HKU POP releases the latest trust and confidence indicators Back
Press Release on March 24, 2016
| Detailed Findings (People's Trust in the HKSAR Government) |
Detailed Findings (People's Trust in the Beijing Central Government) |
| Detailed Findings (People's Trust in the Taiwan Government) |
Detailed Findings (People's Confidence in HK's Future) |
| Detailed Findings (People's Confidence in China's Future) |
Detailed Findings (People's Confidence in "One Country, Two Systems") |
Special Announcement
To facilitate academic study and rational discussion, Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong has already released for public examination some time ago via the “POP Site” the raw data of all 93 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 1,001 Hong Kong people between 14 and 18 March 2016 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. Our latest survey in mid-March shows that Hong Kong people’s trust in the local and Central governments have both plunged compared to three months ago. The net trusts now stand at negative 6 and negative 10 percentage points, down by 14 and 9 percentage points respectively. People’s trust in the Taiwan government, however, has somewhat increased, its latest net trust stands at negative 4 percentage points. As for the confidence indicators, people’s net confidence in the future of Hong Kong, China and ‘one country, two systems’ have all dropped again, after their rebounds three months ago. People’s confidence in the future of China remains the highest among the three, with a net confidence of positive 26 percentage points, yet decreased by 8 percentage points in the past three months. Meanwhile, people’s net confidence in the future of Hong Kong and ‘one country, two systems’ have dropped significantly by 13 and 15 percentage points to negative 9 and negative 8 percentage points respectively. The former has even dropped to its record low since April 2003. Further analysis shows the younger the respondent, the more one distrusts the HKSAR and Central governments, and the less confident in ‘one country, two systems’. The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while that of net values needs another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 68%.
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 the survey is 1,001 successful interviews, not 1,001 x 67.9% 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 percentages not more than +/-4% at 95% confidence level,
sampling error of net values not more than +/-8%”.
[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 findings on people’s trust in the HKSAR, Beijing Central and Taiwan Governments, and their confidence in Hong Kong’s future, China’s future and “one country, two systems”. 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 year-end and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution collected in the 2011 Census. Herewith the contact information of various surveys:
|
Date of survey |
Overall sample size |
Response rate |
Maximum sampling error of percentages[6] |
|
14-18/3/2016 |
1,001 |
67.9% |
+/-3% |
[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.
Recent popularity figures of SAR, Beijing Central and Taiwan Governments and people’s confidence in the future as well as “one country, two systems” are summarized below:
|
Date of survey |
9-12/3/15 |
15-18/6/15 |
9-17/9/15 |
10-15/12/15 |
14-18/3/16 |
Latest change |
|
Total sample size[7] |
1,024 |
1,003 |
1,006 |
1,012 |
1,001 |
-- |
|
Overall response rate |
68.6% |
65.6% |
65.1% |
65.4% |
67.9% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error[8] |
-- |
|
Trust in HKSAR Government[9] |
37% |
38% |
38% |
38% |
