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 January 24, 2017

| Detailed Findings (Policy Address Feature Page) |

Abstract

According to the Policy Address instant survey conducted by the Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong, among respondents who had some knowledge of CY Leung’s fifth Policy Address, net satisfaction was positive 5 percentage points. In our follow-up survey, it decreases by 8 percentage points to negative 3 percentage points, while satisfaction rating also drops 3.5 marks to 48.8. In other words, after some initial discussions, people’s appraisal of this year’s Policy Address has turned more negative. Most of those who did not express an opinion on the day of the Address now hold a negative view. POP will conduct another round of follow-up survey to map people’s further reaction. Regarding the theme of the Address, 69% agree that “Make Best Use of Opportunities, Develop the Economy, Improve People’s Livelihood, Build an Inclusive Society” meets the need of society, which is the highest among the five CY Leung’s Policy Addresses. In terms of key policy areas, the housing policies proposed as well as the general measures taken to address Hong Kong’s current problems all receive more opposition than support, yet they are the best figures in the past three years already. Moreover, only 20% agree to the view “all commitments in my Election Manifesto have basically been implemented” that CY Leung mentioned in his conclusion. Meanwhile, people’s net satisfaction with CE’s policy direction now stands at negative 3 percentage points, representing a significant increase of 28 percentage points from that of last year. POP will release another round of Policy Address survey findings in two weeks’ time. Whether public opinion would change after many rounds of discussion remains to be seen. The follow-up survey interviewed 513 Hong Kong people by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while that of rating figure is +/-2.4 and net value 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 this survey is 513 successful interviews, not 513 x 68.4% 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 figures and net values 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 +/-2.4, that of percentages not more than +/-4% and net values not more than +/-8% at 95% confidence level”.

[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

Since 1992, POP has been conducting Policy Address instant surveys every year. In 1998, we expanded our instant surveys to cover the Budget Talks. In general, such instant polls which measure people’s instant reactions would be repeated later by a follow-up survey which measure people’s more matured reactions. We believe this is the correct way to study public opinion. In 2008, we further split our instant survey into two. 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. One to two days later, we would conduct our first follow-up survey to study people’s reactions towards different government proposals, and any change in their satisfaction of the Policy Address. The findings of this year’s instant survey were already released on January 18 and 19. Today, we release the results of our first follow-up survey.

Latest Figures

POP today releases the latest findings of the Policy Address 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 mid-year 2016 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	Overall sample size	Response rate	Maximum sampling error of percentages[6]
2017 Follow-up	19-20/1/17	513	68.4%	+/-4%
2017 Instant	18/1/17	664	67.1%	+/-4%
2016 Follow-up	14-15/1/16	514	65.8%	+/-4%
2016 Instant	13/1/16	608	64.1%	+/-4%
2015 Follow-up	15-16/1/15	500	65.7%	+/-4%
2015 Instant	14/1/15	640	67.4%	+/-4%
2014 Follow-up	16-17/1/14	519	68.7%	+/-4%
2014 Instant	15/1/14	1,017	66.7%	+/-3%
2013 Follow-up	17-18/1/13	530	66.2%	+/-4%
2013 Instant	16/1/13	1,021	68.7%	+/-3%
2011 Follow-up	13-14/10/11	520	65.5%	+/-4%
2011 Instant	12/10/11	1,032	65.6%	+/-3%
2010 Follow-up	14-16/10/10	507	64.9%	+/-4%
2010 Instant	13/10/10	1,020	66.9%	+/-3%
2009 Follow-up	15-17/10/09	508	70.6%	+/-4%
2009 Instant	14/10/09	1,007	71.9%	+/-3%
2008 Follow-up	17-19/10/08	505	70.9%	+/-4%
2008 Instant	15/10/08	1,011	74.9%	+/-3%
2007 Instant	10/10/07	1,023	69.9%	+/-3%
2006 Instant	11/10/06	1,027	60.7%	+/-3%
2005 Instant	12/10/05	914	66.1%	+/-3%
2005 Instant	12/1/05	1,034	66.5%	+/-3%
2004 Instant	7/1/04	1,040	67.5%	+/-3%
2003 Instant	8-9/1/03	1,259	68.9%	+/-3%
2001 Instant	10/10/01	1,051	66.0%	+/-3%
2000 Instant	11/10/00	1,059	69.7%	+/-3%
1999 Instant	6/10/99	888	54.5%	+/-3%
1998 Instant	7/10/98	1,494	56.5%	+/-3%
1997 Instant	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.

