HKU POP releases findings of an instant poll on Policy AddressBack
Press Release on January 19, 2017
| Detailed Findings (Policy Address Feature Page) |
The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at The University of Hong Kong
interviewed 664 Hong Kong people last night (January 18, 2017) by means of
a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. Some of its
findings have already been released via our “HKU POP SITE”
(http://hkupop.pori.hk) yesterday, today we release the more comprehensive
and in-depth analyses. According to our Policy Address instant survey,
among those who had some knowledge of the fifth and also least Address by
CE CY Leung, 34% said they were satisfied, 29% said they were not, giving a
net satisfaction rate of positive 5 percentage points, which goes up
significantly by 25 percentage points from that of last year. On a scale of
0-100, this year’s Address scored 52.3 marks, which is also significantly
better than the last two years. It ranks the third among Leung’s five
Addresses. Looking back, among the 20 Policy Addresses after the handover
and counting both rating and net satisfaction of instant surveys alone,
people’s appraisal of this year’s Address is very similar to that in 2014
or Leung’s second Address. Of course, how public opinion would change after
CE and his officials explain their policies remains to be seen. As for
Leung’s own popularity after the Address, his support rating has slightly
increased by 0.4 mark to 41.7, while his net approval rate dropped
significantly from negative 44 to negative 57 percentage points, which is
his all-time record low since he became CE. Further analyses show that
those who did not have any knowledge of Policy Address show stronger
opposition against him as CE than those who had knowledge of Policy Address
and give lower ratings to him. Looking back at the instant effect of CH
Tung and Donald Tsang’s Policy Addresses across the years, Tung’s Addresses
usually had a stimulating effect, while Tsang’s Addresses on the whole
usually had a dampening effect. Leung enjoyed a stimulating effect from his
first three Addresses but it turned negative in his last two Addresses.
Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of this
year’s Policy Address, 24% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong
had increased after the Policy Address, 32% said their confidence had
dropped, while 36% said “no change”, thereby giving a net effect of
negative 8 percentage points on people’s confidence and back to level
registered in 2014. Other further analyses show that the younger the
respondents, the more dissatisfied they are with this fifth Address by CE
CY Leung, give lower ratings to the Address and CE, also show stronger
opposition against him as CE. For those of age 18-29 and 30-49, their
confidence in Hong Kong is more likely to have decreased because of the
Address. Our instant survey describes people’s instant reaction towards the
Policy Address, their follow-up reactions remain to be seen. The sampling
error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level,
while the sampling errors of rating figures and net values need 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 664 successful interviews, not 664 x
67.1% 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 all percentages not more than +/-4%, that of
ratings not more than +/-2.3 and net values not more than +/-7 percentage
points, 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.
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. Starting 2008, we split up previous years’ instant survey
into two surveys. In our first 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. In
our second survey, we focus on people’s reactions towards different
government proposals, their satisfaction with CE’s policy direction, and
other relevant issues. The instant survey we conducted this year is the
ninth survey under our new operation. Some of its findings have already
been released via our “POP Site” yesterday, today we release the more
comprehensive and in-depth analyses.
POP today releases the latest findings of the Policy Address instant poll.
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 2016 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] |
|
2017 |
18/1/17 |
664 |
6 7 . 1 % |
+/- 4 % |
|
2016 |
13/1/16 |
608 |
64.1% |
+/-4% |
|
2015 |
14/1/15 |
640 |
67.4% |
+/-4% |
|
2014 |
15/1/14 |
1,017 |
66.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2013 |
16/1/13 |
1,021 |
68.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2011 |
12/10/11 |
1,032 |
65.6% |
+/-3% |
|
2010 |
13/10/10 |
1,020 |
66.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2009 |
14/10/09 |
1,007 |
71.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2008 |
15/10/08 |
1,011 |
74.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2007 |
10/10/07 |
1,023 |
69.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2006 |
11/10/06 |
1,027 |
60.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2005 |
12/10/05 |
914 |
66.1% |
+/-3% |
|
2005 |
12/1/05 |
1,034 |
66.5% |
+/-3% |
|
2004 |
7/1/04 |
1,040 |
67.5% |
+/-3% |
|
2003 |
8-9/1/03 |
1,259 |
68.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2001 |
10/10/01 |
1,051 |
66.0% |
+/-3% |
|
2000 |
11/10/00 |
1,059 |
69.7% |
+/-3% |
|
1999 |
6/10/99 |
888 |
54.5% |
+/-3% |
|
1998 |
7/10/98 |
1,494 |
56.5% |
+/-3% |
|
1997 |
8/10/97 |
1,523 |
61.5% |
+/-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. Questions using only sub-samples would have bigger sample error. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.