38+/-4% |
-- |
|
Distrust in HKSAR Government[9] |
37% |
35% |
37% |
31%[10] |
44+/-4% |
+13%[10] |
|
Net trust |
0% |
3% |
2% |
8% |
-6+/-7% |
-14%[10] |
|
Mean value[9] |
2.9 (Base=615) |
3.0 (Base=651) |
2.9 (Base=632) |
3.0 (Base=675) |
2.8+/-0.1 (Base=640) |
-0.2[10] |
|
Trust in Beijing Government[9] |
33% |
36% |
36% |
35% |
33+/-4% |
-2% |
|
Distrust in Beijing Government[9] |
42% |
42% |
44% |
36%[10] |
43+/-4% |
+7%[10] |
|
Net trust |
-9% |
-6% |
-9% |
-1%[10] |
-10+/-7% |
-9%[10] |
|
Mean value[9] |
2.8 (Base=604) |
2.8 (Base=558) |
2.8 (Base=570) |
2.9 (Base=599) |
2.7+/-0.1 (Base=591) |
-0.2[10] |
|
Trust in Taiwan Government[9] |
26% |
21%[10] |
22% |
15%[10] |
24+/-3% |
+9%[10] |
|
Distrust in Taiwan Government[9] |
23%[10] |
24% |
31%[10] |
25%[10] |
28+/-4% |
+4% |
|
Net trust |
4%[10] |
-4%[10] |
-9% |
-10% |
-4+/-6% |
+6% |
|
Mean value[9] |
3.0[10] (Base=466) |
2.9 (Base=415) |
2.8 (Base=399) |
2.8 (Base=441) |
2.9+/-0.1 (Base=433) |
+0.1 |
|
Confidence in HK’s future |
45% |
49% |
44%[10] |
48% |
42+/-4% |
-6%[10] |
|
No-confidence in HK’s future |
48%[10] |
43%[10] |
50%[10] |
44%[10] |
51+/-4% |
+7%[10] |
|
Net confidence |
-3%[10] |
6%[10] |
-6%[10] |
4%[10] |
-9+/-8% |
-13%[10] |
|
Confidence in China’s future |
61% |
71%[10] |
58%[10] |
62% |
59+/-4% |
-3% |
|
No-confidence in China’s future |
31% |
23%[10] |
32%[10] |
28%[10] |
33+/-4% |
+5%[10] |
|
Net confidence |
30% |
48%[10] |
26%[10] |
34%[10] |
26+/-8% |
-8% |
|
Confidence in “one country, two systems” |
43% |
52%[10] |
43%[10] |
50%[10] |
42+/-4% |
-8%[10] |
|
No-confidence in “one country, two systems” |
52%[10] |
43%[10] |
50%[10] |
43%[10] |
50+/-4% |
+7%[10] |
|
Net confidence |
-9% |
9%[10] |
-7%[10] |
7%[10] |
-8+/-7% |
-15%[10] |
[7] Starting from March 2011, these questions only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sub-sample sizes of the surveys range from 579 to 680, 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 percentages not more than +/-4% and of net values not more than +/-8% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[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.
Latest survey revealed that 38% of the respondents trusted the HKSAR Government, 33% trusted the Beijing Central Government, and 24% trusted the Taiwan Government. The net trust values are negative 6, negative 10 and negative 4 percentage points, while the mean scores of these trust indicators are 2.8, 2.7 and 2.9 respectively, meaning close to “half-half” in general. On the other hand, 42% of the respondents had confidence in Hong Kong’s future, 59% had confidence in China’s future, while 42% of the respondents were confident in “one country, two systems”. The three net confidence values are negative 9, positive 26 and negative 8 percentage points respectively.
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 above. Herewith further analysis of respondents’ trust in HKSAR Government, Beijing Central Government and confidence in “one country, two systems” by age:
|
Date of survey：14-18/3/2016 |
18-29 |
30-49 |
50 or above |
Overall Sample |
|
|
Percentage of trust / distrust in HKSAR Government[11] |
Trust |
15+/-6% (18) |
32+/-6% (73) |
51+/-6% (154) |
38+/-4% (244) |
|
Half-half |
11+/-6% (13) |
22+/-6% (50) |
13+/-4% (40) |
16+/-3% (102) |
|
|
Distrust |
75+/-8% (91) |
44+/-7% (98) |
32+/-5% (98) |
44+/-4% (287) |
|
|
Don't know / hard to say |
0+/-0% (0) |
1+/-1% (3) |
4+/-2% (11) |
2+/-1% (15) |
|
|
Total |
100% (122) |
100% (224) |
100% (303) |
100% (648) |
|
|
Mean value |
2.0+/-0.2 (Base=122) |
2.7+/-0.2 (Base=221) |
3.2+/-0.2 (Base=291) |
2.8+/-0.1 (Base=634) |
|
[11] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.