Results of the follow-up survey of Policy Address, together with the instant poll, for 2016 and 2017 are tabulated below:

	2016			2017
	Instant survey [7]	Follow-up survey	Change	Instant survey [8]	Follow-up survey	Latest Change
Date of survey	13/1/16	14-15/1/16	--	18/1/17	19-20/1/17	--
Sample base	608	514	--	664	513	--
Overall response rate	64.1%	65.8%	--	67.1%	68.4%	--
Latest finding	Finding	Finding	--	Finding	Finding and error [9]	--
Appraisal of Policy Address: Satisfaction rate [10]	19%	17+/-3%	-2%	34%	33+/-4%	-1%
Appraisal of Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate [10]	39%	53+/-4%	+14%[11]	29%	36+/-4%	+7%[11]
Net value	-20%	-37+/-7%	-17%[11]	5%	-3+/-7%	-8%[11]
Mean value [10]	2.5 (Base=423)	2.3+/-0.1 (Base=451)	-0.2[11]	3.0 (Base=431)	2.9+/-0.1 (Base= 456 )	-0.1
Satisfaction rating of Policy Address (0 to 100 marks)	41.1	37.5+/-2.5	-3.6[11]	52.3	48.8+/-2.4	-3.5[11]

[7] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. The sub-sample size was 522.

[8] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. The sub-sample size was 512.

[9] Errors 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. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.

[10] 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 importance level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.

[11] 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.

Our latest survey revealed that 33% of the respondents were satisfied with the Policy Address and 36% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 3 percentage points. The mean score is 2.9, which is close to “half-half”. The average rating registered for the Policy Address was 48.8 marks. With respect to people’s specific reactions towards the contents of this year’s Policy Address, relevant findings are summarized below:

	Date of Survey	Sample base	Policy Address	Finding and error [12]
				Big	Half-half	Small (including no effect)	Don’t know / hard to say
Do you think the effect of the housing and land supply policies proposed by CY Leung on tackling housing problems would be big or small?	19-20/1/17	513	5th	28+/-4%	15+/-3%	50+/-4%	7+/-2%
	14-15/1/16	514	4th	23+/-4%	19+/-3%	52+/-4%	7+/-2%
	15-16/1/15	500	3rd	19+/-4%	18+/-3%	57+/-4%	6+/-2%
Do you think the effect of the various policies proposed by CY Leung in the Policy Address on tackling current problems facing Hong Kong would be big or small?	19-20/1/17	513	5th	17+/-3%	19+/-3%	52+/-4%	12+/-3%
	14-15/1/16	514	4th	11+/-3%	17+/-3%	62+/-4%	10+/-3%
	15-16/1/15	500	3rd	12+/-3%	20+/-4%	60+/-4%	7+/-2%

[12] Errors 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 28% consider the effect of the housing and land supply policies on tackling housing problems would be big while 50% said it would be small (including no effect). Besides, 17% believed the effect of various policies proposed by CY Leung in the Policy Address on tackling current problems facing Hong Kong would be big, while 52% said there would be small or even no effect.

	Finding and error [13]
	Support	Half-half	Oppose	Don’t know / hard to say	Total	Net Support
CY Leung mentioned in his conclusion that “all commitments in my Election Manifesto have basically been implemented”. Do you support or oppose this view?	20+/-4%	16+/-3%	54+/-4%	10+/-3%	100%	-34+/-7%

[13] Errors 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.

Besides, CY Leung mentioned in his conclusion that “all commitments in my Election Manifesto have basically been implemented”, 20% showed support for such a view while 54% opposed.

Findings on people’s opinion on whether the theme of Policy Address concurred with the current needs of the society from 1997 up to this year are summarized as follows:

People’s opinion on whether the theme of Policy Address delivered by CY Leung concurred with the current needs of the society from 2013 till 2017 [14]
Date of Survey	Sample/ Sub sample base [15]	Policy Address	Theme	Finding and error [16]
				Yes	Half-half	No	Don’t know / hard to say
19-20/1/17	513	5th	Make Best Use of Opportunities Develop the Economy Improve People’s Livelihood Build an Inclusive Society	69[17]+/-4%	10[17]+/-3%	15[17]+/-3%	5+/-2%
14-15/1/16	514	4th	Innovate for the Economy Improve Livelihood Foster Harmony Share Prosperity	47%[17]	15%	33%[17]	5%
15-16/1/15	500	3rd	Uphold the Rule of Law Seize the Opportunities Make the Right Choices Pursue Democracy Boost the Economy Improve People’s Livelihood	54%	14%	28%[17]	3%
16-17/1/14	519	2nd	Support the Needy Let Youth Flourish Unleash Hong Kong’s Potential	56%	17%[17]	22%	5%[17]
17-18/1/13	530	1st	Seek Change Maintain Stability Serve the People with Pragmatism	53%	12%	27%	8%
People’s opinion on whether the theme of Policy Address delivered by Donald Tsang concurred with the current needs of the society from 2005 till 2011 [14]
Date of Survey	Sample/ Sub sample base [15]	Policy Address	Theme	Finding and error [16]
				Yes	Half-half	No	Don’t know / hard to say
13-14/10/11	520	7th	From Strength to Strength	43%[17]	9%[17]	36%[17]	12%[17]
14-16/10/10	507	6th	Sharing Prosperity for a Caring Society	66%[17]	13%	18%[17]	4%[17]
15-17/10/09	506	5th	Breaking New Ground Together	45%[17]	16%[17]	30%[17]	9%
17-19/10/08	503	4th	Embracing New Challenges	57%[17]	10%	24%[17]	9%[17]
10/10/07	512	3rd	A New Direction for Hong Kong	69%	8%	9%[17]	15%[17]
11/10/06	582	2nd	Proactive Pragmatic Always People First	71%	10%	14%[17]	5%[17]
12/10/05	913	1st	Strong Governance for the People	72%	10%	8%	10%
People’s opinion on whether the theme of Policy Address delivered by Tung Chee-hwa concurred with the current needs of the society from 1997 till 2005 [14]
Date of Survey	Sample/ Sub sample base [15]	Policy Address	Theme	Finding and error [16]
				Yes	Half-half	No	Don’t know / hard to say
12/1/05	1,031	8th	Working Together for Economic Development and Social Harmony	77%[17]	7%[17]	10%[17]	6%[17]
7/1/04	1,031	7th	Seizing Opportunities for Development: Promoting People-based Governance	49%[17]	12%[17]	19%	20%[17]
8-9/1/03	1,250	6th	Capitalising on Our Advantages: Revitalizing our Economy	61%[17]	7%[17]	18%[17]	13%[17]
10/10/01	1,048	5th	Building on our Strengths, Investing in our Future	45%[17]	12%[17]	25%[17]	18%[17]
11/10/00	1,041	4th	Serving the Community, Sharing Common Goals	63%[17]	6%	17%	15%[17]
6/10/99	888	3rd	Quality People, Quality Home	69%	7%	15%	8%
7/10/98[18]	--	2nd	From Adversity to Opportunity	--	--	--	--
8/10/97[18]	--	1st	Building Hong Kong for a New Era	--	--	--	--