Recent figures on CY Leung’s popularity are summarized as follows:
|
Date of survey |
21-24/11/16 |
2-8/12/16 |
19-22/12/16 |
3-5/1/17 |
18/1/17 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
1,000 |
1,008 |
1,009 |
1,004 |
664 |
-- |
|
Overall response rate |
70.8% |
69.2% |
70.9% |
56.7% |
6 7 . 1 % |
-- |
|
Latest finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and Error [7 ] |
-- |
|
Rating of CE CY Leung |
40.7[8] |
35.0[8] |
39.0[8] |
41.3[8] |
41 . 7 +/-2.3 |
+0 . 4 |
|
Vote of confidence in CE CY Leung |
23% |
17%[8] |
21%[8] |
23% |
18 +/-3% |
-5 %[8] |
|
Vote of no confidence in CE CY Leung |
61%[8] |
71%[8] |
74% |
67%[8] |
75 +/- 3 % |
+8 %[8] |
|
Net approval rate |
-37%[8] |
-54%[8] |
-53% |
-44%[8] |
- 57 +/- 6 % |
-13 %[8] |
[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. Media can state “sampling error of rating not more than +/-2.3, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-3%, sampling error of net approval rates not more than +/-6% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[8] 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.
Figures on Chief Executive’s popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from the handover till present are summarized as follows:
|
CE Tung Chee-hwa’s popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from 1997 to 2005 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
1st Policy Address |
2nd Policy Address |
3rd Policy Address |
4th Policy Address |
5th Policy Address |
6th Policy Address |
7th Policy Address |
8th Policy Address |
||||||||||||
|
Date of PA Speech |
8/10/97 |
7/10/98 |
6/10/99 |
11/10/00 |
10/10/01 |
8/1/03 |
7/1/04 |
12/1/05 |
|||||||||||
|
CE’s popularity rating before the PA & error [9] |
65.8 +/-1.4 |
55.8 +/-1.6 |
54.0 +/-1.8 |
48.2 +/-2.2 |
48.4 +/-1.4 |
46.6 +/-1.4 |
42.9 +/-1.4 |
47.2 +/-1.2 |
|||||||||||
|
CE’s popularity rating at PA instant survey & error [9] |
66.1 +/-1.0 |
56.1 +/-1.0 |
54.3 +/-1.4 |
50.7 +/-1.4 |
50.6 +/-1.4 |
47.3 +/-1.4 |
44.6 +/-1.4 |
48.4 +/-1.4 |
|||||||||||
|
Change in CE’s rating |
+ 0.3 |
+0.3 |
+0.3 |
+2.5[10] |
+2.2[10] |
+0.7 |
+1.7[10] |
+1.2 |
|||||||||||
|
CE Donald Tsang’s popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from 2005 to 201 1 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
1st Policy Address |
2nd Policy Address |
3rd Policy Address |
