 |
33[18]+/-4% |
43[18]+/-4% |
-10[18]+/-8% |
2.8[18]+/-0.1 (Base=486) |
56[18]+/-4% |
32[18]+/-4% |
20+/-4% |
70+/-4% |
|
24-25/2/ 2011[17] |
515 |
21[18]+/-4% |
52[18]+/-4% |
-31[18]+/-7% |
2.5[18]+/-0.1 (Base=489) |
51[18]+/-4% |
39[18]+/-4% |
16[18]+/-3% |
74[18]+/-4% |
|
25-27/2/ 2010[17] |
517 |
34+/-4% |
30+/-4% |
4[18]+/-7% |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=469) |
60+/-4% |
31+/-4% |
27+/-4% |
62+/-4% |
|
26/2/ 2009[17] |
525 |
30[18]+/-4% |
34[18]+/-4% |
-4[18]+/-7% |
2.9[18]+/-0.1 (Base=497) |
64+/-4% |
29[18]+/-4% |
29[18]+/-4% |
62[18]+/-4% |
|
28/2/ 2008[17] |
525 |
60[18]+/-4% |
12+/-3% |
48[18]+/-6% |
3.6+/-0.1 (Base=497) |
67+/-4% |
22[18]+/-4% |
42[18]+/-4% |
45[18]+/-4% |
|
28/2/ 2007[17] |
1,018 |
49[18]+/-3% |
10[18]+/-2% |
39[18]+/-4% |
3.5[18]+/-0.1 (Base=918) |
63[18]+/-3% |
28[18]+/-3% |
34+/-3% |
52+/-3% |
|
22/2/ 2006[17] |
1,026 |
36[18]+/-3% |
15+/-2% |
21[18]+/-4% |
3.3+/-0.1 (Base=843) |
55[18]+/-3% |
34[18]+/-3% |
32+/-3% |
55[18]+/-3% |
|
16/3/ 2005[17] |
1,041 |
29[18]+/-3% |
15[18]+/-2% |
14[18]+/-4% |
3.2[18]+/-0.1 (Base=800) |
59+/-3% |
27[18]+/-3% |
29[18]+/-3% |
51[18]+/-3% |
|
10/3/ 2004[17] |
1,023 |
18[18]+/-2% |
29[18]+/-3% |
-12[18]+/-4% |
2.8[18]+/-0.1 (Base=740) |
58[18]+/-3% |
31+/-3% |
22+/-3% |
62+/-3% |
|
5/3/ 2003[17] |
1,047 |
12[18]+/-2% |
45[18]+/-3% |
-33[18]+/-4% |
2.4[18]+/-0.1 (Base=776) |
51[18]+/-3% |
33[18]+/-3% |
19[18]+/-2% |
60[18]+/-3% |
|
6/3/ 2002[17] |
1,041 |
26[18]+/-3% |
21[18]+/-3% |
5[18]+/-4% |
3.0[18]+/-0.1 (Base=715) |
55+/-3% |
29+/-3% |
25+/-3% |
52+/-3% |
|
7-8/3/ 2001[17] |
502 |
45[18]+/-5% |
14[18]+/-3% |
32[18]+/-7% |
3.4[18]+/-0.1 (Base=333) |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
8/3/ 2000[17] |
856 |
60[18]+/-4% |
9[18]+/-2% |
51[18]+/-5% |
3.6[18]+/-0.1 (Base=628) |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
18/2/ 1998[17] |
804 |
42+/-3% |
13+/-2% |
29+/-5% |
3.4+/-0.1 (Base=599) |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
[15] 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.
[16] Collapsed from a 4-point scale.
[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.
[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.
Latest results revealed that 37% were satisfied with the government’s strategy in monetary arrangement, whereas 34% were dissatisfied, thus net satisfaction stands at positive 3 percentage points, and mean value at 2.9, meaning close to “half-half”. With respect to Hong Kong’s tax system, 58% considered it fair, whilst 28% thought it unfair. Last of all, 30% perceived the distribution of wealth in Hong Kong reasonable, as contrast to 57% who regarded it unreasonable.
Commentary
Edward Chit-Fai Tai, Senior Data Analyst of Public Opinion Programme, observed, “Our surveys show that people’s instant reaction to the Budget in the first night can be considered positive, with a net satisfaction of positive 17 percentage points, but a significant decrease of 11 percentage points was registered from last year. As for the rating of the Budget, this year’s instant survey gives a rating of 57.2 marks. After one to two days’ media coverage, the reaction became significantly more positive. The latest satisfaction rate stands at 41%, dissatisfaction rate 17%, net satisfaction rate goes up significantly to positive 24 percentage points, while satisfaction rating also surged by 3.3 marks to 60.5. This shows people’s response has become more positive after digesting some information and discussions on the Budget. Of course, how people’s reaction will change after knowing even more about the Budget remains to be revealed by our second follow-up survey to be conducted weeks later. According to our latest survey, over half of the people feel that the relief measures to the public and the support measures to small and medium enterprises suggested by the Financial Secretary this year are enough, they also tend to think the budget plan mainly benefits the middle class. According to the Financial Secretary’s saying, tension and turbulence are mounting in Hong Kong, we need to look squarely at the problems and have the determination to resolve these conflicts, 73% agreed to this saying. In terms of macroscopic appraisal of Hong Kong’s economic condition, 58% consider Hong Kong’s tax system fair, but 57% consider the distribution of wealth unreasonable. Meanwhile, 37% are satisfied with the government’s fiscal policies, 34% are dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction of positive 3 percentage points, which has not changed much compared to last year.”
Future Release (Tentative)
- March 8, 2016 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Taiwan issues