[14] The question wordings were “The theme of this year’s Policy Address is ‘XXXX’. Do you think this theme concurs with the current needs of the society?”

[15] Excluding those respondents who refused to answer this question. In 2006 and 2007 surveys, this series of question only use sub-sample.

[16] Errors 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.

[17] 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.

[18] This question was not covered in the instant Policy Address poll in 1997 and 1998.

The latest results showed that 69% thought the theme of the Policy Address “Make Best Use of Opportunities, Develop the Economy, Improve People’s Livelihood, Build an Inclusive Society” concurred with the current needs of the society while 15% did not think so.

Respondents’ appraisals of CY Leung’s policy direction are tabulated below:

Date of survey	16-17/1/14	15-16/1/15	14-15/1/16	19-20/1/17	Latest change
Sample base	519	500	514	513	--
Overall response rate	68.7%	65.7%	65.8%	68.4%	--
Latest finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding and error [19]
Satisfaction rate of Leung’s policy direction [20]	29%[21]	24%[21]	22%	37+/-4%	+15%[21]
Dissatisfaction rate of Leung’s policy direction [20]	42%[21]	52%[21]	54%	40+/-4%	-14%[21]
Net value	-12[21]	-27%[21]	-31%	-3+/-8%	+28%[21]
Mean value [20]	2.7[21] (Base=489)	2.5[21] (Base=483)	2.4 (Base=487)	2.8+/-0.1 (Base=492)	+0.4[21]

[19] Errors 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. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.

[20] 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 importance level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.

[21] 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.

Lastly, as for people’s satisfaction with CY Leung’s policy direction, 37% of the respondents showed satisfaction while 40% were not satisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 3 percentage points. The mean score is 2.8, which is close to “half-half”.

Commentary

Note: The following commentary was written by Research Manager of POP, Frank Wai-Kin Lee.

According to our Policy Address instant survey, among respondents who had some knowledge of CY Leung’s fifth Policy Address, net satisfaction was positive 5 percentage points. In our follow-up survey, it decreases by 8 percentage points to negative 3 percentage points, while satisfaction rating also drops 3.5 marks to 48.8. In other words, after some initial discussions, people’s appraisal of this year’s Policy Address has turned more negative. Most of those who did not express an opinion on the day of the Address now hold a negative view. POP will conduct another round of follow-up survey to map people’s further reaction.

Regarding the theme of the Address, 69% agree that “Make Best Use of Opportunities, Develop the Economy, Improve People’s Livelihood, Build an Inclusive Society” meets the need of society, which is the highest among the five CY Leung’s Policy Addresses. In terms of key policy areas, the housing policies proposed as well as the general measures taken to address Hong Kong’s current problems all receive more opposition than support, yet they are the best figures in the past three years already. Moreover, only 20% agree to the view “all commitments in my Election Manifesto have basically been implemented” that CY Leung mentioned in his conclusion. Meanwhile, people’s net satisfaction with CE’s policy direction now stands at negative 3 percentage points, representing a significant increase of 28 percentage points from that of last year.

POP will release another round of Policy Address survey findings in two weeks’ time. Whether public opinion would change after many rounds of discussion remains to be seen.

Future Releases (Tentative)

January 26, 2017 (Thursday) 1pm to 2pm: Ratings of Top 10 Legislative Councillors

February 1, 2017 (Wednesday) 1pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and HKSAR Government

No. of hits since Jun 3, 2000: 80,987,857

No. of hits since Jan 1, 2018: 125,909

• 
• 
• 
• 

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