4th Policy Address |
5th Policy Address |
6th Policy Address |
7th Policy Address |
|||||||||||||
|
Date of Policy Address Speech |
12/10/05 |
11/10/06 |
10/10/07 |
15/10/08 |
14/10/09 |
13/10/10 |
12/10/11 |
||||||||||||
|
CE’s popularity rating before the PA & error [9] |
68.0+/-1.0 |
62.9 +/-1.2 |
65.8+/-1.2 |
52.7+/-1.3 |
55.2+/-1.2 |
55.4+/-1.2 |
48.4+/-1.4 |
||||||||||||
|
CE’s popularity rating at PA instant survey & error [9] |
67.4+/-1.1 |
59.8+/-1.1 |
64.4+/-1.0 |
53.9+/-1.6 |
54.2+/-1.4 |
56.2+/-1.6 |
50.6+/-1.6 |
||||||||||||
|
Change in CE’s rating |
-0.6 |
-3.1[10] |
-1.4[10] |
+1.2 |
-1.0 |
+0.8 |
+2.2[10] |
||||||||||||
|
CE’s net approval rate before the PA & error [9] |
68+/-4% |
48+/-5% |
48+/-5% |
5+/-6% |
7+/-6% |
-1+/-6% |
-45+/-5% |
||||||||||||
|
CE’s net approval rate at PA instant survey & error [9] |
65+/-4% |
36+/-5% |
48+/-5% |
10+/-7% |
8+/-7% |
0+/-8% |
-41+/-6% |
||||||||||||
|
Change in CE’s net approval rate [11] |
-3% |
-12% [10] |
-- |
+5% |
+1 % |
+1 % |
+4 % |
||||||||||||
|
CE CY Leung ’s popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from 20 13 to 201 7 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
1st Policy Address |
2nd Policy Address |
3rd Policy Address |
4 th Policy Address |
5th Policy Address |
|||||||||||||||
|
Date of Policy Address Speech |
16/1/13 |
15/1/14 |
14/1/15 |
13/1/16 |
18/1/17 |
||||||||||||||
|
CE’s popularity rating before the PA & error [9] |
48.9+/-1.6 |
45.6+/-1.6 |
40.6+/-1.8 |
37.5+/-1.9 |
41.3+/-2.0 |
||||||||||||||
|
CE’s popularity rating at PA instant survey & error [9] |
52.2+/-1.6 |
48.9+/-1.6 |
44.8+/-2.3 |
37.0+/-2.3 |
41 . 7 +/-2.3 |
||||||||||||||
|
Change in CE’s rating |
+3.3 [10] |
+3.3 [10] |
+ 4 . 2[10] |
-0 . 5 |
+0 . 4 |
||||||||||||||
|
CE’s net approval rate before the PA & error [9] |
-20+/-6% |
-31+/-5% |
-39+/-5% |
-44+/-5% |
-44+/-5% |
||||||||||||||
|
CE’s net approval rate at PA instant survey & error [9] |
-11+/-6% |
-24+/-6% |
-35+/-7% |
-54+/-6% |
- 57 +/- 6 % |
||||||||||||||
|
Change in CE’s net approval rate [11] |
+9% [10] |
+7% [10] |
+ 4 % |
-10 % [10] |
-13 % [10] |
||||||||||||||
[9] 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.
[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] Instant surveys on Policy Address included CE’s approval rate since 2004, so it is not listed under Tung’s series.
