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 August 2, 2016

| Detailed Findings (Social Indicators) |

| Detailed Findings (Freedom Indicators) |

| Detailed Findings (Rule of law indicators) |

Special Announcements

1. Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong has uploaded the full set of video record of the July 1 Rally onto the “PopCon” e-platform (http://popcon.hk). People can download the videos from the “July 1 Rally Feature page”, and do their own headcount of the Rally. Video clips at higher resolutions are also available for purchase at production cost. Details available at the feature page.

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 102 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 1,013 Hong Kong people between July 18 and 21 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 dropped to their new record lows in the past ten years or so. This shows that people appraised the Hong Kong society less positively. To be specific, the ratings of 3 out of 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 “freedom” and “rule of law”. The rating of “freedom” has even dropped to all-time record low since this survey series began in 1997, while those of “rule of law” and “democracy” have dropped to their record lows since 2000 and 2004 respectively. On the contrary, the rating of “stability” has rebounded from the low point registered in the last survey. As for the 7 non-core social indicators, 3 have gone up while 4 have gone down. Among them, degree of “public order” registers significant increase, whereas “corruption-free practices”, “equality” and “efficiency” register significant decreases. The former two have even dropped to all-time record lows since this survey series began in 1997. Besides, 2 among the 10 freedom sub-indicators have gone up while 8 have dropped. Among them, freedom of “publication” and “speech” 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. Those of “artistic literary creation”, “speech” 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 many types of freedom has gone worse. 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 while the latest support rating of Geoffrey Ma is 64.6 marks. The sampling error of rating figure of various indicators is no greater than +/-0.22 marks at 95% confidence level, while that of Geoffrey Ma is no greater than +/-2.1 marks. The response rate of the survey is 74%.

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 overall sample size of this survey is 1,013 successful interviews, not 1,013 x 73.6% 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 +/-0.22 while that of Geoffrey Ma not more than +/-2.1 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 year-end and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution collected in the 2011 Census. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:

[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:

[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 544 to 624, 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 +/-0.20 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.

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

[10] Starting from August 2010, these questions only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sub-sample sizes of this survey range from 566 to 648, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.

[11] 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 +/-0.20 at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures.

[12] 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:

[13] 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 542 to 613, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.

[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. Media can state “sampling error of various ratings not more than +/-0.22 at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures.

[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.

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

[16] 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 574 to 600, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.

[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. Media can state “sampling error of various ratings not more than +/-0.19 at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures, and that “sampling error is not more than +/-2.1 at 95% confidence level” when citing Geoffrey Ma’s rating.

[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.

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 6.62 marks, followed by “prosperity” and “stability”, with 6.46 and 6.31 marks respectively, and then “compliance with the rule of law” and “democracy”, with 6.19 and 5.86 marks respectively.

As for the non-core social indicators, “public order” has the highest score of 7.09 marks, followed by “civilization”, “efficiency”, “social welfare sufficiency”, “corruption-free practices”, “equality” and “fairness”, with scores of 6.71, 6.32, 6.24, 5.95, 5.66 and 5.58 marks correspondingly.

As for the freedom sub-indicators, the freedom of “religious belief” scored the highest rating with 8.42 marks. Freedom of “entering or leaving Hong Kong” came second with 8.02 marks. Freedoms of “academic research”, “artistic and literary creation”, “freedom to strike”, “procession and demonstration”, “speech”, “association”, “press” and “publication” formed the next tier, with respective scores of 7.09, 6.82, 6.76, 6.62, 6.59, 6.37, 6.33 and 5.93 marks.

Finally, for the two rule of law sub-indicators, the impartiality of the courts scored 6.67 marks, while the rating of the fairness of the judicial system was 6.16 marks. Meanwhile, the latest popularity rating of Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, a representative figure of the judicial system, was 64.6 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 February 15 to 18, 2016, while the latest one was conducted from July 18 to 21, 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.

Commentary

Edward Chit-Fai Tai, Senior Data Analyst of Public Opinion Programme, observed, “Our latest survey shows that compared to half a year ago, most social indicators continue to drop, many have dropped to their new record lows in the past ten years or so. This shows that people appraised the Hong Kong society less positively. To be specific, the ratings of 3 out of 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 ‘freedom’ and ‘rule of law’. The rating of ‘freedom’ has even dropped to all-time record low since this survey series began in 1997, while those of ‘rule of law’ and ‘democracy’ have dropped to their record lows since 2000 and 2004 respectively. On the contrary, the rating of ‘stability’ has rebounded from the low point registered in the last survey. As for the 7 non-core social indicators, 3 have gone up while 4 have gone down. Among them, degree of ‘public order’ registers significant increase, whereas ‘corruption-free practices’, ‘equality’ and ‘efficiency’ register significant decreases. The former two have even dropped to all-time record lows since this survey series began in 1997. Besides, 2 among the 10 freedom sub-indicators have gone up while 8 have dropped. Among them, freedom of ‘publication’ and ‘speech’ 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. Those of ‘artistic literary creation’, ‘speech’ 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 many types of freedom has gone worse. 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 while the latest support rating of Geoffrey Ma is 64.6 marks. 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 Release (Tentative)

• August 9, 2016 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Taiwan issues

No. of hits since Jun 3, 2000: 81,053,368

No. of hits since Jan 1, 2018: 191,420

• 
• 
• 
• 

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