|
Date of survey：14-18/3/2016 |
18-29 |
30-49 |
50 or above |
Overall Sample |
|
|
Percentage of trust / distrust in Beijing Central Government[12] |
Trust |
17+/-7% (18) |
32+/-6% (76) |
39+/-6% (110) |
33+/-4% (204) |
|
Half-half |
9+/-5% (10) |
21+/-5% (48) |
20+/-5% (57) |
18+/-3% (115) |
|
|
Distrust |
73+/-8% (81) |
42+/-6% (98) |
32+/-6% (90) |
43+/-4% (269) |
|
|
Don't know / hard to say |
2+/-2% (2) |
5+/-3% (12) |
8+/-3% (24) |
6+/-2% (37) |
|
|
Total |
100% (111) |
100% (233) |
100% (280) |
100% (624) |
|
|
Mean value |
2.0+/-0.2 (Base=109) |
2.8+/-0.2 (Base=221) |
3.0+/-0.2 (Base=257) |
2.7+/-0.1 (Base=587) |
|
[12] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.
|
Date of survey：14-18/3/2016 |
18-29 |
30-49 |
50 or above |
Overall Sample |
|
|
Percentage of confidence / no-confidence in “one country, two systems” [13] |
Confidence |
15+/-7% (18) |
43+/-6% (104) |
52+/-6% (163) |
42+/-4% (285) |
|
No-confidence |
80+/-7% (95) |
50+/-6% (119) |
40+/-6% (127) |
51+/-4% (341) |
|
|
Don't know / hard to say |
5+/-4% (6) |
7+/-3% (16) |
8+/-3% (26) |
7+/-2% (49) |
|
|
Total |
100% (119) |
100% (240) |
100% (316) |
100% (675) |
|
[13] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.
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 starting from 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, some items within the previous survey were conducted from December 10 to 15, 2015 while this survey was conducted from March 14 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.
|
13/3/16 |
Moody’s downgrades Hong Kong’s long-term debt outlook from “stable” to “negative”. |
|
5/3/16 |
Premier Li Keqiang announces that China targets annual growth of 6.5-7.0% in the government work report. |
|
28/2/16 |
Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, candidate for Civic Party, wins the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election, with a turnout rate of 46.1%. |
|
24/2/16 |
Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah releases the 2016-2017 Budget. |
|
10/2/16 |
64 people are arrested in connection with the Mong Kok conflict on the first day of the Lunar New Year, while 38 of them are charged with rioting. |
|
28/1/16 |
The chairman of the HKU governing council Arthur Li accuses Civic Party of manipulating students. |
|
16/1/16 |
Democratic Progressive Party leader Tsai Ing-wen wins Taiwan’s presidential election. |
|
13/1/16 |
CY Leung delivers the 2016 Policy Address. |
|
5/1/16 |
Media reports on the missing of Causeway Bay bookstore's shareholder. |
|
21/12/15 |
Six people are arrested over rubbish bin blast outside the Legislative Council. |
Commentary
Frank Wai-Kin Lee, Research Manager of POP, observed, “Our latest survey in mid-March shows that Hong Kong people’s trust in the local and Central governments have both plunged compared to three months ago. The net trusts now stand at negative 6 and negative 10 percentage points, down by 14 and 9 percentage points respectively. People’s trust in the Taiwan government, however, has somewhat increased, its latest net trust stands at negative 4 percentage points. As for the confidence indicators, people’s net confidence in the future of Hong Kong, China and ‘one country, two systems’ have all dropped again, after their rebounds three months ago. People’s confidence in the future of China remains the highest among the three, with a net confidence of positive 26 percentage points, yet decreased by 8 percentage points in the past three months. Meanwhile, people’s net confidence in the future of Hong Kong and ‘one country, two systems’ have dropped significantly by 13 and 15 percentage points to negative 9 and negative 8 percentage points respectively. The former has even dropped to its record low since April 2003. Further analysis shows the younger the respondent, the more one distrusts the HKSAR and Central governments, and the less confident in ‘one country, two systems’. As for the reasons affecting the ups and downs of various figures, readers are welcome to make their own judgment using the detailed records displayed in our ‘Opinion Daily’.”
Future Release (Tentative)
- March 29, 2016 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and HKSAR Government