The install poll conducted last night showed that, after CE CY Leung announced his Policy Address, his latest support rating was 41.7 marks, with an approval and disapproval rate of 18% and 75% respectively, giving a net approval of negative 57 percentage points. As for people’s satisfaction of various Policy Addresses after the handover, the figures are summarized below:
|
Date of Survey |
Sub- sample base[13] |
Appraisal of Policy Address[12] |
|||||
|
Satisfaction rate[14] |
Half-half |
Dissatisfaction rate[14] |
Net satisfaction rate |
Mean value[14] |
Satisfaction rating of Policy Address |
||
|
1 8 /1/1 7 |
512 |
34 +/- 4 %[15] |
22 +/-4% |
29 +/-4%[15] |
5 +/- 7 %[15] |
3.0 +/-0.1[15] ( Base=431) |
52.3 +/-2. 4 [1 5 ] |
|
13/1/16 |
522 |
19+/-3%[15] |
23+/-4% |
39+/-4% |
-20+/-6%[15] |
2.5+/-0.1[15] (Base=423) |
41.1+/-2.6[15] |
|
14/1/15 |
503 |
30+/-4%[15] |
24+/-4%[15] |
35+/-4% |
-5+/-7%[15] |
2.8+/-0.1 (Base=449) |
49.5+/-2.4[15] |
|
15/1/14 |
611 |
36+/-4% |
30+/-4%[15] |
31+/-4%[15] |
5+/-7% |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=593) |
54.1+/-1.9[15] |
|
16/1/13 |
759 |
36+/-3%[15] |
35+/-3% |
24+/-3% [15] |
11+/-6%[15] |
3.1+/-0.1 ( Base=7 17 ) |
56.4+/-1.7 [15] |
|
12/10/11 |
816 |
47+/-3%[15] |
32+/-3% |
18+/-3% |
28+/-5%[15] |
3.3+/-0.1 (Base=791) |
59.1+/-1.4 |
|
13/10/10 |
747 |
41+/-4%[15] |
33+/-3%[15] |
19+/-3%[15] |
22+/-5%[15] |
3.2+/-0.1 (Base=695) |
58.9+/-1.4[15] |
|
14/10/09 |
462 |
30+/-4% |
37+/-4% |
28+/-4% |
2+/-7% |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=434) |
53.5+/-2.1 |
|
15/10/08 |
515 |
31+/-4%[15] |
35+/-4%[15] |
26+/-4%[15] |
4+/-7%[15] |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=474) |
53.8+/-2.0[15] |
|
10/10/07 |
602 |
52+/-4%[15] |
29+/-4%[15] |
10+/-2%[15] |
42+/-5%[15] |
3.5+/-0.1 (Base=551) |
65.2+/-1.6[15] |
|
11/10/06 |
445 |
30+/-4%[15] |
37+/-5% |
22+/-4%[15] |
8+/-7%[15] |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=397) |
55.8+/-2.0[15] |
|
12/10/05 |
377 |
48+/-5% [15] |
33+/-5% |
9+/-3% [15] |
39+/-7%[15] |
3.5+/-0.1 ( Base=338) |
66.4+/-1.9 [15] |
|
12/1/05 |
391 |
38+/-5%[15] |
30+/-5% |
20+/-4%[15] |
18+/-7%[15] |
3.2+/-0.1 (Base=342) |
56.3+/-2.4[15] |
|
7/1/04 |
381 |
25+/-4% |
26+/-4% |
33+/-5%[15] |
-8+/-8% |
2.8+/-0.1 (Base=322) |
49.3+/-2.4 |
|
8/1/03[16] |
377 |
22+/-4%[15] |
29+/-5% |
27+/-5% |
-5+/-7% |
2.8+/-0.1 (Base=561) |
51.6+/-2.6[15] |
|
10/10/01 |
433 |
29+/-4% |
33+/-5% |
27+/-4% |
1+/-7% |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=386) |
56.7 +/-2.2 |
|
11/10/00 |
262 |
25+/-5%[15] |
28+/-6% |
31+/-6% |
-6+/-9%[15] |
2.9+/-0.1 (Base=219) |
55.2 +/-2.8 |
|
6/10/99 |
236 |
31+/-6%[15] |
30+/-6% |
25+/-6%[15] |
6+/-10%[15] |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=202) |
57.3 +/-2.8 |
|
7/10/98 |
508 |
22+/-4%[15] |
35+/-4%[15] |
35+/-4%[15] |
-14+/-7%[15] |
2.8+/-0.1 (Base=469) |
-- |
|
8/10/97 |
534 |
45 +/-4% |
30+/-4% [15] |
14+/-3% [15] |
31+/-6% |
3.4+/-0.1 (Base=474) |
-- |
[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.
[13] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. Because of the smaller sample size, the sampling error has increased accordingly.
[14] 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.
[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.
[16] The 2003 Policy Address instant poll was conducted for two days. Only figures registered in the first day of fieldwork are listed in this table for direct comparison and analysis. Aggregate results are available in our “POP SITE”.
After excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of this year’s Policy Address, this year’s instant survey showed that 34% were satisfied with it, 29% were dissatisfied and 22% said “half-half”, giving a net satisfaction rate of positive 5 percentage points. The mean score is 3.0, meaning “half-half”. Meanwhile, the average rating registered for the Policy Address was 52.3 marks. Because part of the respondents said they were not familiar with the Policy Address during the instant poll, the valid sub-sample of this item was smaller. The sampling error for this question has increased accordingly.
The survey also gauged the change of people’s confidence towards Hong Kong’s future after CE CY Leung has delivered his Policy Address. Results are as follows:
|
Date of survey |
Sub-sample base[18] |
Overall response rate |
Confidence in HK’s future[17] |
||||
|
Increased |
Unchanged |
Decreased |
Don’t know/ Hard to say |
Net effect on confidence |
|||
|
1 8 /1/1 7 |
511 |
6 7 . 1 % |
24 +/- 4 %[1 9 ] |
3 6 +/- 4 %[1 9 ] |
32 +/- 4 %[1 9 ] |
7 +/- 2 %[1 9 ] |
- 8 +/- 7 % [1 9 ] |
|
13/1/16 |
521 |
64.1% |
16+/-3%[19] |
31+/-4% |
44+/-4%[19] |
10+/-3%[19] |
-27+/-6%[19] |
|
14/1/15 |
501 |
67.4% |
22+/-4% |
35+/-4% |
38+/-4%[19] |
5+/-2% |
-16+/-7% |
|
15/1/14 |
846 |
66.7% |
24+/-3%[19] |
38+/-3% |
32+/-3%[19] |
5+/-2%[19] |
-9+/-5%[19] |
|
16/1/13 |
913 |
68.7% |
31+/-3% |
38+/-3%[19] |
23+/-3% |
7+/-2%[19] |
8+/-5% |
|
12/10/11 |
957 |
65.6% |
29+/-3% |
45+/-3% |
21+/-3% |
5+/-1% |
8+/-5%[19] |
|
13/10/10 |
914 |
66.9% |
31+/-3%[19] |
45+/-3% |
18+/-3%[19] |
6+/-2% |
14+/-5%[19] |
|
14/10/09 |
749 |
71.9% |
27+/-3%[19] |
47+/-4%[19] |
22+/-3%[19] |
5+/-2% |
5+/-5%[19] |
|
15/10/08 |
761 |
74.9% |
23+/-3%[19] |
38+/-4%[19] |
32+/-3%[19] |
7+/-2% |
-9+/-5%[19] |
|
10/10/07 |
388 |
69.9% |
53+/-5%[19] |
31%/-5%[19] |
7+/-3%[19] |
9+/-3% |
46+/-6%[19] |
|
11/10/06 |
431 |
60.7% |
25+/-4%[19] |
51+/-5%[19] |
16+/-4%[19] |
8+/-3% |
9+/-6%[19] |
|
12/10/05 |
476 |
66.1% |
54+/-5%[19] |
33+/-4%[19] |
5+/-2%[19] |
8+/-2%[19] |
49+/-5%[19] |
|
12/1/05 |
658 |
66.5% |
34+/-4% |
41+/-4% |
12+/-3%[19] |
14+/-3% |
22+/-5%[19] |
|
7/1/04 |
602 |
67.5% |
32+/-4%[19] |
40+/-4% |
16+/-3%[19] |
12+/-3% |
16+/-5%[19] |
|
8/1/03[20] |
513 |
67.3% |
25+/-4% |
40+/- 4%[19] |
22+/-4% |
14+/-3%[19] |
3+/-6% |
|
10/10/01 |
591 |
66.0% |
22+/-3% |
50+/- 4%[19] |
21+/-3%[19] |
7+/-2%[19] |
1+/-5%[19] |
|
11/10/00 |
292 |
69.7% |
22+/-5%[19] |
40+/-6% |
15+/-4% |
22+/-5%[19] |
7+/-7%[19] |
|
6/10/99 |
233 |
54.5% |
40+/-6%[19] |
36+/- 6%[19] |
16+/-5%[19] |
8+/-4% |
24+/-9%[19] |
|
7/10/98 |
505 |
56.5% |
21+/-4% |
52+/-4% |
22+/-4% |
5+/-2% |
-1+/-6% |
[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. This survey series began in 1998. Net effect on confidence means “increased” figure minus “decreased” figure.
[18] Excluding respondents who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. Because of the smaller sample size, the sampling error has increased accordingly.
[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.
[20] The 2003 Policy Address instant poll was conducted for two days. Only figures registered in the first day of fieldwork are listed in this table for direct comparison and analysis. Aggregate results are available in our “HKU POP SITE”.
Results showed that, excluding those who did not have any knowledge of this year’s Policy Address, 24% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased, 36% opted for “no change”, whilst 32% said their confidence had dropped, giving a net effect on confidence of negative 8 percentage points.
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 older. Herewith further analysis of public’s satisfaction rate of the Policy Address, CE’s popularity and effect of the Policy Address on their confidence in HK’s future by respondents’ age:
|
Date of survey: 18/1/17 |
18-29 |
30-49 |
50 or above |
Overall |
|
|
Satisfaction rating of Policy Address[21] |
41.7+/- 5.9 ( 79 ) |
49.0+/-3.7 (158) |
58.2+/-3.3 (232) |
52.3+/-2.4 (469) |
|
|
Satisfaction rate of the Policy Address[21] |
Satisfaction |
23+/-9% (20) |
25+/-6% (43) |
44+/-6% (109) |
34+/-4% (172) |
|
Half-half |
24+/-9% (21) |
23+/-6% (40) |
20+/-5% (50) |
22+/-4% (111) |
|
|
Dissatisfaction |
35+/-10% (30) |
32+/-7% (56) |
25+/-6% (62) |
29+/-4% (148) |
|
|
Don’t know/ hard to say |
18+/-8% (15) |
21+/-6% (38) |
11+/-4% (27) |
16+/-3% (80) |
|
|
Total |
100% (86) |
100% (177) |
100% (248) |
100% (511) |
|
|
Mean value |
2.6+/-0.3 (71) |
2.8+/-0.2 (139) |
3.2+/-0.2 (221) |
3.0+/-0.1 (431) |
|
[21] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.
|
Date of survey: 18/1/17 |
18-29 |
30-49 |
50 or above |
Overall |
|
|
Rating of CE CY Leung[22] |
29.8 +/- 4.7 (114) |
37.3+/-3.7 (238) |
49.9+/-3.3 (297) |
41.8+/-2.3 (649) |
|
|
Vote of confidence/ no confidence in CE CY Leung [22] |
Support |
7+/-5% (8) |
12+/-4% (28) |
27+/-5% (81) |
18+/-3% (117) |
|
Oppose |
92+/-5% (104) |
85+/-5% (201) |
61+/-6% (184) |
75+/-3% (489) |
|
|
Don’t know/ hard to say |
1+/-1% (2) |
4+/-2% (9) |
12+/-4% (37) |
7+/-2% (47) |
|
|
Total |
100% (114) |
100% (237) |
100% (302) |
100% (653) |
|
[22] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.
|
Date of survey: 18/1/17 |
18-29 |
30-49 |
50 or above |
Overall |
|
|
Confidence in HK’s future[23] |
Increased |
20+/-9% (17) |
15+/-5% (27) |
32+/-6% (80) |
24+/-4% (124) |
|
Unchanged |
40+/-11% (34) |
38+/-7% (67) |
34+/-6% (84) |
36+/-4% (185) |
|
|
Decreased |
39+/-11% (34) |
40+/-7% (71) |
25+/-5% (61) |
33+/-4% (166) |
|
|
Don’t know/ hard to say |
1+/-1% (1) |
7+/-4% (12) |
9+/-4% (23) |
7+/-2% (36) |
|
|
Total |
100% (86) |
100% (177) |
100% (247) |
100% (510) |
|
[23] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.
Besides, we grouped them into having or not having knowledge of Policy Address. Herewith further analysis of CE’s popularity by respondents’ knowledge of Policy Address:
|
Date of survey: 18/1/17 |
Had knowledge of Policy Address |
Do not have knowledge of Policy Address |
Overall |
|
|
Rating of CE CY Leung[24] |
43.4+/-2.5 (506) |
35.9+/-4.8 (145) |
41.7+/-2.3 (652) |
|
|
Vote of confidence/ no confidence in CE CY Leung [24] |
Support |
21+/-4% (99) |
13+/-6% (19) |
19+/-3% (118) |
|
Oppose |
79+/-4% (367) |
87+/-6% (123) |
81+/-3% (491) |
|
|
Total |
100% (466) |
100% (142) |
100% (608) |
|
[24] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.
Commentary
Note: The following commentary was written by Research Manager of POP, Frank Lee.
According to our Policy Address instant survey, among those who had some knowledge of the fifth and also least Address by CE CY Leung, 34% said they were satisfied, 29% said they were not, giving a net satisfaction rate of positive 5 percentage points, which goes up significantly by 25 percentage points from that of last year. On a scale of 0-100, this year’s Address scored 52.3 marks, which is also significantly better than the last two years. It ranks the third among Leung’s five Addresses. Looking back, among the 20 Policy Addresses after the handover and counting both rating and net satisfaction of instant surveys alone, people’s appraisal of this year’s Address is very similar to that in 2014 or Leung’s second Address. Of course, how public opinion would change after CE and his officials explain their policies remains to be seen.
As for Leung’s own popularity after the Address, his support rating has slightly increased by 0.4 mark to 41.7, while his net approval rate dropped significantly from negative 44 to negative 57 percentage points, which is his all-time record low since he became CE. Further analyses show that those who did not have any knowledge of Policy Address show stronger opposition against him as CE than those who had knowledge of Policy Address and give lower ratings to him. Looking back at the instant effect of CH Tung and Donald Tsang’s Policy Addresses across the years, Tung’s Addresses usually had a stimulating effect, while Tsang’s Addresses on the whole usually had a dampening effect. Leung enjoyed a stimulating effect from his first three Addresses but it turned negative in his last two Addresses.
Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of this year’s Policy Address, 24% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased after the Policy Address, 32% said their confidence had dropped, while 36% said “no change”, thereby giving a net effect of negative 8 percentage points on people’s confidence and back to level registered in 2014.
Other further analyses show that the younger the respondents, the more dissatisfied they are with this fifth Address by CE CY Leung, give lower ratings to the Address and CE, also show stronger opposition against him as CE. For those of age 18-29 and 30-49, their confidence in Hong Kong is more likely to have decreased because of the Address.
Our instant survey describes people’s instant reaction towards the Policy Address, their follow-up reactions remain to be seen.
Future Releases (Tentative)
About HKUPOP: “Outline of our operation for the Policy Address instant survey of 201 7 ”
After the HKSAR government announced the date of Policy Address, we started our planning for the instant survey.
About one month ago, we began to keep track of news about the Policy Address, in order to lay the ground work of questionnaire design.
About one week ago, we began our manpower deployment and internal preparation.
On the day CE announces the Address, we monitored the media and the Internet, including the entire Address and CE’s subsequent press conferences, and then drafted the questionnaire.
Our random telephone interviews began at 6 p.m. on that day, involving around 110 interviewers and other staff. The interviews finished around 9:30 p.m., after collecting 664 samples.
Data verification and quantitative analyses followed immediately, together with the release of preliminary results at around 10 p.m., and drafting of the press release.
On the following day, the survey findings were verified again, while our POP Site was re-designed. Our press release was compiled, proofread, and then released for public consumption.
